Ron Paul Slams WTC Mosque Protesters!

[Joe234]

Ron Paul Slams WTC Mosque Protesters!

CNN
Ron Paul: Goal Of Protesting WTC Mosque Is To Blame Islam For 9/11

[Darwin]

Hits bottom. Keeps digging.

[sgreger1]

That's because Ron Paul is a real libertarian, and doesn't just follow party lines. Allowing gov to say when and where you can worship or build a church is inherently unconstitutional. +1 for Ron Paul.

[lxskllr]

That's because Ron Paul is a real libertarian, and doesn't just follow party lines. Allowing gov to say when and where you can worship or build a church is inherently unconstitutional. +1 for Ron Paul.

^^^

[rollinred]

And this is the reason Ron Paul will never be President as he desires to be.

He doesn't even have a clue what the reason for not wanting the mosque is. He always wants to talk about radical left or radical right and take their views not the views of the average left or right leaning person.

The problem here is not about whether they want to build a mosque. It is about the fact that for years the liberal side of politics has been attempting to eliminate every form of Christianity from the public. That includes the part of the Pledge of Allegiance that says "under God" and punishing students who speak of God in a public school.

Yet these same liberals now decide that they choose to "protect" the freedom of religion only because they are trying to "appease" the Islamic world by making it seem that by allowing them to build a mosque there would be an act of respect.

Since when has a liberal ever wanted to protect the freedom of religion unless it involves appeasing to the Muslim world? Never. Anything to do with Christianity and they want it eliminated from society as a whole. But this is their way of trying to stop the required preventative wars in the middle east to stop terrorism. They believe that if they appease the Muslims by catering to their desires that they will inherently begin to like us and all will be well. The problem is that almost all Muslims are peace loving people but there is a fringe that needs to be eliminated by all means necessary for the safety of the entire world. This radical Islam does not care if it kills its own people, it only needs to kill one "infidel" to be successful. These are the demons and devils that must be stopped. No matter how much we try to cater to the as Ron Paul wishes to do, they will never stop trying to kill anyone who does not practice this radical Islam.


This simply is not about whether they have the right to build a mosque, they do have the right. They simply should not out of even self respect to build it in the same building where the landing gear of one of the airliners tore through on the one day radical Islamists claim as their most proud day. That is just absurd for a so called peaceful mosque build that is attempting to bridge a gap between a religion and people to partake in. If he wanted to bridge the gap he would have decided to fund a center which had numerous worship centers within it that had areas for all religions to go in and reflect on the terrible tragedy that occurred at this location.


Ron Paul -100 on this one. I like a lot of his ideas but this is just so idiotic that it shows why his approval gets high right before primaries but then drops like a rock when he starts talking in a more broadcasted public medium closer to elections.

[lxskllr]

And this is the reason Ron Paul will never be President as he desires to be.

He doesn't even have a clue what the reason for not wanting the mosque is. He always wants to talk about radical left or radical right and take their views not the views of the average left or right leaning person.

Ron Paul will never get elected because he says what he really thinks, and doesn't kiss the ass of every petty constituency that knocks on his door. The average left or right leaning person's an idiot, and couldn't add 2 and 2 together, and come up with the same answer twice in a row. Also, god doesn't belong in the Pledge of Allegiance. That was added in 1954, and is clearly a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and State. Religion of any kind has no place in government, but individuals are free to do as they please....

[sgreger1]

And this is the reason Ron Paul will never be President as he desires to be.

He doesn't even have a clue what the reason for not wanting the mosque is. He always wants to talk about radical left or radical right and take their views not the views of the average left or right leaning person.

The problem here is not about whether they want to build a mosque. It is about the fact that for years the liberal side of politics has been attempting to eliminate every form of Christianity from the public. That includes the part of the Pledge of Allegiance that says "under God" and punishing students who speak of God in a public school.

Yet these same liberals now decide that they choose to "protect" the freedom of religion only because they are trying to "appease" the Islamic world by making it seem that by allowing them to build a mosque there would be an act of respect.

Since when has a liberal ever wanted to protect the freedom of religion unless it involves appeasing to the Muslim world? Never. Anything to do with Christianity and they want it eliminated from society as a whole. But this is their way of trying to stop the required preventative wars in the middle east to stop terrorism. They believe that if they appease the Muslims by catering to their desires that they will inherently begin to like us and all will be well. The problem is that almost all Muslims are peace loving people but there is a fringe that needs to be eliminated by all means necessary for the safety of the entire world. This radical Islam does not care if it kills its own people, it only needs to kill one "infidel" to be successful. These are the demons and devils that must be stopped. No matter how much we try to cater to the as Ron Paul wishes to do, they will never stop trying to kill anyone who does not practice this radical Islam.


This simply is not about whether they have the right to build a mosque, they do have the right. They simply should not out of even self respect to build it in the same building where the landing gear of one of the airliners tore through on the one day radical Islamists claim as their most proud day. That is just absurd for a so called peaceful mosque build that is attempting to bridge a gap between a religion and people to partake in. If he wanted to bridge the gap he would have decided to fund a center which had numerous worship centers within it that had areas for all religions to go in and reflect on the terrible tragedy that occurred at this location.


Ron Paul -100 on this one. I like a lot of his ideas but this is just so idiotic that it shows why his approval gets high right before primaries but then drops like a rock when he starts talking in a more broadcasted public medium closer to elections.

It doesn't matter who is advocating what or what liberals are doing. We must be better than that. We must limit government and not allow it to dictate where people can worship or what people can build on private property. This is about property rights and freedom of religion. Just because liberals have been assaulting christians since the beginning of time is no excuse for you to sell out your country. Then you become just like them.


Fight the good fight or lay down your weapon.



You point out that liberals are trying to kill christianity. We get it. Why do you want to stoop to their level? Your are right, they DO have the right to build it. Yes it is a dick move but at the end of the day it is their decision and not the governments. Why would you give the government the power to tell someone what to do with their property? Why would you allow them to dictate what religions can build churches? Freedom of religion is not just for the freedom of YOUR religion, it's for everyones, even the shitty ones like Islam. Let the free market decide it, if the mosque has no support they will have wasted $100 million, if it does get support than it gets to survive. This is one of the basic tenants of our country, we cannot violate it because you do not like something.


When our country was young, they passed all sorts of laws banning one form of christianity or another, depending on which was the most popular at the time. The christians limited the religious freedom of other christians from different denominations. it went back and forth for years untill eventually the founding fathers gave us the right to have religious freedom. Why would you want to take us back to before we had these rights?

It is a slap in our face, but if we don't stand by our principles than we have nothing and we are no better than france, falling to the woe of populist trends every few decades. Realize that this is what makes us different.


We know liberals don't care about freedom of religion, and they are doing this to be provocative. That does not mean you too should start hating freedom of religion, because then you are just being like them.



Edit; Ron Paul is just doing what our forefathers did. He is coming in and saying everyone should have freedom from government interference in religion, and that we must all be free to live our own lives as we choose and do with our own properties as we choose. If you are against that, than you too are a liberal and an enemy of freedom.


Ron Paul +1,000 for staying consistent and saying NO to government intrusion in our lives, even when it is unpopular.

[Joe234]

-

Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!


http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ro...he-nyc-mosque/

By RonPaul.com on August 20, 2010


Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

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.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

[Simplysnus]

I'm in alignment with this opinion.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12063

[tom502]

I'm on the fence with this. It's not like there arn't any Islamic centers in New York already, and I think the will of the people should count some too. I mean, what if someone wanted to build a giant Klan church, do the resident have a right to say if they want it or not? Or a gay club, or an adult bookstore? I do believe in freedom, but I also think the residents should have a say. Like where I live there is a lot of little ghetto liquor stores with bums hanging out all around them, and if someone wanted to open one up next door or on the corner, and my block did not want this, the will of the people should count.

[RobsanX]

That's because Ron Paul is a real libertarian, and doesn't just follow party lines. Allowing gov to say when and where you can worship or build a church is inherently unconstitutional. +1 for Ron Paul.

It's more than that. It's our heritage. It's what this country was founded upon. It's the freedom that countless Americans fought and died for.

People who are against this have lost their perspective on what this country is all about.

[tom502]

But then would it be fine and OK, if a Klan group wanted to open a big Klan Church in a neighborhood, and the neighborhood didn't want it there? I mean, where does "freedom" start and end? It's it the freedom of an unwanted group that trumps the freedom of the citizens to decide what they want or not in their home turf? Does majority rule have anything to do with it?

[lxskllr]

But then would it be fine and OK, if a Klan group wanted to open a big Klan Church in a neighborhood, and the neighborhood didn't want it there? I mean, where does "freedom" start and end? It's it the freedom of an unwanted group that trumps the freedom of the citizens to decide what they want or not in their home turf? Does majority rule have anything to do with it?

I don't see how the neighborhood has a say in it, unless 1 holding company owns the whole thing, and sells via approval process.

[tom502]

It seems to me the citizens should decide what they allow in their neighborhood. Why not have a vote? But I see both sides too. But I guess the opposition can stand in front of it every day and protest and harrass it's members, they do that at abortion clinic and Scientology churches.

[truthwolf1]

The key points.

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.