Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Saturday, August 14, 2010

On Obama, Political Suicide and the Mosque at Ground Zero


Fresh on the heels of back-to-back home runs by Nile Gardiner on his recent articles comparing the Obama administration with L' Ancien Regime along with listing 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown, Chairman Zero has unexplicably decided to weigh in on the contraversy to build a thirteen story mosque and Islamic center a mere stone's throw away from Ground Zero of the attacks on 9/11. Quote...

"We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam."
President Barack H. Obama

Is this some sort of sick joke?

Seriously. Please explain to me why we should show deference in this particular matter to a religion in which the very idea of "Freedom of Religion" is anathema to it's very core. It staggers the imagination. Unless President Obama could guide me toward the largest Episcopal church in Saudi Arabia or the 3rd largest Pentecostal gathering there, I'm calling Complete BS on this one.

Not to be outdone by the above columnists, Fred Dardick explains in perfect clarity how such an idea of the construction of a mosque on this site sets in the minds of many people on these shores...

"For you liberals who somehow got forwarded this column and still don’t know what Sharia law is, allow me to enlighten you. It is the literal interpretation of Islam that leads to the widespread abuse and enslavement of women. It’s also called the reality of “that woman in Iran who’s waiting to see if she’s going to get stoned to death for adultery” rules. Who knows if she really committed adultery? In Islamic societies all a man has to do to give his wife the proverbial dirt nap, is simply claim she did.

Under Sharia law, men are the judge, jury and executioners of women, and Obama apparently thinks Americans are too stupid to know this. While Obama may be able to lawyer his way around the Ground Zero mosque as a “religious tolerance” issue, the rest of us know a load of bs when we see one...

Not only do Americans view the structure as anything but a bridge to understanding, Islamists around the world will also rightly perceive the mosque in a very different light than the simple “right to build a place of worship”. They will see it as spitting in the face of evil America and hold it up as a shining example in their enslaved societies to promote hatred of the West. It will become a “stupid Americans let us build a mosque on their graves, so let’s finish the job and kill them all” kind of thing.

Ever wonder how the Islamic Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem got built smack dab on top of the ancient Jewish temple mount? I can promise you, it was no attempt to “build bridges” either that put it there. It was more like “let’s take over the Jews most treasured religious site and plant a mosque on it to show them who’s boss”. That’s why Jews pray at the Western Wall, because if they tried to visit the top of the temple mount, the Arabs would riot.

Every time Obama speaks to Muslims, it’s always how wonderful and understanding Islam is compared to our knuckle dragging Judeo-Christian customs. Rather than apologizing endlessly for America, and in this case our opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, how about being honest for a change, champ?

Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions around the world, while at the same time Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesale. Talk about the war that never ends. Shia vs. Sunni violence has been going on for centuries and, by the looks of Iraq, will continue for centuries more.

The irony is if our President, who clearly feels his #1 job is reaching out to the Muslim world, had half a brain in his communist head, he would be out there speaking forcefully against Sharia law and educating his fellow Islamists to the dangers of a literal interpretation of the Koran."

Not that I thought that Obama stood a good chance at re-election before this latest display of political ineptitude, I think that he completely destoyed his chances at another term with his position on this particular matter. Time will tell, of course, but I think that all attention would wisely be focused on the upcoming Republican primary to gauge who will be the next US president. Thats IF of course, the Lizard Queen doesn't smell blood in the water and attempt to dethrone the usurper-in-chief herself.

30 comments:

Froggie said...

"For you liberals who somehow got forwarded this column and still don’t know what Sharia law is, allow me to enlighten you. It is the literal interpretation of Islam that leads to the widespread abuse and enslavement of women."

The literal reading of the Christian bible also condones the subjugation of women.

"Under Sharia law, men are the judge,......"

Same is true in the writings of Paul.

I remain happy that we have our Constitution to protect us from both.

JD Curtis said...

I'm sorry but I don't have my New Testament here in front of me.

For comparison, could you please tell me where Paul stated that women could be stoned to death at the mere accusation of adultery?

Froggie said...

The point was that womaen are under the direct authority of men- must cover their heads in church, and defer to male authority without question.

The stoning begins with gays, kids that disrespect their parents, etc.

There are a certain group of people in the US that would like to have the US come under biblical authority- Dominionists/ theocrats.
The bible could never be used as a government founding document as it is too vague and interpreted in radically different ways by radically different Christian sects.

Froggie said...

Here is a short video showing one group that thinks their interpretation of the bible should become Christian Sharia law in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-cWrs5mwE

The Maryland Crustacean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Maryland Crustacean said...

Not worth responding to the the Frog Man, for any of the following reasons:

1. He has no clue what Paul wrote in his epistles, much less the context in which they were written.

2. He is fully aware of what Paul wrote and the conttext in which it was written (which made his writings about the relationship between the sexes quite revolutionary and unheard of), but he is deliberately choosing to ignore or distort in order to make potshots.

3. He is somehow truly ignorant of the fact that even in Christendom's darkest and most unenlightened times and eras, the status of women has been far superior to anything imaginable prior to New Testament times, and certainly superior to anything imaginable in even the most liberal Islamic country in modern times.

4. Again, he is perfectly aware of the above but is choosing to ignore and distort.

5. Any combination of the above.

JD Curtis said...

Really.

In an article about Obama's political blunder to come out of the closet at least on this issue, Froggie tries to paint Christianity as mysogynistic.

From the Washington Times (2003)

"Christianity has gotten a bad rap from people who have not done their homework,” says retired Illinois College sociology professor Alvin J. Schmidt, author of the recent book “Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization.” “In what countries have women lacked freedom?” he says. “Where Christianity is not present, especially in the Middle East. Were it not for Christianity, Gloria Steinem would still be walking about in a veil.”... Such logic causes Mr. Schmidt to see red. “Have these people ever read the Koran?” he asks. “I have read it with a fine-toothed comb more than once. Islam was founded by the sword. Muhammad took part in 66 battles and sold women and children into slavery. All this is documented. “To present Islam as a peaceful religion is to have your head in the sand. Jihad is right out of the Koran. The Christians who took part in the Crusades never cited any verse out of the New Testament backing what they did. But the Muslims who practice violence do cite the Koran.” Christianity was considered radically pro-woman at the time of its founding, he says. “Christ was never quoted as saying anything demeaning or derogatory to women. Women in Greek days could hardly leave their homes. When her husband had guests over, she was not even allowed to sit in the same room. Their status was extremely low among the Romans, where the father of the family had the power of life and death, even over his wife. “In [the Gospel of] John, Chapter Four, Jesus was asked what he was doing talking to a woman in public, as you only talked with prostitutes in public. When he taught Mary and Martha in Luke 10, that was a behavior you did not do with women. “Christianity also nullified polygamy, as Jesus made it clear a man has one wife. If a Greek man was walking about outside with a woman, that was his mistress, not his wife. Christianity also made it clear widows were to be taken care of.” Link

Froggie said...

Even if I concede the point on mysogeny, which I will not, Christian scripture is not capable of any better governance than Sharia law.

That is why seven of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional in American jurisprudence and the constitution is a secular document.

Froggie said...

TMC,
Nice try in obfuscating my whole argument by focusing on the woman issue. There are no religious writings that are capable of governing people- not just Sharia.

JD Curtis said...

Even if I concede the point on mysogeny, which I will not, Christian scripture is not capable of any better governance than Sharia law

Please explain this a little if you don't mind

That is why seven of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional in American jurisprudence and the constitution is a secular document

Is it a mere coincidence that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers of the freest nation in the history of the world were Christians?

There are no religious writings that are capable of governing people- not just Sharia

I know, it's Wiki. But it was the first one that leapt out at me when I googled it.

"Federalism also finds expression in ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). For example, presbyterian church governance resembles parliamentary republicanism (a form of political federalism) to a large extent. In Presbyterian denominations, the local church is ruled by elected elders, some of which are ministerial. Each church then sends representatives or commissioners to presbyteries and further to a general assembly. Each greater level of assembly has ruling authority over its constituent members. In this governmental structure, each component has some level of sovereignty over itself. As in political federalism, in presbyterian ecclesiology there is shared sovereignty.

Other ecclesiologies also have significant representational and federalistic components, including the more anarchic congregational ecclesiology, and even in more hierarchical episcopal ecclesiology.

Some Christians argue that the earliest source of political federalism (or federalism in human institutions; in contrast to theological federalism) is the ecclesiastical federalism found in the Bible. They point to the structure of the early Christian Church as described (and to many, prescribed) in the New Testament. This is particularly demonstrated in the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts chapter 15, where the Apostles and elders gathered together to govern the Church; the Apostles being representatives of the universal Church, and elders being such for the local church. To this day, elements of federalism can be found in almost every Christian denomination, some more than others.." Link

Froggie said...

JD,
Me- "That is why seven of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional in American jurisprudence and the constitution is a secular document."

You- "Is it a mere coincidence that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers of the freest nation in the history of the world were Christians?"

Most of them were not fundamentalist Christians in the sense of modern Christian fundamentalisism.

However, it is no coincidense that they could see the thirteen colonies as thirteen mini-theocracies destined to fail due to dramatic differences in their Christian ideologies and thus they fasioned a secular constitution and the First Amendment guaranteeing each citizen the right to exercise their personal conscience without fear of discrimination.

JD Curtis said...

Most of them were not fundamentalist Christians in the sense of modern Christian fundamentalisism

What percentage were not Young Earth Creationists with a rather literal interpretation of the Bible?

it is no coincidense that they could see the thirteen colonies as thirteen mini-theocracies destined to fail due to dramatic differences in their Christian ideologies and thus they fasioned a secular constitution and the First Amendment guaranteeing each citizen the right to exercise their personal conscience without fear of discrimination

This is becoming a bit tortured Froggie.

I think that the idea of a state run church is a bad one and so did the Founding Fathers, for several reasons.

Insofar as "thirteen mini-theocracies", when were any other the original colonies a theocracy?

I think that they fashioned a "secular constitution" because they were fashioning a document meant to deal with seperation of powers and the making of laws of a republic, not debating what denomination is best which is a subject best left to trained theologians.

JD Curtis said...

Getting back on topic, I just came across this article...

"The principal mosque in Rome has a surface area of 30,000 square meters and can hold thousands of believers. The Christian church of Mecca has a surface area of zero square meters and can hold zero believers. In fact, there is no Christian church in Mecca. In other words, Rome is an open city and Mecca is a closed city." Link

Jquip said...

"the First Amendment guaranteeing each citizen the right to exercise their personal conscience without fear of discrimination."

That's studiously wrong however. 11 colonies ratified the new Constitution prior the BoR. The BoR being only a nod to the Anti-Federalists to get the last two on board. Not that it should have mattered as the Constitution gave the Federal government no powers to dictate a State religion anyways; but the explicit "piss off" clause in the 1st amendment is instructive for those that have not read it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st does not guarantee to each citizen anything in regards religion. It simply prohibits the Federal government from the religious field in a pro or con manner. The individual States are answerable to their State Constitutions alone.

It pays to be precise. Political discourse is acrimonious enough even should both sides bother to read the text to begin with.

Jquip said...

The principal mosque in Rome has a surface area of 30,000 square meters and can hold thousands of believers.

Bizarre, I had no I idea. I can't think of a better highlight between the process of proselytization called for by both objects in question. One recommends moving on after facing the intransigent. The other recommends moving on after ensuring no intransigent are left breathing in the household.

Froggie said...

"The 1st does not guarantee to each citizen anything in regards religion."

Yes it does. You are free to speak of the benefits of any religion or no religion as you choose and to set up any hosue of worship that you desire.

"It simply prohibits the Federal government from the religious field in a pro or con manner."

True.

"The individual States are answerable to their State Constitutions alone."

Not true.
The federal constituion always superceeds state constitutions.

The states are not at liberty of making laws opposing the federal constitution.

Froggie said...

JD Curtis said...
Getting back on topic, I just came across this article...

-------------------------------------------

I am attending a zoning meeting tomorrow evening to oppose a variance on a zoning law that would permit the Catholic church from building a church across the street from an elementary school.

That would be a slap in the face of the Lutherns, etc. whose children would be subject to viewing the church through their school windows and on each entrance and exit to the school.

Stay tuned. You may see me in the national news.

Andy said...

"Unless President Obama could guide me toward the largest Episcopal church in Saudi Arabia"

We should be BETTER and more free than Saudi Arabia.

Jquip said...

The states are not at liberty of making laws opposing the federal constitution.

Absolutely. Now read the amendment again -- it's quoted in full here -- and take special notice of the first five words.

Froggie said...

This is going to get interesting, in leiu of the federal judge striking down Proposition 8 and the immigration laws enacted in Arizona and other states.

JD Curtis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JD Curtis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JD Curtis said...

That would be a slap in the face of the Lutherns, etc. whose children would be subject to viewing the church through their school windows and on each entrance and exit to the school

Oh for the love of Peter. The children would see a mainstream Christian Church in which members of both the Lutheran and Catholic church would agree on a wide variety of topics ranging from monotheism, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, redemption of mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, numerous similarities in the Nicene and Apostle's creeds, etc. If you make the news though, please post it here.

We should be BETTER and more free than Saudi Arabia

Is there any doubt that the US is not better than Saudi Arabia in terms of freedom of religion? Muslim leaders in the US should embark on some serious self-examination in the matter...

"Muslim leaders should answer a critical question: Does the Qur'an require Muslims to deny the legitimacy of the American system of religious and civil liberty? This is a fundamental question for the health of American constitutional liberty. Do Muslims affirm the legitimacy of the First Amendment, even for Muslims who may seek to leave their faith, and for other religions to seek to convert Muslims to their views? These concerns are relevant to "non-theistic' thinkers as well, who desire the freedom to persuade others to their point of view."

Lillback, Peter; Wall of Misconception, pg 95, 2007, Providence Forum Press

Froggie said...

JD,

"Oh for the love of Peter."

Yup. Exactly what the priests say.

Hahahahahahahah! Sometimes I crack myself up! hee hee!

Froggie said...

Also, kids will come out of he school and tell the other kids that people that go to that church are not saved and aren't true christians.

Fundamentalists do it every day.
Catholics are not true christians in fundamental circles like Ray Comfort, et al.

JD Curtis said...

kids will come out of he school and tell the other kids that people that go to that church are not saved and aren't true christians

Some kids might. That's really not a valid reason. I was raised Southern Baptist AND Roman Catholic. Sure, it seemed a bit different at times, but over time I'm glad I had attended both. It was a good life experience.

Catholics are not true christians in fundamental circles like Ray Comfort, et al

Oh that's rich. An atheist deciding who is or isn't a true Christian.

JD Curtis said...

This just in...

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke with President Obama Monday over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, saying the controversial Islamic center should be built elsewhere.

Spokesman Jim Manley said in a written statement that Republicans should show their sincerity about sensitivity to Sept. 11 survivors by backing a high-profile bill to grant health benefits to rescue workers, something that stalled in Congress earlier this month."
Link

Andy said...

Catholics are not true christians in fundamental circles like Ray Comfort, et al

"Oh that's rich. An atheist deciding who is or isn't a true Christian."

JD, Ray Comfort is not an atheist.

Froggie said...

Andy,
JD has his wires crossed again. He knows Ray Comfort is not an atheist. He even comments on Ray's blog (in support of Ray) and has a link to Ray's site on this log.

I don't know what JD was referring to, ut Comfort has said time after time that Catholics are not Christians.

JD Curtis said...

No, I havent crossed anything.

Ray is entitled to believe anything he wants and I'm under no obligation to be in lock step with him on every topic.

Likewise, I wouldnt expect Froggie to agree with every atheist on every topic. Some atheists believe in the supernatural, others in an afterlife for example.

My point is that I find it amusing that those who doubt God's existance are in any way qualified to determine who is or is not a true Christian.

That's all.