Few people know that this giant crescent actually points to Mecca, or understand the religious significance of this orientation. A crescent that points the direction to Mecca is a very familiar construct in the Islamic world. Because Muslims face Mecca for prayer , every mosque is built around a Mecca direction indicator called a mihrab. The classic mihrab is crescent shaped. Here are the two most famous mihrabs in the world:
Left: the Mihrab of the Prophet, at the Prophet’s mosque in Medina. Right: the mihrab of the Great Mosque in Cordoba Spain.
Face into the crescent to face Mecca
As with the Medina and Cordoba mihrabs, a person facing into the Crescent of Embrace will be facing Mecca. In the image below, superimposed red lines show the orientation of the Flight 93 crescent. The green qibla circle is from an online Mecca-direction calculator:
Cordoba Center, is it a symbol of Muslim imperialism or a gesture of friendship and understanding? Only Imam Rauf has the answer; if it is a symbol of Muslim imperialism, he will never admit it, if it is a gesture of friendship and understanding, he has almost no one convinced. If Imam Rauf is manipulating our laws to build his Coroba Center as a method of asserting the omnipotence of Muslim influence in the land of the Infidel, a strict reading of the Constitution and our laws can find precious little to prevent this travesty from transpiring. Thus we find ourselves echoing Antony’s cry in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “O Judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts…”. If Imam Rauf is genuinely reaching out a hand of friendship to the Great Satan, he has already generated enough ill will to neutralize any feelings of compassion and understanding the Cordoba Center might have generated and his idea is at best ill conceived.
Like the building of the Islamic Crescent that points to Mecca over the crash site of Flight 93 as a memorial, the building of a Mosque or Islamic Community Center near the site of the Twin Tower atrocity is circumspect causing resentment and anger among Americans and especially among the relatives of those who perished. Understandably, no Muslims have been bold enough or stupid enough to suggest an Islamic Memorial on the grounds of the Pentagon, to commemorate the Islamic struggle in North America nor a Muslim Prayer room to commemorate the site Major Hassan’s homicidal Jihad contribution to the improvement of relationships between Muslim and Infidel.
If the Imam is truly concerned with showing compassion, he should have realized by now that his great plan has failed miserably and that his idea might be better served by building a University and offering scholarships to the relatives of those killed and to the first responders and their children who suffer health problems because of these cowardly Muslim assaults on America.
Americans would be more likely to trust the extended hand of a Muslim, whose Koran encourages Muslims to lie to the Infidel, if the offers of compassion were actually helping to undue the effects of Muslim atrocities, rather than building a community center/mosque that can be interpreted as a monument to the blood lust of the Muslim and their quest to subjugate the Great Satan that will provide a new sense of pride to the braggadocio inclined illiterate and perverted Muslim mind of the Middle Ages.
The public feeling against Imam Rauf and his overtures of compassion and community goodwill are obvious, if he wants to really work to reverse the resentment and distrust Americans have for the Muslim, it is obvious he should try a different strategy; if he refuses to change course, his plan will come under even more scrutiny and and distrust. In America, his plan is distasteful and disrespectful, like it or not, that is the country he emigrated to and that is the culture of America; perhaps Imam Rauf should consider assimilating into the culture rather than changing the culture.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
@MataHarley: All I am saying is that if there is a group of Muslims who don’t believe in the “convert or kill” doctrine, or that they be required to be killed if they leave the Muslim religion, then that should be told, and they should show their documents of what they do and don’t believe. I didn’t mean for this to go on this long and you don’t need to reply. I am ready to drop the subject. We all believe the way we don’t and ain’t going to change our minds.
@Patvann: I was referring to here in the USA so that if there is a “peaceful” Muslim group, then we could tell the difference. All I ever hear and read is Muslim. I am ready to drop the subject because all of us have our own opinions and aren’t going to change them.
Smorgasbord, I’m a bit confused with your question. You ask if there are Muslims you can ID as “peaceful” or not advocating a kill/convert sect, admit that “…I admit I know very little about the Muslim religion, just what I read and hear in the media”, then follow up that answers are too long, and you’ve already made up your mind?
WTF?
I recognize you as a man who definitely has an opinion, but I would never guess that you’d form an opinion formed based only on media info. Especially when we all know the media has far too many that are under researched, and ill-informed on all too many subjects.
@Mata
Ronnie James Dio recently passed, and I’m still in mourning. 😉
-And yes. The various “houses” add a whole nudder level. The entire faith structure has always been very loose, except in rare times.
@Smorg
Nobody from any religion is carrying around tenants-of-faith, let alone the Moslems.
The “rowdiest” ones are on our college campuses, and a few losers in NY/Virginia. The FBI is covering them pretty good, along with a whole bunch of watchfull bastages who know where they hang out.
The most “Americanized” bunch would be at:
Neither have identifiable uniforms or armbands.
Oh my heavens… “Ozzie the second” Dio passed? Go no. Where was I? Condolences. Yet I’m still mighty proud my generation of rockers still hits the stages, and packs them in. Amazing what residue cocaine can do in your system, eh? LOL
@MataHarley: Keep in mind that I am not a church goer of any religion, but I will put my moral values up against any church goer.
I usually take a long time to make up my mind on new things I hear. That is why I call myself a neutralist. I have gone to many churches and found out just like you did that the preaches give THEIR version of the Bible. I have looked up things that the preacher had said and it doesn’t go along with the Bible.
When I hear of a branch of the Islamic faith that openly says they do not believe in the “convert or kill” policy, the idea of killing those who leave the religion, do not allow “honor killings” if a father feels their kid or wife isn’t behaving properly, and admit that women are equal with men, then I will believe that that branch is a “peaceful” branch, but I still don’t want their religion.
Think about this: Jewish and Islamic religions are from the exact same Old Testament scriptures. They have the same ancestors. The Christian religion uses the New Testament, but look how many different denominations there are, and each one tries to teach their members that they are the only TRUE religion. All of the others are fake.
That is why I came to the conclusion that most religions are like cults in the sense that someone decided they could make some money and control people by convincing them there is a being greater than they. Why is each of their gods called “he” instead of “it?” Because that puts man above woman and man likes to control woman.
@Patvann: I have to show my ignorance here and say I am guessing the term “tenants-of-faith” means the papers that explain their faith. You carry stuff like that in your heart so that when you talk to people about your religion you make sure to explain the difference between yours and others.
I don’t mean for people to spend so much time trying to “convert” me if that is what is going on here. When an organization is started with the idea that the members should convert or kill the rest of the world and that if any of them leave the religion they should be killed, it was started as a terrorist organization and wants to take over the world. I still go along with the saying that, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.”
@Smorg
Convert might be too strong of term in this regard…”Sharing the knowledge” might be closer to what I hope I’m doing. I have spent an inordinate amount of time teaching myself about not only Islam, but all religions.
@Patvann: I’ve tried to educate myself about them too. The Catholic religion calls their priests Father, even though the Bible teaches us that we are not to call anyone Father except God. The Jewish religion is based on the Old Testament. Islam has already been covered.
I have finally decided that what we need is less religion and more moral values teaching.
@Smorg
🙂 I can’t help but to agree 100% 🙂
@Mata
I love a bit of mind candy… but I think I’m already getting an ample supply of arsenic in my daily dose of cigarettes. Let’s take a look at the 17th amendment and what it has done to the checks and balances of the Constitution as intended by our founders.
The intent of the Constitution as originally written was to provide a voice to the people through the House of Representatives and a voice to the States through the Senate by allowing the several States to determine their own methodology via their State Constitutions for electing/appointing Senators. Typically through the State’s legislative body although some States had provisions of direct election of Senators by popular vote.
If we were to follow through with the logic of your previous post… because the 17th amendment changes the balance of checks on power, by your argument the 17th should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Now… I’m absolutely for the repeal of the 17th but until such action is taken by the people via the States, I accept that it is the Constitution.
I recognize the difficulty of getting an amendment through the process, but that wasn’t the issue. Ultimately without the support of the people no amendment will get through a legislative process that is why I phrased it “We the people, via the States”
Are we a sovereign nation? Are we allowed to govern ourselves according to OUR will or are we subject to international law. This is a debate that has been ongoing for some time with many, especially the left, believing that we should subordinate ourselves to global opinion/law. Not a position I or I believe a majority of Americans hold. I can pull up multiple resolutions from the UN’s Council on Human rights that specify the ability of governments to restrict religion based on various tenets. However, I don’t hold that we are subject to any jurisdiction other than our own will and our own Constitution so I’m not going to muddy the water by posting those resolutions here.
Please note that my proposed changes never singles out Islam… but would apply to any religion that had as WRITTEN DOCTRINE the practice of advocating for mandatory conversion on pain of death. No one can control thought, but we can control State recognition of such a religion through such things as tax law. IE: No tax exemptions or no official recognition of such philosophy as a religion and the inherent benefits that come with official recognition. We already do this to a degree through tax regulations/law.
Do I ever think such an amendment would ever be approved… not really. My religious belief system ultimately holds that the eventuality of an all out death struggle will occur between Islam and the West is a given. Read that Global War/Armageddon , so any attempt to stop such from happening is simply an exercise in futility.
@Mata
I re-read that last post directed at me where you use an Obama appointment for life analogy coupled with a disbandment of the Republic…. Truthfully…. if such an amendment were to ever garner enough support from the people… the SCOTUS wouldn’t mean squat, the nation would already have disintegrated into civil war.
And… I have never advocated that there be NO Muslims in the country. We can restrict more of them coming here through immigration law by reducing the number of immigrants from specific countries to zero.
About the “bending and twisting” of laws…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/free_speech_lawsuit_nyc_bans_9.html
>>We can restrict more of them coming here through immigration law by reducing the number of immigrants from specific countries to zero.>>
Wouldn’t work – they’ll just come in from Canada, or across the Mexican border like they are now. And we wouldn’t know who they were.
And it actually may well be unconstitutional. The trick with constitutional vs unconstitutional is that it can only be decided if it is contested in our judicial system, and works it’s way up to the SCOTUS for final opinion. Since, to my knowledge, no one has ever brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on that amendment, therefore it stands.
In other words, SCOTUS doesn’t reach out into thin air, slapping Congressional legislation. They must have a complaint and case before them, otherwise they say nothing. Outside of that, you can only get AG opinions, which do not carry the same weight.
Take, i.e., the DTA of 2005 and MCA of 2006. Boumediene’s decision left the MCA dancing in the “unconstitutional” shadows with that decision. Even witih the SCOTUS ruling, MCA is still on the books, unamended. A SCOTUS ruling doesn’t actually “erase” a bad law, so to speak. But it sure gives anyone subject to abuse a strong argument in litigation. Kinda weird, don’t you think? Congress most often doesn’t repeal bad laws after rulings, nor take the time to amend them.
And yes… it is somewhat bizarre when SCOTUS considers int’l laws when constructing their opinions. Then again, it’s also quite common for SCOTUS to reach back to colonial law, and English monarchy epochs in their decisions as well. As for the reasoning, ultimately only they can answer that. But I know in the opinions I’ve read, where that was done, they are clearly seeking the intent and letter of the law. So intent goes a long way with the High Court. Our laws were structured using, or specifically not using, laws in countries older than ours. In the long run, when it comes to SCOTUS, you can only agree to disagree with the robed ones. They are the final authority, and last word on our tort system.
I did understand your conceptual point, Donald. The “we, the people” come into play only in that we elect those in Congress… or our State officials if done thru convention. In actuality, just the Congress members (or State officials in the latter case) make this decision for a Constitutional amendment. It’s not put to a national vote.
This then brings us to your belief that the amendment needs public support. And perhaps decades ago, I may have agreed. But I’m looking back at stimulus, bank and auto bailouts, and health care… all rammed thru by this same bunch of elected yahoos without notable public support. Nor are they likely to repeal or withdraw any of these.
So while I always like the sound of “we, the people”, unfortunately history shows that most important decisions and paths this nation takes is in the hands of the chosen few in the DC beltway… and done either without our knowledge (harder today in the info age), or our consent. Congress has been quite overt in their arrogance that “they know best” for American citizens, and our opinions be damned.
Technically, your 1st Amendment added text was:
In your original rewrite, it was “written doctrine” that advocated a takeover of the nation. Above you are saying it has to do with convert/kill.
To the first, you’d have a hard time with that language since the Qur’an was written pre America’s founding. Therefore it’s impossible to have any written doctrine that advocates the overthrow of the US government or our Constitution.
The second argument of written doctrine to convert/kill… again very unAmerican in principles. Leaving the specific argument aside as to where that fits into the rest of a very large volume of doctrine, there’s an analogy that begs to be made. You can read books that teach you how to make bombs, or clever ways to commit murder that are not easily detected by law enforcement investigators. So do you strip rights of people who read those books, but do not make bombs or commit murder? Hang, in this country, even if they do, they still retain their Constitutional rights, including due process.
Then I’d have to ask, would you then advocate that such written doctrine, and/or books that are supposed to incite crimes and revolution (the latter not confined to religions at all) are banned?
Problem with legalese and amendment revisions is the more government tries to clarify itself with boundaries, the more they are creating and extending their boundaries.
Lastly, INRE the “NO muslims in the country”. Muslims today weren’t around for the writing of the Qur’an. The vast majority of them do not practice what you say they are supposed to practice, and yet you believe they should have their Constitutional rights stripped because of that volume.
So under what conditions are you, Donald Bly, “allowing” Muslims in this country? That they may live here, but have no first amendment rights because of the Qur’an, even tho they are not committing the crimes you say they are supposed to do?
@suek, there was no “bending and twisting” of law. Geller got what she wanted because it was within her legal rights to do so, and the system works as it’s supposed to do. And just as I don’t like the location for Cordoba House, but recognize their rights to build, I also don’t like Geller and her hate campaign, smearing me by conservative association.
But I’ll live, because that’s what makes this nation great.
Now, on another avenue, were the MTA genuine that the city has such an ordinance, that indeed would be unconstitutional. If Geller were actually concerned about the 1st Amendment, and not her agenda, she would and should be continuing the lawsuit to get that ordinance struck.
However I don’t see any citations for such an ordinance, and wonder if the MTA ad reps were just using that as an excuse to refuse the ad. And I’m pretty darn sure that now Geller has what she wants, she’s unlikely to go after the larger issue of an unconstitional ordinance on the city books. Too bad her priorities are so out of whack.
suek: hi, YES, but they also coming to CANADA from USA,in an out as they wish,
NOBODY CARE. on either sides. bye
@Donald Bly, you may like this article about defining what is and isn’t a religion Has pertinent SCOTUS cases cited, and gives the 14 point criteria the IRS uses to determine if a religious organization is eligible for religious tax exemption.
The quotation cited at the opening is from a US District Court decision in California’s East District back in 1974 where Universal Life Church was battling United States for revocation of their tax exempt status. Ultimately, ULC won.
Here’s the quote from that ULC vs US case:
Thus my reasoning for your rewrite of the 1st Amendment as being contradictory to that amendment’s original intent.
Wow!! Talk about………..
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/DH.gif
Any religion that has as an end goal, theocracy, is advocating for a system that would be destructive of the US and our Constitution, regardless of when it is written. I’m getting old… so sometimes I don’t remember the exact words I’ve used before… and I’m too damn lazy to search through all of my past posts.
I’m personally getting a bit tired of this topic although I do believe that we should be wary of the potential problems of any people that come here and refuse to assimilate. A melting pot is great… a salad bowl is destructive.
Stay tuned for my next essay…. A Capitalist Manifesto I’m sure you’ll have a good time rippin’ on this one, assuming we can keep goading you into commentary. Doing battle against progressive/libtards is too easy… at least you present a challenge.
Well… looks like we’ve come full circle…
… and back to the mind candy that a rewritten 1st Amendment is the Constitution. So I’m not sure exactly if the quoted commentary bolsters your position or mine.
@Rides a Pale Horse…. is that a pale horse we’re beating? You might need to get a Volt if we kill your ride. Oh… and an extension cord.
Ah…the Universal Life Church… gotta love those boys… I ponied up a $100 bucks many years ago when I had money to burn…. they ordained me and awarded me a Doctorate in Theology. Roflmao…
Anyone need to get married… I work cheap!
@Donald Bly:
Nah……..the Volt doesn’t really appeal to me. I want one of THESE……..
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/OBUMMER/Obamiac2.jpg
RIDE A PALE HORSE: WOW, I thought I told you not to beat your horse,
IT wont let the steem go faster. bye. good car desighn, get the driver out, he dont know how to drive,
More fuel for that Un-Constitutional fire:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/taxpayer_funding_that_builds_a.html
MATA: hi, ANOTHER reason for them to respect the opinion of AMERICANS on that builing,
IS that, they dont go and demand to fight with the militarys, who are the ones to hurt and die
FOR them in the war, while the immigrants enjoy the FREE benefits of it. bye
>>Geller got what she wanted because it was within her legal rights to do so, and the system works as it’s supposed to do.>>
True – but only under threat of a lawsuit. Why should that be necessary?
>>I also don’t like Geller and her hate campaign, smearing me by conservative association.>>
And there we differ. First, I don’t call it a hate campaign – I call it laying out all the cards on the table. Remember “Never Again”? Never Again. Nip it in the bud. Second – obviously – I don’t consider it “smearing” by conservative association. I’d be proud to stand behind her, if the opportunity arose.
I suppose you’ve heard the phrase “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people”?
IMAGINE the GOVERNMENT funding the MOSQUES abroad, WITH THE AMERICANS MONEY.
WHAT else the people dont know?.
@RidesAPaleHorse #188: Bees is right. He doesn’t know how to drive. He wouldn’t even make a good trunk monkey. But Gibbs might!
More fun details:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/saudis-build-giant-clock-for-mecca-time
@suek #195: I read this last night. It’s a real scream, isn’t it? The thing should run backwards — like the rest of the country.
Here’s another fun piece of info:
http://www.frumforum.com/is-the-911-mosque-a-publicity-stunt
@Donald Bly: I’ve been saying for years that there are organizations and religions who should not get tax exempt status. Maybe we need to eliminate it for all religions since the Constitution says the USA can’t establish a religion. Wouldn’t the tax exempt status be the same as subsidizing the religions? I don’t go to any church, but the taxes some don’t pay because they are exempt from them means I have to pay more taxes, so, some of my money is going to those organizations even if I don’t like one or more of them. Each state should still be allowed to do what they want in this matter.
Christ…. 😐 ….this is one busy thread to sift through. 😉
@drjohn #128:
My apology toward suek extends to you as well, doc.
I should have simply not felt obligated to respond right away until I was ready to check back in here.
@Toothfairy
Trunkmonkey…The greatest ad campaign ever done!
Oh…And the other reason I posted was simply to be the 200th. I’m weak that way.
Smorgasbord…
If no preference for a single religion is demonstrated, the establishment clause is not a problem.
All tax benefits are designed to promote something the State considers to be beneficial to the State.
Actually, it’s in the State’s best interest to have strong active religions. Religions inculcate values that tend to limit the actions of people to those standards that are acceptable within a society. The better job religions do, the less the State has to do to reach the same end.
Think of it this way: Religions establish an ideal standard of behavior. Most religions have an ideal that is unattainable for most or all, but encourages its members to continually strive to reach the highest standard they can. Laws, on the other hand, establish the lowest standards an individual society will accept. Cross that line and society will smack you down. The majority of us manage to stay between the two standards. Like an average, if you shift the Bell curve, the whole thing moves either to the lower (usually) side or the higher side. You have a real problem if either standard is eliminated so that your society is required to adhere to the higher standard or get smacked down (or killed in islamic societies) or permitted to drop to the lower standard (chaotic society).
You simply cannot make enough laws to dictate all the necessary standards for an orderly society.
@suek, I must tell you that is a most excellent observation on both religion and law, and it’s expectations from societal behavior.
Being as I’m somewhat behind on both comments and posting articles on FA, let me go back to some things in our cyber conversation:
The only answer one can come up with there is that humans quite often behave badly. Geller is hardly the first to have to sic lawyers on someone to right a wrong, and she sure won’t be the last.
On the other hand, there’s nuances about a public entity, MTA, and advertising guidelines. A private corporation certainly should not be forced to accept advertising it does not want. However they have to be careful for the rejection reasons they provide. In other words, a network with family programming may not want to accept racy ads for condoms, or something inappropriate for kids. I certainly don’t want to see state funded NPR accepting political ads and choosing sides in elections or on issues.
On the MTA advertising guidelines, don’t know what they are. Nor if the ad was rejected truly because of an ordinance, or just some ad account exec desk jockey rattling that off as an excuse that most accept.
Either way, courts are there when humans and business entities behave badly, and we can’t expect that will simply go away for above reproach morality.
INRE Geller, and why I distance myself from her. You may agree with her on this particular issue. But I have to wonder if you also agree with her years of railing against Islam in general, and other mosques she advocates not being built that are no where close to ground zero. Analogous, you may agree with the KKK on a single issue, but it’s hardly likely you’d be proud to stand with them on the rest of their actions. I don’t get that from you at all.
Geller’s hatred for Islam, and the religious rebellion to assume control of the nation she predicts, is more wide spread, and seriously more hyperbolic than what I see from you, suek. So perhaps maybe exploring a bit more of Geller’s past commentary, pre Cordoba House, may shed more light on why I’m happy to take more than several steps back.
Not all “religions” do get IRS tax exempt status, Smorgasbord. And they can also lose that status, if they engage in activities that do not further the activies of their religion when audited. So it’s not an automatic given.
It’s like @Donald Bly said above, he paid $100 to get “ordained” by the Universal Life Church. I don’t think Donald’s going to end up qualifying for a tax exemption as a church with his poker playing career in the IRS eyes. But that would be one interesting “church” there, Donald. LOL
I’m not sure why you equate tax exempt with subsidy. There is a difference in not absconding with some profit revenue, and actually providing taxpayer dollars as a subsidy. To not collect revenue would make every tax credit or tax deduction for anyone in a similar “subsidy”.
Secondly, if you eliminate church tax exemption… and IRS regulation that could be changed at will by the Dept of Revenue muckety mucks… what about non-profits which operate much the same? Are there no organizations that should be allowed to operate without tax repercussions because of their contribution to society?
Remember if you eliminate what the churches and non profits do, those activities (whether soup kitchens, shelters, counseling, etal) would then be transferred to the governments as a new welfare entitlement program. So I’m all for encouraging private sector charities and services. Much preferable to a government nanny welfare program which the nation pays for. Also keeps the abuse of these programs away the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.
@suek: It’s like the old saying, “You can’t legislate morality.”
One problem I have is that some religions are using the tax exemption and building non-church businesses that are profit oriented. The exempt status should only apply to the church, synagogue, mosque, etc.
For those who say there should be a complete separation of church and State, that means that the salaries of members should not be taxed and that whatever happens on church property can’t be regulated by the State. It would basically have to go back to the time when the Church Of England had almost as much power as the King. The religions could do whatever they wanted as long as it was on church property. Think of what king of “religions” would pop up if they couldn’t be regulated by the State. There should not be a separation of church and State.
@MataHarley: “I’m not sure why you equate tax exempt with subsidy.”
Either way you look at it the people pay for the exemption. Tax exempt means they don’t pay taxes. That means for a community, state, or the US government to come up with a certain amount, they have to tax us a little more to make up for the exemption. Some exemptions are acceptable to get businesses or people to move into the community. I had an uncle who used this to save money. He would move to a place for the tax breaks, then when the time was running out he would more to more tax beaks in another town.
If we don’t enact the Fair Tax (national sales tax) which is in Congress now, then I would be in favor of ending all taxes for all businesses since the customers pay the taxes when they buy the products. That would make it fair for any business, religion, organization, etc.
I have always been in favor of tax exempt status for organizations that help the people. That subject was never brought up.
The Church of the House of Fullness…. that ought to fool ’em. 8) Donations to the
pot… um… collection plate are mandatory in order to partake in the fullness of the spirits (double shots are extra don’t forget to tip the usher) We’ll now sing the psalm of the big stack…may we all raise in praise of our bountiful hands.Daaaumn…. I could pull this off. 😈
Can my Sock Puppet be called the Reverend Doctor Donald Bly…
I’m mean it is official.. roflmao I actually had to pass a written test!
>>One problem I have is that some religions are using the tax exemption and building non-church businesses that are profit oriented. The exempt status should only apply to the church, synagogue, mosque, etc.>>
Ditto for many other tax exempt organizations. I’m inclined to agree with you on this, although when you say “non-church businesses”, do the profits then go to the church to defray expenses? A lot depends on the underlying morality of the individuals involved, and as in any human endeavor, that means there’s a lot of cheating. I suspect that the IRS doesn’t do nearly the amount of examination of various tax exempts as they should – but I have nothing to back that up with.
>>On the other hand, there’s nuances about a public entity, MTA, and advertising guidelines. A private corporation certainly should not be forced to accept advertising it does not want. However they have to be careful for the rejection reasons they provide.>>
As I read it, the MTA could not or did not supply Geller’s lawyer with guidelines which they said prohibited using images of the twin towers being taken down. They also _did_ accept ads which advertised various muslim activities or proselytizing. That seems to me to be a double standard within a publicly owned system, and it seems to favor muslims. Doesn’t that seem odd?
>>You may agree with her on this particular issue. But I have to wonder if you also agree with her years of railing against Islam in general, and other mosques she advocates not being built that are no where close to ground zero.>>
I probably agree with her more than you’d “approve”!
>>Geller’s hatred for Islam, and the religious rebellion to assume control of the nation she predicts, is more wide spread, and seriously more hyperbolic than what I see from you, suek.>>
Well…Pam’s a bit bombastic, I’ll grant. But c’mon…she’s Jewish, so no doubt on the top of the list. That’ll stir you up. Besides I’m quite a bit older. That tends to tone one down. I think the difference is that you don’t see islam as a culture/life threatening philosophy, which she does. And it takes a lot of bombast to get people moving! I see her as just as much a soldier defending the USA as any uniformed member of the military – she just does it differently. I’m not sure she “hates” islam – but she definitely sees them as an enemy.
I understand you don’t see it that way. I think you’re wrong. I understand that there are good muslim people – and if islam were to reach it’s goal, all you’d have to do is say “La ilaha il-Allah” and you’re off the hook. Then all you have to do is watch out for the morality police, but you’re cool. In fact, you don’t really even have to do that. You can refuse – well I think you can, if you’re Christian or Jewish…I don’t know about being an complete unbeliever – an atheist. I think that’s out. In any case, if you refuse to convert, you just have to pay the jizya and you’re ok. Of course, the jizya can be increased at any time, and if you just convert to islam you don’t have to pay it.
I sure would like to know what it would take to get you to see islam itself as a danger to the nation in general, and each of us individually… Bombast apparently doesn’t do it for you…!
>>…I actually had to pass a written test!>>
Ok…dying of curiosity here … what sort of things were on the written test????
Smorgasbord…
This is sort of in your category…not exactly, but sort of…
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2010/08/courts-monks-protected-interests.html
@suek: The Fair Tax would take care of all of these things. You would pay your taxes every time you buy something new. Even the illegals would pay taxes. The rich would pay their fair share because they buy the higher priced stuff. If you haven’t read, “The Fair Tax Book,” you need to. I thought it was a stupid Idea until I found out how it works. Businesses would bring their corporate headquarters back to the USA and other country’s businesses would put their corporate headquarters here because there wouldn’t be any taxes on them.
@suek: This is a good example of why the money needs to be taken out of campaigning. There have been different suggestions how. One is to have the Federal government pay for all advertising. The problem that I see is how do they determine who qualifies and who doesn’t.
One thing I like, if it is true, is that England allows politicians to campaign for six weeks and that is it. No more 2-3 year campaigning.
The biggest advantage to taking the money our of campaigning is that the only people the politicians have to pay back are the ones who voted them in.
Drjohn, hi, i’m late to tell my opinion, but here I find that he had a one chance to get to rally some simpathic approval, if he would have drop his plan to built that building there or anywhere but specialy there, which is and will remain an outragous attack on the AMERICANS, no matter,
if he try to do some good in the NEW YORK CITY, HIM AND HIS SUPPORTER THE MAYOR, AND THOSE OF THE GROUP WHO AGREED, THEY WILL CARRY THE STAIN AS TO HAVE INSULT THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY and IT will never go away,