911 responses to “Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!”

  1. Mary O

    Irish Catholic churches and convents were burned, and priests attacked in the 1800s--by Nativist Americans who were "protecting" America against these newly arrived "agents of the Pope."

    Now Catholics are leading the charge against the Muslim minority whom they are accusing of being "agents of radical Islam."

    In the 1940s, the American government put Japanese and Japanese-American citizens (some of whom had never seen Japan) into concentration camps to "protect" America.

    Mr. Santayana, call for you.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7

    1. fred the protectionist

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 43

  2. Thomas Paine

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 66

    1. Ryan the perfectionist

      You are nuts! Who are the Muslim invaders? I don't recall our country being invaded by Muslims. Actually, if I recall, quite the opposite has happened.

      Muslims, like various other people here in US are here to enjoy the freedoms established by the great founders of this nation. Look at is this way, it's sucks to be Muslim here because a-holes like you are always giving us a hard time. Still, we love this country and we are here to stay.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 47 Thumb down 6

  3. oxfdblue

    Congressman, I don't often agree with a lot of what you say, but this is truly an excellent piece.

    I would make one correction though. I believe that Speaker Pelosi doesn't want to investigate the source of funding for the Park51 project (truth is, they have very little money); but she wants to look at where the money for this incredibly organized opposition is coming from.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 36 Thumb down 5

  4. ProudTEX

    George Carlin on Social hysteria

    "Well, I think if you looked at the record of laws which have been passed in the last 30 to 40 years - there's a thing called social hysteria. Social hysteria is whipped up, generally, by the media. Crime - in Nixon's time, crime was the big social hysteria issue. There's too much crime. They're coddling, the courts are coddling the criminals. We have to have tougher laws."

    Read and watch the rest of it

    http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/video/498.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1

  5. fred the protectionist

    Cordoba, Spain was the furthest western colony of Islamic imperialism. While the Muslim barbarian armies did conquer as far north as the Pyrenees mountains until being turned back by Charles Martel and his Frankish armies, the Muslim Barbarians did hold onto Cordoba for hundreds of years before being pushed back across the straights of Gibralter.

    So, Cordoba is a name of a province (or town) of the furthest WESTERN Islamic colonies.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 23

    1. Dfens

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 44

      1. James

        Referring to Ron Paul as a liberal? That's a first. Nobody is defending terrorist property rights. You incorrectly assume that the people behind the community center are terrorists. They are not, despite the oppositions best McCarthy-esque smear tactics efforts to try to draw any kind of connection.

        The whole premise behind opposition to the mosque is that Muslims are collectively guilty for 9/11. As Americans, we should reject that notion.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 4

        1. fred the protectionist

          Libertarians=Liberal

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 30

      2. d

        This is a ludicrous comment in many ways, some of which have been pointed out already. Here's another: "I guess he doesn’t want to jeopardize any of his Saudi campaign funding so like everyone else in our federal government he’s a good little lap dog.“

        Wait, what? Didn't you just read Dr. Paul telling us (again) that the 15 of the true 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi and that the good U. S. of A. continues to ally with it?

        Like everyone else in our federal government? He just soundly rejected all the juvenile squabbling that has been done by these everyone elses.

        People like you, who capitalize upon key words and code phrases like "terrorism," "the American way," "freedom," "fighting for our liberties," to draw upon base emotions, are part of a problem of masking the voices of reason.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

    2. Ryan the perfectionist

      The Muslim "barbarians" of Cordoba also made numerous advancements in astrology, medicine, economics, agriculture and business. We need more "barbarians" like that in this world ;)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4

      1. fred the protectionist

        More Liberal propaganda, oops I mean Libertarian.

        See, they hate whites, christians, males, straights, etc. They wish to knock down Christianity and prop up Islam.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15

        1. Ryan the perfectionist

          Why does Christianity have to be "knocked down" to Islam can be propped up? You are such a defeatist. Christianity is awesome. I think it can easily co-exist w/ Islam just fine. What are you so afraid of?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

        2. fred the protectionist

          I'm not afraid, you Liberals are.

          'You people' have to constantly knock down Christianity, and you ally yourself with those who are antithetical to Anarchists/Libertarians. Apparently you see Christianity of a threat, so you must destroy it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

  6. william ridenour

    Jason wrote:
    "I am quite sure that those burned at the stake by the church or the entire villages of "savages" lined up and given the option of converting or losing their lives would argue with your white-washed version of events."

    Individual abuses can always be cited. That is why I cited the actual teaching of the two faiths, not individual events. Note: an institution can only be blamed for atrocities when it teaches such things as part of its doctrine, eg. "Smite the infidel on the neck." We've seen a bit of that recently haven't we?
    By the way, the Church is forbidden to execute anyone. The executions during the Inquisition were carried out by the State. Individuals actually asked to go to the Inquisitors in the Church, because they were known to be lenient and compassionate compared to State Inquisitors. Learn some history for a change and turn off the anti-Christian disinformation on the history channel.
    Jason continued:
    "Nonetheless, the hostility between islam and christianity is directly tied to Abraham and the "birth right of the first born." This is clearly stated in your very own bible if u had ever read it u would know this."

    This is nonsense born of complete ignorance of both Scripture and history. You are referring to two children that fathered by Abraham: two groups of semites in the middle east: Isaac and Ishmael. This has nothing to do with the Gentiles.
    It also has nothing to do with the "first born." The first born is in reference to Jacob and Esau––both Jews and sons of Isaac.
    The hostility of Islam has fundamentally been against the Jews, the sons of Ishmael against those of Isaac .
    You're obviously as ignorant of the Scriptures as you are of history.
    But open your eyes---everywhere in the world you find conflict between Islam and other religions. Just look at their attacks on the Hindu faith--where do you find the first born in that? A few years ago I noted there were 15 major conflicts in the world; 14 of them involved Muslims fighting some other group--none were related to the "first born." Muslims have a real problem living in peace with their neighbors from Trenton, N.J. to Tibet. Whenever they can live in peace few are happier about it than I. So cut the "hate Muslims" nonsense---don't lower yourself to argue like a liberal by slander and ad hominem attack. Stay with the argument.

    But all this is beside the point. There are no Southern Baptist Suicide bombers. But there are Muslim Suicide bombers---in Dallas a Muslim recently was arrested for trying to detonate a bomb in downtown Dallas--fortunately he bought it from the FBI.

    Someone else tried to bring up the absurdity of moral equivalency between Christians and what has shown itself throughout history to be Muslim Imperialist conquest and aggression. While this is simply absurd, it is a red herring. Christianity is not the enemy of liberty, but its bulwark. What we face is Islamo-fascism and ignoring it, or trying to pretend it's just another religion among religions is something we do to our peril.
    As my old high school principal used to say, "A word to the wise should be sufficient."

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 24

    1. Jason

      ok William, I have no interest in further derailing this thread my arguing with with someone who--like most religious zealots--paints history your own way. There's always an excuse for u and yours, but everyone else is just ignorant. History hates u, you were the persecuted ones, u got the short end of the stick, they r just out to get u.... its a tired old story that christianity paints and its falling on deaf ears.

      Next u r going to tell me the millions of abused catholic children r all liars right. Screw off man your pathetic "my history my right" routine doesn't work here.

      Your lack of knowledge about history and the bible are to your own disadvantage, not mine. Unfortunately there are many here who may not know the truth, those r the ones who end up being brainwashed by your lies.

      Any religion whose charge is to concuer the world for the only "true" god is a danger both to society and humanity as a whole and both christianity and islam fall into that category.

      Like I said earlier, the cause of liberty and constitutional government is not helped by fascism hatred and bigotry

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 11

      1. fred the protectionist

        Oh great, another Godhater.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 29

    2. Samih

      Actually, if there ar Southern Baptists fightin in Iraq, then they are killing innocents too!

      9/11=Iraq War=murder

      ....and if you read enough history, you would learn that both Islam and Christianity have periods of imperialism and peace. It is a society of political secularism (not philisophical secularism) that has protected liberty. Freedom reigns supreme when Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and any others can live together, practice their own beleifs, and respect each other.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  7. Jason

    Ok william, point taken...u r going to think what u want. Your view is one of "victim victim victim" and that is just childish nonsense. History is history and your pastor or priest is feeding u a line of bs but whatever.

    The reality of this fight for liberty lies not in an argument for or against a mosque, but in the fact that 9/11 took place under a rogue government. If 9/11 had not taken place then this argument would never be an issue and that is the porpose for all of us fighting the cause of liberty and constitutional government, so that we never again have to argue about who is hurting the most or has the right to worship or where exactly they can exercize that right.

    If the cause of this group of Americans succeeds then never again will rogue wars be fought around the world by our government at the expense of so many. Never again will people have to decide to vote for security of our nation in the face of a false flag operation or give up personal freedoms or write blank checks to war generals....that is what we r here fighting for and hatred has no part in that fight.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4

  8. william ridenour

    The difference between the Conversion of Christian nations and Muslim Nations:
    The Catholic Leaders sent missionaries
    The Muslim leaders sent armies
    As Casey Stengel used to say, "If you don't believe it, you can look it up."

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 28

    1. Jason

      William,

      I am quite sure that those burned at the stake by the church or the entire villages of "savages" lined up and given the option of converting or losing their lives would argue with your white-washed version of events.

      Nonetheless, the hostility between islam and christianity is directly tied to Abraham and the "birth right of the first born." This is clearly stated in your very own bible if u had ever read it u would know this.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

      1. ProudTEX

        Yea Yea Yea Yea - we all believe that there are 80,000 Iraqi soldiers stationed in Washington, Nebraska, Iowa, Connecticut and we have the 130,000 Afghan Army stationed over there in California, Arizona, Nevada etc... bla bla bla.

        And we send them missionary and they got killed in Afghanistan. How sad.

        william ridenour - Twisting fact aren't ya?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

  9. william ridenour

    Jason wrote:
    "These two religions have been fighting since Abraham. Let’s not forget that Christianity has tried it’s best to remove Islam from the face of the earth and likewise Islam has done it’s best to remove Christianity and Judaism."

    Jason, thank you for your review of biblical and historical realities--but I'm quite familiar with them, thank you.
    Your reading of history does not comport with reality. Consider that for three hundred years after the birth of the Christian faith Christians were viciously persecuted by various groups, including the Roman government. The tide was turned with Constantine received a vision that helped bring about the end of persecution of Christians.
    By contrast, immediately after the birth of Islam Mohammed himself lead violent attacks on cities and established Islam at the point of a sword.
    Following his example Islam spread westward across Africa and into Spain, invading both pagan and Christian lands. For four hundred years Christians in Europe fought defensive wars to prevent being overrun by militant Islam.
    The Crusades in the Holy Land were responsive acts, for Muslim militants had shut off routes into Jerusalem and attacked Christians on pilgrimage to
    Christian holy sites. The first crusades were raised to re-take the holy land overrun by Islam and to protect Christians on pilgrimage.
    To my knowledge Christians never attacked Islamic countries to establish the Catholic faith, but the last 1500 years is characterized by one invasion after another of Muslims into Christian Europe, the last ones being as recent as the 17 and 18 centuries.
    Christian doctrine has consistently affirmed the reality of human freedom--"where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty."
    Islam, on the other hand, is fatalistic and recognizes only one will: that of Allah, which must be submitted to by any necessary means.
    If you don't believe this as historical realities just look at the freedom of societies in Christian lands and those in Muslim societies today. Christian societies are characterized by tolerance and people are appealed to on the basis of debate and reason. No such reality exists in Muslim lands, where opposing views are viciously driven out and those who oppose Islam are executed.
    Things ain't changed a lot in 1500 years.
    You're both philosophically and historically way off base. You've been watching too many mocumentaries spreading disinformation on the History channel.
    Check it out for yourself with this time line, where you see the first five hundred years of Islam is characterized by violent Muslim invasions of the middle east and its spread to the west---no such corollary exists with the Christian faith.
    http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html
    If you want to attack Christians go ahead, but please don't claim there is a moral equivalency between Christian history and Islam. It's absurd.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 21

    1. fred the protectionist

      Jason wrote:
      “These two religions have been fighting since Abraham. Let’s not forget that Christianity has tried it’s best to remove Islam from the face of the earth and likewise Islam has done it’s best to remove Christianity and Judaism.”

      Actually Islam didn't exist to "fight Abraham" when Abraham (assuming Abraham is a real person) was alive. Jason is an idiot.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

      1. Jason

        Fred,

        I appreciate your attempt at logic here but the Bible is clear that the decendants of Ishmael--Abrahams son from whom Islam takes its lineage--fought the descendants of Isaac. Whether or not the actual "religion" of Islam was yet formed, these families have fought since that time. Read Genesis my friend. You all r too funny.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        1. fred the protectionist

          That's nice. It still doesn't change the fact that Abraham supposedly lived about 3,700 years ago, and Islam is only 1,400 years old. Unless Mohamed had a time machine there's no way Islam would have been fighting Judaism for 3,700 years.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4

        2. Jason

          Whoa dude pull up your bootstraps and try to pay attention! Holy cow! Ok one more time here's the scoop.....

          Abraham had two sons.... Abrahams god made a promise to the first born.....Abraham didn't like the first one so he sent him away. Those two sons grew up hating each other and all of their descendants did as well....thousands of years later they r still fighting, but now they are organized into two groups called Islam and judaism..from Judaism comes Christianity and WHAMMMO!

          Are u still with me???

          This is why the two groups r fighting over temple mount and gaza strip...because they have been fighting over this area for thousands of years. The group who controls temple mount has gods blessing. This is so pre-school history class and u guys call yourselves christians...do u even know who the hell u r believing in???

          One of the reasons Islamist extremists dislike America is because we have taken Israels side and this has an eternal significance to Jews, Muslims and Christians...well except the ones who have no idea what they are following and or believe.

          You all are too flippin funny for words. Thanks for the evening laughs.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13

        3. fred the protectionist

          Wrong.

          There is no way an entire ethnic group, A-Rabs, could possibly trace all their lineage back to one person thousands of years before.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

    2. Samih

      You left out too many details to make that comparison accurate. During the time of Muhammad, the muslims defended themselves agianst the Quraysh, a tribe that mercilessly persecuted them. After Islam took hold in Arabia, it entered its golden are when art, literature, science, tolerance, and peace were presesnt until the end of the 11th century (where people of all faiths enjoyed peace and prosperity by the protection of laws)....all of this ocurred while Christian Europe was a cestpool of depravity. After the Crusades, Muslim lands suffered infighting and corrupt politics. Freedom was crushed over Imperialistic ideals. Meanwhile, Europe began its Renaissance, in which freedom and enlightenment took off. Equality gained poularity, science was no longer hindered by the church, and laws viewed people as equals (in theory anyway), creating better times for Europeans. It is tolerance, equality, and political secularism that has made societies rise and when those values are abandoned, they fall.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

      1. fred the protectionist

        Golden age? Wrong, Islam turned North Africa and the middle east into the dark ages. Guess you haven't noticed, but most historical Islamic mosques in the middle east are converted Christian churches, with gaudy muslim ornaments thrown on top of them.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

        1. Ryan the perfectionist

          Or perhaps colonialism had something to do with it?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        2. fred the protectionist

          You know nothing of Eurasian history, please stop commenting on it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  10. william ridenour

    As a final addendum to my last post I want to say I am convinced of and committed to the Libertarian vision--but I am equally convinced that strict Libertarian orthodoxy is incapable of effectively confronting or compromising with an historically tyrannical and hegemonic, militant social and religious force like Islam.
    Of all American phenomena, Islam is the most fundamentally hostile and opposed to the ideals and principles of Libertarianism. They would rejoice at its destruction.
    Those who refuse to see this truth remind me of a cartoon spoof I once read many years ago. It was called "Amish in Space". Essentially, it was about a bearded Amish farmer, sitting in a space ship in his rocking chair quoting Amish bromides, platitudes and maxims one after another, all the while being totally oblivious to scores of strange aliens who had broken into the ship and were stripping it of everything that made it function and taking everything of value.
    That image has never left me and seeing the rise of militant Islam in the last quarter century I understand why.
    I realize America is not altogether innocent. Many of you believe if we just cease and desist with our foreign policy that American/Muslim hostilities will also cease.
    I only wish to God in Heaven the issue were so simple. I wish I could live in that simple a world.
    One can only maintain that position by refusing to see the historical aggressiveness of Islam and that it is once again on the move.
    Today, many European countries are in danger by militant Islam--many of these countries have suffered great violence at the hands of Muslims--yet, these countries were not guilty of our ridiculous foreign policy.
    They were only guilty of not being Muslim.
    In Europe the attacks continue daily. A Swedish friend tells me that in several major cities in Sweden there are now large Muslim sections, growing by leaps and bounds. These sections are violent and unsafe for Swedes. Even the police will not enter and their streets are littered with burned out police cars.
    When did Sweden have the kind of foreign policy and the number of occupations of the American Monstrosity we commonly call the federal government?
    Never. Sweden is only guilty of not being Muslim.
    If our hostilities and humiliating occupations cease as they should, do we really believe that all will be peaceful--do we think we'll be treated by Islam as exceptions to their actions in Europe?
    If so, I've got some ocean front property I'd like to sell you just a little west of Ft. Worth.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 19

    1. Jason

      William,

      Please tell me you are not seriously saying that Islam has a militant and aggressive history and Christianity does not!

      These two religions have been fighting since Abraham. Let's not forget that Christianity has tried it's best to remove Islam from the face of the earth and likewise Islam has done it's best to remove Christianity and Judaism. To understand this you have to understand the story of Abraham, and since your post makes comments that would lead one to presume that you are of the Christian sort, I cannot believe that you do not understand this.

      Abraham had two sons, one from his wife Sarai and one from Sarai's servant. Judaism and Christianity deny that the servant's son was legitimate, and Islam claims that Isaac was not the first born.

      The hostility comes from the fact that whoever is right stands to claim the inheritance of the "promised land". The whole thing is ignorant, but it has caused the death of millions for some 4K years.

      At the base of today's issue is the fact that most of the western world, especially the US has taken Israel's side against Islam.

      Now, we could discuss just the issues around the claims of both Christianity and Islam for days because the issue is such a mess and the claims on both sides are based purely on "faith" and who is entitled to "god's blessing". But I am more interested in discussing your claim--from a christian standpoint--that Islam is militant and has a history of bloodshed.

      Christianity has just as long a history of bloodshed and fight against thought, science and freedom as Islam, starting with the Hebrew invasion of Canaan and the murder of millions of men, women and children. It also has a well documented history of abuses to women both in the past and present.

      Your anger towards Islam then is like the kettle calling the teapot black. To say it plainly, you shouldn't throw stones from a house of glass.

      Islam is not responsible for 9/11 any more than Christianity is. The 19 SAUDI's which boarded the planes were extremists sought out and hired by our own government because they were an easy target to use for their purpose which was widespread hatred and anger against Islam in general creating an atmosphere of emotional outrage fostered by images and news reels pointing the finger. By this very means, the US government was given a blank check to invade every country they saw fit and do whatever they wanted as long as they were killing Islam.

      I don't personally agree with Islam or Christianity. In my opinion--and I am not alone--they both foster an atmosphere of hatred, bigotry, war and abuse towards mankind.

      You are not alone in your feelings, millions of Americans were drawn into this facade of lies and deceit, but it does not have to continue this way. We can purpose ourselves to education and learning to break away from the emotional rollercoaster fed to us by mass media and learning to think critically trading truth for hysteria.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9

    2. ProudTEX

      "Islam is the most fundamentally hostile and opposed to the ideals and principles of Libertarianism."

      Didn't Islam turned a pimp like Malcolm-X in to a LEADER? When Malcolm-X visited Muslim people in the Middle-East, Didn't he changed from being a hateful separatist, to a community lover.

      Get your damn fact right before you spit out nonsense all over this site.

      RON PAUL - 2012

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3

  11. Jason

    When I hear people like Scott Brown, Y and Steve Head and others speak about 9/11, they try so hard to sound like they belong here, like they truly believe in the constitution, in freedom, in bipartisanship, in humanity but as you read their comments their true ideology comes to light. They have hearts full of hatred and anger. They only care about freedom when it comes to themselves, not others and are willing to throw out the bill of rights, the constitution and turn the Statue of Liberty into just another well dressed whore as long as their anger is satisfied.

    The sad thing is they are even ignorant as to who to truly be angry at. I'm sure when the Bush's contacted the Bin Laden's and the Afghan Security Forces General through their CIA contact it was not hard to find 19 people who would give their lives to the cause proposed by their religious leader at the beckon of G. W. Bush, but believe me, if it were not for the millions promised for their lives 9/11 would have been a no go.

    You hate monger types are always the same, thick on dry-wall short on studs--a few chicken nuggets short of a full value meal--if you get my drift.

    Try lowering your voice and picking up a book or two before you commit intellectual suicide. :)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11

    1. y

      I'm sorry Jason, but you make no sense here. First of all, Scott and I are on opposite sides of this controversy, though we respect each other's opinions. how are you lumping us all together into this one big pool? Try to write more clearly and explain your position next time.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      1. Jason

        Ok Y, I see that I was wrong to include you, I apologize for that.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. y

          Well, I didn't mean that Scott and others who disagree with me are haters or anything. I believe them when they say they are sincere about their views and stuff. I think it's better for a discussion for everyone to be calm. Even if you are right, it's not good manners to deride others and stuff like in your comment. Anyway, just a simple lesson, no disrespect intended.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      2. Jason

        Y,

        My point was that pretending you don't have hatred and anger is impossible no matter how hard you try. Scott's hatred for Islam is evident no matter how hard he tries to mask it. His focus is against Islam and he is so dead set on it that it permeates everything he posts.

        Like you said, anger gets us nowhere, and we would be much better off directing our anger towards educating ourselves, seeking out the truth of the matter rather than spewing anger and hatred, committing intellectual suicide.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

  12. william ridenour

    I've been reading these posts and can't believe how people don't get it.
    You'll never make any headway if you insist upon misrepresenting the arguments of those you oppose.
    Please hear this. For those protesting the proposed Mosque:
    *This is not about first amendment rights or property rights.
    If it's about first amendment rights how about the first amendment rights of people to protest what they perceive as the abusive, inappropriate actions of others.
    * It is not about the of the tyranny of the majority.
    In a time when activist FEDERAL judges abuse judicial power and have repeatedly swept away the will of literally millions of Americans with the flourish of a pen, siding with special interests whose memberships are microscopic, what we have most to fear in this time is the tyranny of the minority, for minorities are using our system and activist Federal judges to fundamentally change America, suppress traditional American values and establish draconian systems (like Sharia law) that have nothing but contempt for American Liberty.
    Abusive Federal judicial power has been used now for decades by minority groups who game our system, supported by the $$ of the ACLU and similar such groups, to intimidate small communities, coerce local school systems and community organizations, and essentially destroy the rights and liberties of millions of Americans abiding in our small towns, suppressing their freedom of cultural and religious expression and treading down THEIR first amendment rights.
    The cultural and social expressions of entire communities are ruthlessly suppressed by Federal tyranny, supporting as it does the ridiculous protests of a few who say they take offense at the culture or community into which they moved.
    I fail to find any right not to be offended in the Bill of Rights, but Federal judges seem to see it every where for these Jacobin-minded minorities--but no such rights exist for Americans with traditional values, especially if they are Christians!
    *The proposed Mosque is not a local zoning issue. 9/11 happened IN New York, but it happened TO the whole nation and has deeply affected all of us. It is foolish to expect Americans to sit in silence, swallow their feelings yet another time and kowtow to those who are gaming our system to bring our system down.
    *It is also not about politicians seizing yet another issue for political opportunism.
    I find it offensive to give into the knee-jerk assumption that if a politician weighs in he or she has no sincerely held position, but is just being politically opportunistic.
    *********************************************************************
    Frankly, this whole discussion seems to be focused ONLY on us. But what of the religion of those who want to build the Mosque?
    Historically, it is impossible not to see that Islam, from its very beginning, is hegemonic, violent and militant, consistently spreading its doctrine with the sword.
    Historically, it is impossible not to see that where ever Islam achieves hegemony a violent suppression of other views and religions immediately follows.
    Symbols for Islam are very significant.
    Therefore, the erection of Mosques or the stripping of the edifices of other religions (like the Hagia Sophia) to turn them into Mosques, especially on sites of conquest, are common place for Islam throughout history and represent the triumph of Islam over the infidels.
    Upon looking at the practices of Islam in the present I am convinced nothing of substance has changed in the religion. The only change has been methods, which they adapt to the circumstances.
    If you remain unconvinced just fly into Saudia Arabia with a Bible or wearing Christian symbols and see what happens. Go there and share the Gospel and you are in danger of imprisonment or even execution. Catholic priests are not allowed there, and if one ever got in and brought about conversion of some Muslims they would be publicly executed.
    These draconian laws and the hostility towards other religions and philosophies are not being driven by extremist groups hiding in mountain caves, but by a nation we fool ourselves into believing to be an ally.

    If we foolishly and naively believe advocates of Islam to be fundamentally like us and continue to allow them to game our liberties to incrementally establish Sharia law, essentially setting up a system within our system that excuses such horrors as stoning and honor killings and torturous punishments as religiously and culturally justified, don't be surprised when we wake up one day and find they never were like us, they never respected our liberties for one second, but simply used them against us to eventually force and intimidate us into becoming like them.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 31

    1. Libertarian777

      and so your proposed solution is that we burn korans, and execute muslims in the USA because that's what the Saudi's would do to Christians?

      And this makes us better how?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Michael Grant

    Excellent article from Ron Paul. The man is a true patriot and upholder of the constitution.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5

  14. Scott Brown

    Dear y,

    Thanks for the comment. I was in no way offended by your point of view and respect it, as I am grateful you've respected mine. As a failed Catholic with Muslim family members, blood relatives, I am also grateful that you recognize that not all muslims hold the twisted values of the hijackers. However, not everyone has your sensibility and not everyone is able to discern good people from bad people. I fear the backlash from this mosque will be enormous. Those of you in the Liberty movement outside of the NYC area just don't seem to understand the insult that this mosque represents. We don't feel that these people are 'good muslims' -even many in our muslim community are mortified by this proposal. They can't speak because they have family back in their ancestral homelands who would suffer retribution. Consider this y, if these are such good muslims and they live in the NYC area, and know the feelings of the massive majority of us on this, why would they build it here and name it of all things 'Cordoba House?' No one questions property rights or religious rights. Maybe an ignorant few, but those of us who do are not Sunshine Patriots. We do so because we know the impending heart break it will cause to have our loved one's grave marked with a victory flag of the people who murdered them. Good intentions? I doubt it. The imam and his group have done more to kill muslim/infidel relations than anyone. This is not racism. It is just what it looks like when the majority is offended by a perfectly legal, yet wholly disrespectful act of provocation.

    I love Dr. Paul and have, on many occasions sprung from my seat to defend his character. I still would do the same. Just not this time. He sees the Constitution beautifully, but misses the point of the argument when he assumes we are not patriots or that we're racists. This post has single handedly crippled my efforts to get people to organize for the C4L in Northern NJ. It's insensitivity to what will offend us and then ascribing the motives to racism was a double insult no one who survived the attacks, like my brother who married a muslim and has two muslim children, will get over any time soon. The real act of racism brought down those two towers and the surrounding buildings (for several blocks) and killed thousands of people. But remember, for all those killed, there were thousands more crushed. Sadly, my hero missed the human aspect while so vigorously damning the neocons on this one.

    Again, thanks for your comments. They were greatly appreciated.

    All my best,
    Scott Brown
    Dover, NJ

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 19

    1. ProudTEX

      This controversy by the media is nothing but to bring hatred towards Muslim and continuation of these immoral war and make the Army contractor fill their packet full of useless fed-res dollars.

      I wounder why wasn't there a big issue about churches in our community who committed crime against children but yet we still have those churches ding donging on Sunday and requesting more of our children to be molested by the priest in the chapel of god.

      I agree how cowardly and innocently the 9/11 murdered people On the AA and in the twin tower. But could you imagine how coward is it to commit crime against children - I mean children anywhere from the age of 5-15. How coward?, How despicable?, How abusive?.

      So just because the media didn't made a big fuss about it and the Fascist politician didn't intervene, then these children cases should be forgotten and let the children suffer for the rest of their teen, adult life?

      Give me a break!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4

  15. Dfens

    Ha ha ha ha, totally gutless.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

  16. Matt

    Making sense of things. Generally Americans don't go for that kind of thing.

    I've never in my life seen such disrespect and disdain towards private property rights and 1st amendment rights in my LIFE. And it's coming from both sides of the aisle and quite frankly it scares the crap out of me when Constitutional positions are met with contempt and controversy.

    What's happening to America? Is it partisanship? Is it the left? Is it the right? Is it the wars? Is it the media? Something is eating away at our high principles of human life and liberty, and is the Constitution even the law anymore? Because it doesn't look like it.

    The American people are asleep at the wheel, and until they wake up America's future sure looks shaddy...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2

  17. Pete

    I speak from a unique perspective on this. My wife's brother was on the first plane. My family was deeply affected and always will be.

    A religion did not kill Americans on that day. 19 individuals did. A religion does not threaten us, but religious and political zealots do, irrespective of their theology. Is this a rude and insensitive slap in the face? Probably so. Is it a bad symbol? Absolutely. Do I like it? Hell no.

    But the fact remains, it is legal, and just because a group of people do not like it, does not make it any less legal. People are prosecuted by their actions not their belief system in this country (theoretically anyway). You either agree with the Bill of Rights in its entirety or you don't. The tenets of the Constitution are not something you can agree with when its convenient and when it benefits you.

    Do we undermine the Bill of Rights over this one issue? Definitely not. You stand tall, you be proud, suck it up, and get on with it. Life goes on, realizing that there are bigger mountains, and this is a molehill.

    99.9% of all the people in the world are just like you and I, peaceful, law abiding, and just trying to make life better for their families and find a modicum of happiness along the way. Our way of life is being insidiously attacked everyday by the power brokers and war mongers in Washington, who stand directly at the root cause of the 9-11 tragedy, plus many more that are much less publicized and visible. It is their infiltration into our daily lives, that is of the most danger.
    They attack their own people, with much more subtle means, at their whim daily to further their own self interest and spew propaganda from a controlled media to backup their lies and deceptions which most people buy hook, line, and sinker. Before you start slinging arrows, make sure they are pointed in the right direction.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 57 Thumb down 2

    1. LibertyLovinTexan

      There is no doubt that our way of life is being attacked by elected officials in Washington, just as our way of life was hijacked by terrorists as well. But that is, unfortunately, not the issue at hand.

      I agree with what you have written, and your words are accurate and make sense if we needed to make a one-size-fits-all decision on a national level. But instead, as I wrote before, this is a local level decision and as such they can make a decision that neither contradicts the Constitution nor discounts the actual experience and feelings of all those involved.

      Just because something is legal does not mean it is necessary. And just because something is legal does not mean common sense, common courteousy, and common decency cannot rule judgement.

      Though I understand these examples do not compare, some find "adult entertainment" highly offensive. It is legal but not neccessary and therefore it is not permissable in any part of town. The same is true of "buildings of religious institutions" - they are legal but not necessary. As a practicing follower of Jesus Christ, I know first-hand that a building does not validate my faith. Though I enjoy meeting with other believers in a common place, one particular building site over another is certainly not neccessary to continue my journey of faith.

      It is for this reason that I believe common sense, common courteousy, and common decency can help the local people and local government to come to the best decision. Of course all freedom-loving Americans realize it is legal for this mosque to be built near ground zero. But my question is... is it necessary? Will it actually encourage and promote American/Muslim relationships or is it going to harbor ill-will and bitterness?

      There are many buildings of worship in NYC. To my knowledge, no religious group has been denied any ability to build a place of worship. (Well, except maybe the Greek Orthodox Church who has desired to rebuild on their actual original site at ground zero. But I understand their are two conflicting sides to that story.)

      But this is not a question of legality. It is a question of propriety. And again I say, just because something is legal does not make it necessary. We are Americans, and it is possible to use our brains and our hearts at the same time.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 22

  18. fred the protectionist

    Why is it called the "Cordoba House"? What does a Iberian city have to do with New York?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17

  19. CJ Coates

    I agree with Dr Paul. Allow this Mosque to be built, if they have all the required authorizations, just like anyone else.
    What I would like in the future, if not for this case, that at least 50% or all of the calls to prayer, and the prayer sessions be held in English, not in Arabic.
    If it is in English, okay we run the risk of more people attending mosques...that is the down side...but, we also., understand more what they are preaching. Which will lead to greater understand of this religion.
    One thing about Mosques that make me uneasy about the Muslim religon, is that there are not any weddings in Mosques. This makes a mosque to me seems like no place for rejoicing, love and a future to share with your community.
    But that is just my opinon.
    Allow this mosque to be built, but require something unique for the betterment of the religon.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18

    1. y

      It's true that usually weddings are not held at the mosques. But there is no religious rule against weddings at mosques. It's usually because people want weddings to be huge, and mosques are not usually big enough for them. I know that sounds kind of dumb, but that's how it is.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  20. LibertyLovinTexan

    Why is there even controversy about building a mosque near ground zero? What American of sober mind does not understand this is about respect for our country's tragic loss and not about denying property rights? (As if property is more important than people.) Scott, you are right ~ there is no doubt ~ it is incredibly poor taste to even suggest building a mosque close to ground zero. What on earth would motivate this endeavor, to build a mosque close to the graves of thousands of innocent Americans who lost their lives in the name of Islam? (Radical Islam, perhaps, but Islam nonetheless.) My heart goes out to each of you who have been grieving since 9/11 2001. How tragic that the memory of your loved ones should be dredged up in such a disrespectful way.

    This really serves as an example of why "big government" is not a good idea. A constitution-based federal republic governs our country, and it is priceless and unparalleled for many reasons, one being that it has laws that protect the minority opinion. And these laws (the U.S. Constitution) have to be bigger than our emotions to be fair. (Though I would never presume to speak for him, I believe that is what Dr. Paul is getting at.) At the same time, it does not mean that the minority opinion will triumph; it just means that their voice will be heard and their rights will be protected. The problem with the issue at hand is that it should be handled on the local level, where Constitution-governing principles are actually easier to carry out. Sadly the media has once again provided an outlet for our elected officials to turn this into a national public debate, treating this as a federal decision, and I'm sure more time in the "limelight” for them.

    I actually agree with most of what Dr. Paul has written, though it does come across as unfeeling. Scott, again you are right ~ "It [Dr. Paul's opinion] takes a high level look at a down to earth human problem." To me, that sums up the problem of "big government." The only way to govern something massive is to take a high level look. That is exactly why this issue should be settled on the local level.

    Ty, you made a great point, "I think this is just another example of how balanced and consistent Dr. Paul is regarding our freedom. Those opposed to the mosque will read this article and claim that Ron is being “insensitive” himself by sticking to his principles of following the constitution on the matter. He has never said he “supports” building the mosque, he supports American rights." We should all be grateful that there is one man in Washington that will allow his political views to be governed by the U.S. Constitution. However, what I believe Dr. Paul left unsaid in his unapologetic bashing of both right and left "opportunists," is that this is a local level decision. And while the Constitution still presides over the local government without partiality or emotion, it does not in any way diminish the right of individuals to speak up for what they believe in or oppose what they do not agree with.

    Dr. Paul stated, "The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque." Actually, I believe it should have provided conservatives the perfect opportunity to defend "small, local government" and just stay out of the debate altogether. Dr. Paul then turns his thoughts toward "ill conceived preventative wars." That is fine, and I am sure that there is a lot of truth to what he says. Sadly, his response ignores the very understandable gut-wrenching emotions felt by all who experienced this tragedy and instead focuses on the few “elite” elected officials who really should have no say on the matter. I am sure that most everyone who opposes the building of a mosque by ground zero (barring politicians) has no thought of supporting wars. They simply have no desire to add insult to injury. William, I couldn't agree more with your first comment.

    So, to label those who oppose the building of a mosque near ground zero as "Islamaphobic" is narrow at best. Sure, that is probably true of some, but I would bet that most of us who oppose it just simply have respect for the tragically lost lives of our fellow citizens and a deep sense of loss for those who continue to grieve.

    The bottom line is that our Declaration of Independence still rings true... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It certainly would not interfere with the rights of any Americans in New York City practicing Islam to reject the request of a mosque near ground zero, because they have many other mosques in which they could practice their faith. On the other hand, for those whose lives have forever been altered by this senseless act of terrorism, for those who live, work, and play near ground zero, I would argue that the building of a mosque near this sacred site would absolutely impede their right to the pursuit of Happiness.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 22

    1. Scott Brown

      I think you said it much more eloquently than I did. Thanks for your comments. It is comforting to know that others in the Revolution understand this point of view. Please know, I still love and respect Dr. Paul. I just think he, like all of us from time to time, missed the point on this. I'm grateful for your comments and wish you and yours all my best.

      In Liberty,
      Scott Brown

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12

    2. Ty

      In my original post, I just wanted to share my opinion that opposing the mosque purely on religious bias and fear of an Islamic takeover is a ridiculous and lazy way to base an opposing argument. It may seem unneccessary to make a post, as most Americans who oppose have the common sense to know that not all muslims are terrorist. However, in my part of the country (south), you would think that this current event parallels the Islamic imperialistic world take over attempt in 630.

      I enjoyed reading your post though.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    3. Samih

      Perhaps being in their shoes might help a little..

      KKK (Christians in some perverted way) in the south hang black people from trees and drags black men from trucks. Does this mean that we need to prevent churches from being built next to trees or that we shoudn't allow trucks to be parked next to churches? NO! America has been smart enought to distinguish between KKK ( radical christian theology) and moderate Christians who desire freedom and peace. Now suddenly, it seems that Americans cannot distinguish between radical muslims and the roughly 7 million who live here peacfully and enjoy freedom. How convenient!!

      I agree, that learning who is funding it maybe necessary, but America needs to ask itself.......Is it an Al Qaeda mosque or an Islamic Mosque? If they cant tell the difference between the two, then Americans have bigger problems than a mosque!!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  21. william ridenour

    Finally, as a libertarian I pose the following concern deeply related to the issues under discussion here.

    Can we hope to preserve Liberty when we, due to blind and slavish conformity to some set of ideological abstractions, insist upon extending all the rights, blessings and benefits of liberty to any and all, including those whose true intent in coming here is to game the system to ultimately distort and weaken the system to the point they can establish and impose their draconian ideology by force upon all?
    In short, can we hope to preserve tolerance when we indiscriminately and unreservedly extend full rights to those who are intolerant to tolerance and who intend to use those rights to destroy tolerance and establish their pet form of intolerance? (PS they'll use the courts)
    Put another way:
    Can an ideology be preserved if those who hold it refuse to deal with hostile and hegemonic points of view and take the common sense steps needed for defense--even if some of those steps are beyond the parameters of the strict ideology?

    And, please, don't respond to me with some stupidity like, "No such individuals, ideologies or groups exist here."

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17

    1. fred the protectionist

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Zwvyhms8c

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

    2. Ty

      I could be missing your point here and I apologize if I am...I think your insinuating that the Muslims that want to build the mosque/community center/whatever, want to build it on the grounds of establishing a foothole in America in order to continue their "radical" islamic takeover of our country. First, there are Muslim Americans who have the same rights you and I do and to think that, after all the decades of non-violent relations between muslims and any other religious group in America, they choose this time to start their "takeover" is absurd. I believe it to be impossible for the Imam and organization to build the mosque in order gain what you percieve as momentum in order to take advantage of our "weak" system. We make our system weak by continuing to allow corrupt politicians do their bidding for their own personal gain rather than serving the people. We the people have the power and if your fear of a planned Islamic rule of America comes to fruition, then that is the appropriate time to step up and defend OUR rights, OUR America. I have my money on American will, regardless of religion, that NO ONE can or will take our country from us. I happen to think that this whole issue is just a fog to mask a greater problem, our economy. Its really quiet simple, if your a American you have American rights given to you through our constitution. If you break the law, those rights are taken from you. There is no proof that these people are intending to build this mosque to recruit terrorists and destroy America. Its "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven innocent."

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  22. william ridenour

    Dr. Paul, I just read your reply to Scott's response--with which I agree and which made my point better than I did.
    In your response to him you wrote:
    "But I disagree with you that building a mosque there is insensitive. I don’t believe the people building the mosque are responsible for what happened there, and I’m sure they oppose such terrorist actions as well. "

    The issue here is not your perception of whether building is sensitive or insensitive; it is about the perception of those who suffered direct loss; their perception is not ideologically informed--it takes no solace or comfort in abstractions or political theories--it is deeply human and visceral.

    Further, I am not so sure those who propose building the Mosque are so lilly white and innocent. For instance, I would not say someone who refuses to say Hamas is a terrorist organization is categorically opposed to terrorist acts.

    I, like Scott, see you as a guiding light on so many issues of enormous importance to America, and for that you have my highest respect––your example gives us hope rooted in real substance. But I sharply depart from your position on this particular issue.

    I am in the same relation with Judge Napolitano, who enthusiastically supported the two recent judicial decisions in Arizona and California. As a Libertarian and one who is devoted to the Jeffersonian model of government of, for and by the people, I vigorously and unrelentingly object to a system that allows the prejudicial ruling and limited perspective of one unelected, unaccountable individual, appointed for partisan reasons in most cases, to nullify the will of We the People with the flourish of a pen.
    Supporting such an absurdity is nothing but slavishly conforming to ideological idiocy.
    In addition, from a practical standpoint, the power of Federal judges to override the will of the People and impose a monolithic law upon all is destructive of the whole experiment in democratic government our Founders intended the states to be. Possession of such power is antithetical to freedom, oppressive and despotic. It is nothing less than "one ring that rules them all and in the dark it binds them."
    Slavishly following judicial theories like "judicial review" and "the theory of limited incorporation" is both unconstitutional and tyrannical. No Federal judicial power should be able to trump state judiciaries on issues particular to that state. Doing so spits in the faces of "We the People" and establishes judicial tyranny as the ultimate ruling power.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

    1. Scott Brown

      Thank you. And to be clear, I respect all points of view on this. But the emotions of that event are so hard to contain, I may have been too hard on the others. Your response is what mine should have been.

      All my best,
      Scott B

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  23. william ridenour

    "What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? "

    I think we have to argue apples to apples. No one is saying no more Mosques in New York City. They're just saying no Mosque in that spot––please. They're not saying there's no property right or no constitutional right to build. They're saying it is offensive to many people and building there does not improve Muslim/American relations or foster good will of any kind but increases the acrimony and dredges up all too fresh and painful memories and suffering.
    Just how damned hard is that to understand, for God's sake!?!

    JPII acquiesced to the Jews who asked that Catholics not build near a Nazi concentration camp--even though Catholics had nothing to do with those camps, many Catholics suffered there as well, and Pius XII was instrumental in saving thousands of Jews and helping them escape the Nazis. Never the less, the pope was sensitive to their feelings.

    The request of these Muslims not to build has nothing to do with Neocon aggression or speculation about the various events and actions that may or may not have contributed to the events of 9/11.

    Most who object and are deeply upset about the proposed Mosque see its building as an hegemonic and triumphalist act and are convinced (rightly I think) that radicals all over the world will see it in that light as well. They believe its construction to be an act that adds brazen insult to the painful injury of having lost love ones on that horrible day. There is some justification there, for the project is not being driven by "peaceful" Muslims seeking some point of conciliation but by those who are on record supporting radical elements within Islam.

    Trying to make a distinction between radicals who happen to be Muslims and Islam itself, as Dr. Paul does, is absurd. Islam teaches the sacred/secular western paradigm is unknown to Muslims, who see Islam as a total way of life, saturating and controlling every aspect of the society. With them "separation of church and state" is an absurdity. Ergo, these craven bombers were not mass murderers who coincidentally happened to be Muslims. They were bombers in large part because they were Muslims and they were fighting to spread Islam and to give Allah a great victory over infidels.

    As a Libertarian I believe we are making too much of this in proportion to what else is happening in America. (It well could be diversionary. If so, it is harmful, at least politically, to Obama. If I were his "handlers" I'd try to look for some other kind of diversion without the ill effects upon his popularity.) None the less, I think few of us know how painful and how deep the suffering of those who lost love ones on 9/11 has been and continues to be. And, in sympathy, I believe it's our duty as Americans to support them.

    Finally, with all due respect to Dr. Paul, whom I both admire enormously and respect, I think it can easily be perceived as demagogic to some degree to use this debate as an opportunity to once again vilify the Neocons--right as it is to do so. I think if we're going to contribute anything to the debate we should limit our discussion to the real points of contention and friction, none of which has anything to do with free speech or property rights or the Constitution, but a lot to do with simple human kindness and sensitivity---two qualities these Muslims seem to be lacking. But why allow mere human compassion cause one to to abandon raising a monument to Islamic triumph erecting it on the very rubble of the site of the victory. They did it centuries ago in Cordoba, Spain--and now they're hoping to do it with their proposed Cordoba house.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12

    1. ProudTEX

      william ridenour you wrote;

      "I think we have to argue apples to apples. No one is saying no more Mosques in New York City. They’re just saying no Mosque in that spot––please. They’re not saying there’s no property right or no constitutional right to build. They’re saying it is offensive to many people and building there does not improve Muslim/American relations or foster good will of any kind but increases the acrimony and dredges up all too fresh and painful memories and suffering.
      Just how damned hard is that to understand, for God’s sake!?!"

      I can play it ignorant as you and I want you to tell me what you think,

      I think we have to argue apple to apple. No one is saying no more CHURCHES for our communities. They’re just saying no Churches inside our communities-Please. They’re not saying there’s no property right or no constitutional right to build. They are saying it is offensive to many people and having these Churches does not improve cleric/worshipers relations or foster good will of any kind but increases CHILD MOLESTATION and dredges up all too fresh and painful memories children whom were sexually abused and still suffering from the ordeal in the past.

      Just how damned hard is that to understand, for God’s sake!?!"

      -End of my (trying to be) ignorant-

      Sorry, I had copy and replicate your exact words in most part and that is because I have rough time being an ignorant.

      I suggest you strongly to wake up

      It is time to wake up and leave the thoughts of hatred towards Muslim, Jews, Christian etc.. It is time to wake up and listen to Dr. Paul constitutional thought rather than the hyped-up hate/wars media which want our attention/supports.
      It is time to wake up and find out who is making money over this controversies and who is making money over these immoral wars that is created out of thin air like Federal Reserve money.It is time for you to wake up my friend.

      HAT'S OFF TO YA RON PAUL

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

  24. ProudTEX

    Sometime I wish I lived in the past when our founding fathers were in-charge of this great nation. Now that I read most of Dr. Paul's statements, I am glad I live in the present time.

    I believe Dr. Paul is the founding father of this great nation in the current time; In a time when our economy is about to collapse, in a time when we are duped into multi-fronts wars, in a time when we can no longer believe our own government, in a time when hatred among culture/religion has hit the highest point.

    May god bless you Dr. Paul.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

  25. Nicholas Luciano

    It really doesn't matter if the construction of the mosque is insensitive or not. If the people building the mosque own the property,and can acquire the proper permits from the city, I see no reason why this mosque should be denied. I don't necessarily agree with there being an islamic cultural center near the WTC complex, but who am I? This is becoming very trivial.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3

  26. fred the protectionist

    Ron Paul is a neoconservative, all Libertarians are.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22

  27. Chris

    I think everyone should read this twice.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3

  28. Ty

    I think this is just another example of how balanced and consistent Dr. Paul is regarding our freedom. Those opposed to the mosque will read this article and claim that Ron is being "insensitive" himself by sticking to his principles of following the constitution on the matter. He has never said he "supports" building the mosque, he supports American rights. In my opinion, I feel that it is lazy and uneducated to be against the mosque purely on religious bias. Have any of these "Islamaphobes" actually read into the religion? Isn't it stupid to be afraid of something you know nothing about? Rather than believing what the mass-media puts on our televisions, how about developing your own opinion based on your own research? Sure, you can look at the history of islam and say this and that, but you can easily do that same for christianity. Its just more proof of how far we have selfishly grown further from our religious foundations, regardless of what you may believe. By the way, I am a christian.

    Fear tactics have played a big part in our involvement in the middle-east, even throughout American history, and look at some of the outcomes..I think Vietnam was a big one. Fear is oppressive. I dont know about my fellow American, but I think its time we stop falling into this trap and start taking our country back so we can truly live free in a true America.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5

  29. Scott Brown

    Sorry Dr. Paul. I think you're WAY off on this. You're head's in the ideology and you're not thinking in terms of the effect this has on the families of those who died. I'm a strong supporter, Campaign for Liberty member and staunch Libertarian and I agree with you most of the time. NOT THIS TIME.

    I'm offended by this post. It takes a high level look at a down to earth human problem. This is where Americans tell me they can't vote for Ron Paul. And now I understand. The fact is, NONE of those people or their families were involved with making foreign policy. That was YOUR job Dr. Paul. They were just going to work that day. If my twin hadn't been late for work, he'd have been killed by these murderers too. The fact that few bodies were recovered means that this is more than some plot of land with jingoistic meaning attached. This is a grave for many and sacred ground for many more. The building of this mosque IS insensitive, as are your comments and many of the comments of my fellow Libertarians. We concede, those who oppose, that they have the right to build there, but that it is in poor taste. Do you, or any of you on this site, want to tell the families of my friends who died to "get over it?" You want to volunteer for that job? See how far it gets you. As for your assumption we are Islamaphobic, you are DEAD WRONG. My family is part muslim and they too oppose this mosque's location. You're calling us racist is ignorant. I'm stunned by your nonchalance. The truth is you don't know why we oppose it and you assume it's racist. It's about the effects of the project on those who still mourn. If they had been Norwegians we wouldn't want their building there either.

    Along with freedom of religion comes the freedom to petition our government for grievances. What you call 'public pressure.' Just because you don't drive past the memorials every day on your way to work and you have the capacity to make this some argument of ideology complete with historical and geopolitical references doesn't give you the right to forget the suffering of the people you serve Dr. Paul.

    Again, you are my hero, check prior posts. But today, after reading this, you're just another flawed man like the rest of us. I guess our only hope is with Rand. Or perhaps there is none. This post has crushed me.

    Sincerely,
    Scott Brown
    Dover, NJ

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 24

    1. y

      Greetings Scott:

      First of all, i mean no disrespect to you, and I feel for the pain of those who lost people on 9/11, as well as for you, since you said you had a twin who was almost killed that day as well. But I disagree with you that building a mosque there is insensitive. I don't believe the people building the mosque are responsible for what happened there, and I'm sure they oppose such terrorist actions as well. If Osama bin laden wanted to build a mosque there and preach terrorism, I'd be opposed to it as well. But the people who want to build the mosque there aren't terrorists, nor do they support bin Laden's agenda. Inside the mosque/center that they are planning to build is actually a memorial to the 9/11 victims.

      Again, I mean no disrespect, and if I have misinterpreted anything you said, feel free to respond.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  30. David Lee

    Happy Birthday to:
    Great hero of the Century.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  31. Rick Fisk

    "I think that the belief that some people share about Islamic forces building Mosques on conquered land is credible in this case. "

    We've created more "ground zeros" next to mosques in the middle east. And this isn't a mosque and it isn't next to ground zero.

    And these people are no more "Islamic forces" than you are part of some "Christian force".

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

  32. James

    Isn't his son one of these very "sunshine patriots" guilty of opposing the development out of "sensitivity?"

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/rand-paul-opposes-ground-_n_684578.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

    1. y

      This just goes to show, once again, that Rand Paul is no Ron Paul. I'm more convinced then ever that there's only Ron Paul, atleast for the foreseeable future.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

  33. John

    Jeremiah, first of all, if you were deployed in 2003 then thank you very much for your service and sacrifice, and God bless you. I think that we are not a conquered land so opposing the mosque for that reason does not make sense to me. I believe Dr. Paul is right that the media and the politicians are making this an issue to fuel hatred and to distract us from their disastrous policies. Let's also remember that Bin Laden's messages following 9/11 demanded that the US withdraw their military from Saudi Arabia. I don't believe he ever mentioned killing in the name of his religion. This in no way condones the actions of 9/11 but I think an argument can be made that our foreign policies created the hatred that led to the attacks.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4

    1. Libertarian777

      is this any different than the US having hundreds of bases in it's 'conquered' lands?

      Not just iraq and afghanistan, but hundreds of bases in japan, south korea, africa, europe etc.

      If we are so opposed to having muslims build a mosque here, why are we so surprised when they are opposed to having US military bases in their country (e.g. japan recently)?

      we're there for their good?
      can 'they' not say the same about their mosque being here for 'our' good?

      just playing devil's advocate. don't forget the crusades, when Christians went around slaughtering muslims in the name of Jesus.

      It's not the religion per se, it's the fundamentalists (for every Bin Laden, there's a David Koresh; even Buddhists have extremists who bomb temples/civilians)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7

      1. Steve Head

        A fair analogy I suppose. So you want to admit defeat to Islam? Are you ready for the entire muslum to know they defeated and conquered the United States? That building is not close to ground zero, it is ground zero. That building was damaged and amost destroyed by parts of the first aircraft that struck the towers.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15

        1. Libertarian777

          if everyone is really so opposed to this mosque, why don't we start a fund, until we raise a couple million and just buy the place from them.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. April Greene

    I believe that the towers should have been built back the way they were, as a statement of "we will rebuild, you will not defeat us." And yeah an in your face kind of thing. From what I understand, the Mosque is to be built several blocks from ground zero. To me that is ok, it cannot be that much of an issue, not when on the few days after and every year, people set up stands selling souviners for people to buy things. To me that is a greater show of disrespect. WE have got to all get on the important issues here. Our country is going down in flames, no jobs, no money, all our soldiers are ov er seas fighting in other countries. Our money is being shipped out every second of every day to foreign countries with no hope of getting it back. Our government officials are as corrupt as ever, spending and spending and spending all the while having the nerve to call those of us now out of a job, as lazy, like Rush Limbaugh, telling us he will teach us how to live from a dumpster?? And we take that kind of thing?Has anyone ever noticed how the Irish handle corrupt government officials? hehe they go in the capital and physically throw them out. Why are we just laying down and taking this? 9/11 was a terrifying and horrible thing, many people died that day, many of us lost loved ones. However, many of us continue to lose loved ones in wars, and in the deterioration of health because they and we simply could not afford to feed all, we are quickly turning into a third world country, allowing our people to starve and die off because of inability to get medications and food while our government keeps getting fatter and fatter.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  35. Jeremiah

    I was under the impression that the Speaker of the House wanted to initiate an investigation into who was organizing the opposition to the Mosque being built.
    It comes as news to me after having read the statement by the Honorable Mr. Paul.
    In regard to my opinion on the mosque being built, I do not believe it should be built. After having read up on the history of Islam prior to my deployment to the middle east in 2003, it is my personal belief that the purpose of the mosque is not as a symbol of peace. Rather I think that the belief that some people share about Islamic forces building Mosques on conquered land is credible in this case. This is not a half baked assumption. Anyone can look back throughout the history of Islamic imperial conquest in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Southern Europe. It was a common practice to evict the existing religions from their temples and churches and convert the buildings to Mosques as well as erecting Mosques on conquered sights.
    One place where this is most evident is in Jerusalem.
    However, the Honorable Mr. Paul is entitled to his beliefs just as all supporters and detractors of the Mosque are entitled to their beliefs.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 13

1 2 3 13

Leave a Reply