Can pinheads explain the contradiction? ...Probably not!

[Timshel]

Stringfield is wearing a virtual suit of Dixies man goo.


Dixie, those everday local totalitarian tactics liberals save for white males and christians trying to get ahead. Only the islamicists are worthy of constitutional protection, for traitors like stringfield.

Traitors pervert the law to destroy america.

Dixie is completely ignorant of the subject matter. He makes it all up as he goes. He has bought into conservatarded thinking that these court cases are just decided on whim and that any stupid argument you can dream up to justify state action is just as good as any other. It's all just "opinion." That's not how it works and why the court consistently rules against the stupid arguments presented by ignorant Conservatives.

Look at the conservatives with a legal background, e.g., Olsen or Giuliani, they all know the deal on this.

This whole argument is pretty stupid as the state will not take action to trigger it, knowing it will lose. I have entertained Ditzy's fantasies but it's never going to happen. The mosque will be built and ten years the controversy will just be a memory and another reminder of the right wings intolerance and hate mongering.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Apparently you don't know or don't understand. You have been arguing this for several posts.

A law outlawing murder is obviously constitutionally justified. It is neutral and generally applicable and so will not face strict scrutiny. Even if it did it would pass that easily as the state's primary interest is in protecting citizens from violent criminal acts.

Right, another more fundamental right is in play! I do understand, that's exactly what I have been arguing, and you have been trying to avoid.

The mosque does not involve human sacrifice nor does it impinge on anyone elses rights in any significant way.

Yes, it would impinge on the safety of those living and working in proximity of the controversial mosque. The state has a primary interest in protecting citizens from violent crimes, you said that yourself.

That's not a relevant fact at all. It has nothing to do with the case.

I'm going to tell you again, Judge Wapner... EVERYTHING associated with this, is a relevant fact! YOU don't get to pick and choose which facts are presented to a court! They can introduce into evidence, the fact of who is funding this mosque, and delve into their motivations as well. Nothing is off the table, or hidden underneath the table, in a federal court case regarding civil liberties.

You are still not getting it. I give up, you are too fucking stupid to be reached. A case would certainly have to be made that the state action was unconstitutional. I was not arguing that that result is obvious. Again, what is obvious is that a state action to stop them from building a church impinges upon the practice of their faith. That would not be debated. The case would deal with whether the action is permissible.

You are flat out wrong Stringy. Whether something impinges on their faith, has to be determined before a case can be heard on whether it is permissible. It's a two part deal! First, the plaintiff has to establish "show cause" and the court has to determine if their complaint can be heard. You are assuming this is a given, but in actuality, it is often the most difficult aspect of any civil liberties case. Once 'show cause' has been established, the court proceeds to hear the evidence (facts) from the litigants, both the plaintiff and defendant.

That's nothing but a straw man. No, they don't have to get the courts approval to act. My point has been clear, that judicial review does not treat every state action as being constitutionally valid.

I never claimed the court treated every state action as being constitutional. There you go, reading shit I didn't post again! Do I need a rolled up newspaper to thwack you on the nose when you do that? We've got to come up with something to break that habit, because it makes dialogue with you impossible.

They can act and they can end up paying for lawsuits.

As is almost ALWAYS the case!

Nonsense. The taking is clearly motivated by religious bias. There would be no threatened taking if this were a YMCA.

Which is probably why the left is trying to paint this mosque as a glorified YMCA, and not a Trophy of Islamic Conquest! Prohibiting me from sacrificing my virgins to the volcano, are CLEARLY motivated by religious bias!

Kelo, is going to be overturned or limited in its reach.

There you go predicting the future again! Do you clean your crystal balls weekly or monthly? Because it's a shame to have dirty balls!

Stutter, no you are just a fucking idiot. The court certainly can determine the motivation was not what the state claims. That's not prejudice moron. It is a position derived from the facts.

I never said the court couldn't "determine" it, I am merely pointing out they won't go into the case 'assuming' it, or taking a biased one-sided view of it. If they are guilty of pre-judging it (prejudice), they must recuse themselves. When you are speaking on this, you are using words which indicate they would already be prejudiced and disqualified from rendering a fair judgment. The way our judicial system works, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Both sides enter the court on even ground, there is no preconception of who is right and who is wrong. It's not the burden of the state to prove they are within their rights, it is up to the plaintiff to prove the state violated their rights without reasonable justification.

You probably will not have to wait long. Walker gave the EXACT ruling you were told would come. Shoot, he followed my arguments so closely it's like he referenced them.

Oh goody! We get to have a ratification of a new amendment to the constitution! I am so stoked! When will this come about, Stringy? Look into your crystal balls and give me a hint?

In what period of time? If the state does act, which I doubt, resolution could be delayed for several years.

What's the definition of "build the mosque" for purposes of the bet? Are you going to later try to say they only built an Islamic cultural center?

If we are going to make a bet we will have to close off the avenue that you would look to to weasel out of your error. Too many times you have tried to retroactively change your argument in oprder to save face.

Yes, it's going to be delayed for years and years. There are a number of legal avenues to be explored, which will hang up any construction. See, there's this matter of overwhelming public opposition, which you seem to be oblivious to. Generally speaking, when 70% of the people don't want something to be built, it doesn't get built.

 

[Timshel]

Right, another more fundamental right is in play! I do understand, that's exactly what I have been arguing, and you have been trying to avoid.

Not in the case of the mosque. Your scenario does not compare in the least.

Yes, it would impinge on the safety of those living and working in proximity of the controversial mosque. The state has a primary interest in protecting citizens from violent crimes, you said that yourself.

Nonsense. Building a mosque does not effect any fundamental rights of those in the neighborhood. Further, there is already a process that has been followed for consideration of the concerns of neighbors.

I'm going to tell you again, Judge Wapner... EVERYTHING associated with this, is a relevant fact! YOU don't get to pick and choose which facts are presented to a court! They can introduce into evidence, the fact of who is funding this mosque, and delve into their motivations as well. Nothing is off the table, or hidden underneath the table, in a federal court case regarding civil liberties.

YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. It's not a fact. You are making an accusation that you can not back with proof. The court certainly will not hold the Park 51 group to some sort of fascist notion of collective guilt. That would overturn 1000s of years of legal precedent.

You are flat out wrong Stringy. Whether something impinges on their faith, has to be determined before a case can be heard on whether it is permissible. It's a two part deal! First, the plaintiff has to establish "show cause" and the court has to determine if their complaint can be heard. You are assuming this is a given, but in actuality, it is often the most difficult aspect of any civil liberties case. Once 'show cause' has been established, the court proceeds to hear the evidence (facts) from the litigants, both the plaintiff and defendant.

Show cause??? Again, what are you babbling about? You mean establish that they have standing? Dude you are a fucking moron if you believe that taking the property will not create standing. Of course, it does.

As is almost ALWAYS the case!

Which is probably why the left is trying to paint this mosque as a glorified YMCA, and not a Trophy of Islamic Conquest! Prohibiting me from sacrificing my virgins to the volcano, are CLEARLY motivated by religious bias!

A law against murder does not show religious bias. That's nonsense. If the law ONLY made killing as part of a religious practice illegal, then of course that would show religious bias. Again, see the Hialeah case.

There you go predicting the future again! Do you clean your crystal balls weekly or monthly? Because it's a shame to have dirty balls!

Correctly. It has to be overturned or limited. It is unworkable as it now stands.

I never said the court couldn't "determine" it, I am merely pointing out they won't go into the case 'assuming' it, or taking a biased one-sided view of

And again moron, my point is the facts clearly do not support the idea that a taking was really motivated by the need for a school. Those advocating it have made their motivations clear.

Oh goody! We get to have a ratification of a new amendment to the constitution! I am so stoked! When will this come about, Stringy? Look into your crystal balls and give me a hint?

Huh??? There won't be any amendment. That was your prediction.

Yes, it's going to be delayed for years and years. There are a number of legal avenues to be explored, which will hang up any construction. See, there's this matter of overwhelming public opposition, which you seem to be oblivious to. Generally speaking, when 70% of the people don't want something to be built, it doesn't get built.

No, the courts will not continue to entertain what is clearly motivated by religious biases. It MIGHT be delayed by government action, but that is unlikely.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not in the case of the mosque. Your scenario does not compare in the least....Nonsense. Building a mosque does not effect any fundamental rights of those in the neighborhood. Further, there is already a process that has been followed for consideration of the concerns of neighbors.

The process that is followed is not adequate to protect the citizens against the international threat posed by these unique circumstances. Yes, everyone in proximity of this facility will be in danger 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because it will be an international target, and symbol of radical Islam.

YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. It's not a fact. You are making an accusation that you can not back with proof. The court certainly will not hold the Park 51 group to some sort of fascist notion of collective guilt. That would overturn 1000s of years of legal precedent.

Yes, it is a fact, and there are a LOT of facts, regarding the funding of the project, who's behind it, where the money is coming from, what the real intent and purpose of this is... and perhaps it will all be laid out in court for the whole world to see? Until then, we can speculate, we can anticipate, we can pontificate, and we can have fun shitting on each other's opinions, but we simply don't know how a court might ultimately rule on this.

Show cause??? Again, what are you babbling about? You mean establish that they have standing? Dude you are a fucking moron if you believe that taking the property will not create standing. Of course, it does.

They can take property under eminent domain, that is not a 'show cause' for constitutional discrimination. You argued they would have a case based on suppression of religious freedoms, and that has to be shown here. Unless 'show cause' is established, the court can't hear a 'religious rights' case, it has not been established. You see, if what you believe were true, then anyone who had an eminent domain situation, could go to court and claim they had planned to build a church there, and the state was denying them their constitutional rights, and the ED would have to be overturned, but we don't live in Stringly's Fantasy World. A case has to be made, that state action is specifically intended to prohibit the free exercise of religion, and I think that is a very difficult thing for them to prove.

A law against murder does not show religious bias. That's nonsense. If the law ONLY made killing as part of a religious practice illegal, then of course that would show religious bias. Again, see the Hialeah case.

I'm not saying laws against murder show religious bias, you goofy bitch! Stop reading shit that I'm not posting! You've got to break your habit of that! Just stop it! I don't care about the Hialeah case, this has nothing to do with any other case, ever presented to a court in America before.

And again moron, my point is the facts clearly do not support the idea that a taking was really motivated by the need for a school. Those advocating it have made their motivations clear.

No, I don't think they have. It was the stated objective, for this to be an outreach, and it has clearly not accomplished that, and will never accomplish that. So, right off the bat, the intent of this is dubious at best. I think 'motivations' will be looked at with scrutiny from both sides, and reasonable minds will prevail. I don't think 'motivations' are conclusively set in stone, based on what we have been told so far, or what we could possibly know at this time. For you to be sitting here telling me how a court will ultimately rule on this, is a joke.

 

[Lao Tse]

Dixie is completely ignorant of the subject matter. He makes it all up as he goes. He has bought into conservatarded thinking that these court cases are just decided on whim and that any stupid argument you can dream up to justify state action is just as good as any other. It's all just "opinion." That's not how it works and why the court consistently rules against the stupid arguments presented by ignorant Conservatives.

Look at the conservatives with a legal background, e.g., Olsen or Giuliani, they all know the deal on this.

This whole argument is pretty stupid as the state will not take action to trigger it, knowing it will lose. I have entertained Ditzy's fantasies but it's never going to happen. The mosque will be built and ten years the controversy will just be a memory and another reminder of the right wings intolerance and hate mongering.

The mosque will not be built. The intelligent people in america will not allow it.

we will stop you traitors from assisting the jihadis in their stealth war.

taquiyah is the doctrine of lying to stupid liberals and libertarians about some ficititious version of moderate islam.

 

[Timshel]

The process that is followed is not adequate to protect the citizens against the international threat posed by these unique circumstances. Yes, everyone in proximity of this facility will be in danger 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because it will be an international target, and symbol of radical Islam.

BS!

Yes, it is a fact, and there are a LOT of facts, regarding the funding of the project, who's behind it, where the money is coming from, what the real intent and purpose of this is... and perhaps it will all be laid out in court for the whole world to see? Until then, we can speculate, we can anticipate, we can pontificate, and we can have fun shitting on each other's opinions, but we simply don't know how a court might ultimately rule on this.

They can take property under eminent domain, that is not a 'show cause' for constitutional discrimination. You argued they would have a case based on suppression of religious freedoms, and that has to be shown here. Unless 'show cause' is established, the court can't hear a 'religious rights' case, it has not been established. You see, if what you believe were true, then anyone who had an eminent domain situation, could go to court and claim they had planned to build a church there, and the state was denying them their constitutional rights, and the ED would have to be overturned, but we don't live in Stringly's Fantasy World. A case has to be made, that state action is specifically intended to prohibit the free exercise of religion, and I think that is a very difficult thing for them to prove.

Show cause? What the fuck are you talking about? http://www.answers.com/topic/show-cause-order

You are misusing the term and pretending it means something it does not, moron. What you apparently mean is they have to have standing. Clearly, they would have standing. You are a fucking retarded if you think otherwise.

Taking their property CANNOT be done without due process as it interferes with their property rights. It does affect the practice of their religion as they clearly intended to use the property for religious purposes.

I seriously doubt the state would bother wasting the time of the court with idiotic arguments, when it is well established that they intended to use the property for religious purposes. In fact, in order to make the retarded compelling interest argument you advocate they would have to admit that.

I'm not saying laws against murder show religious bias, you goofy bitch! Stop reading shit that I'm not posting! You've got to break your habit of that! Just stop it!

You said...

Prohibiting me from sacrificing my virgins to the volcano, are CLEARLY motivated by religious bias!

That what you said, moron. You need to get out of the habit of shoving your foot in your mouth and then pretending you did not.

I don't care about the Hialeah case, this has nothing to do with any other case, ever presented to a court in America before.

LOL. Legal precedents WILL apply. They always do. The Hialeah case is quite relevant, as it implies the courts will apply strict scrutiny.

The Hialeah case is even more relevant to your absurd sacrificing virgins example. Hialeah tried to make it illegal to sacrifice animals in a religious practice in order to stop the formation of a church of Santeria from entering the city. They tried to craft the law in a way that allowed for slaughter of animals so long as it was not part of a religious practice. That made the law religiously biased.

Murder is illegal in all cases. It is illegal whether you murder someone as part of a religious practice or unceremoniously, it's illegal. The laws are not based on religious bias.

No, I don't think they have. It was the stated objective, for this to be an outreach, and it has clearly not accomplished that, and will never accomplish that. So, right off the bat, the intent of this is dubious at best. I think 'motivations' will be looked at with scrutiny from both sides, and reasonable minds will prevail. I don't think 'motivations' are conclusively set in stone, based on what we have been told so far, or what we could possibly know at this time. For you to be sitting here telling me how a court will ultimately rule on this, is a joke.

Red herring. You are trying to distract attention from the motivation behind what would be the STATE'S action. A property owners motivation will not receive nearly the same attention.

Neither the court nor the state have any real capacity to determine whether the mosque is being built as a Victory mosque or for the stated purposes of Park 51/Cordoba House. What determines that? At best, they MIGHT be able to determine that once the mosque goes into actual use. The state cannot punish people for what they THINK they are going to do. Especially, not on a first amendment issue.

Further, there is no legal basis for stopping them from building a Victory Mosque, anyway.

However, the Victory Mosque argument is ridiculously absurd. The building would be separated physically and visually by two city blocks and would not be visible from the site of Ground Zero. I would guess if it were meant for some religious symbol of victory then it would ONLY be a mosque. Instead it is planned as little more than a Y with a prayer room.

 

[Lao Tse]

The legal basis for denying the mosque is the right to defend against invasion.

These mosques are nothing more than operational bases for a foreign based theocratic army.

We always have the right to defend agaisnt hostile invasion.

 

[Timshel]

The legal basis for denying the mosque is the right to defend against invasion.

These mosques are nothing more than operational bases for a foreign based theocratic army.

We always have the right to defend agaisnt hostile invasion.

Legal basis... your argument has no basis in reality. They are not building a military base moron, and your argument are nothing short of insane.

 

[Lao Tse]

Legal basis... your argument has no basis in reality. They are not building a military base moron, and your argument are nothing short of insane.

It is a defacto military base, though nobody will call it that due to political correctness.

My argument is reality. Your worldview is a mere approximation of reality, edited by globalists to pull the wool over your mentally subpar eyes.

An invasion is an invasion even if you refuse to recognize it as one.

an insane army of god is an insane army of god, even if you are in denial.

You be in denial. We will repel the invasion you can't see. We are justified in defending our nation. National defense is a function of our government.

 

[Timshel]

It is a defacto military base, though nobody will call it that due to political correctness.

Nobody will call it that due to sanity and the fact that it is not a military base. You are fucking bonkers. Usually your nonsense can be ignored as the delusional ramblings of a psychopath. But some conservatives, neocons, are trying to take these arguments from the fever swamps and make them mainstream.

 

[Lao Tse]

Nobody will call it that due to sanity and the fact that it is not a military base. You are fucking bonkers. Usually your nonsense can be ignored as the delusional ramblings of a psychopath. But some conservatives, neocons, are trying to take these arguments from the fever swamps and make them mainstream.

here's an opinion that's better than yours.

http://politicalbeachgirl.blogspot.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque-islamic-war-base-in.html
The proposed Islamic community center at Ground Zero is arguably the FIRST Islamic or Jihadist Military Installation or Military Strategic War Planning Base in America or on North America on a grand scale whose founders may get funding from Saudi Arabia as well as Iran and may even be able to get funding from American taxpayers because they would be "restoring" a building that is 100 or 150 years old. Not certain about that.
All I know is that Mr. Osama Obama would do all in his power to assist the Jihadists without seeming to do so with our American tax dollars.
After all, our very own State Department under the leadership of Hillary Clinton on orders from her leader is using American tax dollars to send Rauf to the Middle East and across the United States probably on a fact finding mission to see how Sharia-compliant we are, to determine more clearly our weaknesses, and to drum up recruits for jihad.
Look at the "Mosque at Ground Zero" as we would look at a military base we would build at a site where we had beaten an enemy in battle. Is it any different?
The attack of 9/11 is the worst attack our nation has sustained on our own soil but it will not be the last although for the life of me I don't see why the Islamists should attack us violently again when they are being so successful using our laws against us.
To the citizens of NYC and the tourists who may visit there, your mayor and other leaders have and are putting you at risk. If you don't believe me, wait and see.
Rauf should be deported or imprisoned on an island someplace but you have to hand it to him for his clear and far-sighted thinking. He and his buddies must be laughing all over themselves at our stupidity and our cowardice in the face of their prophet's admonitions to destroy the infidel. With our lack of working brain cells and lack of courage at the top, they have every reason to believe that Allah is on their side.

 

[Timshel]

here's an opinion that's better than yours.

Am I supposed to be impressed with the blog of some lunatic? Who cares, just another idiot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Am I supposed to be impressed with the blog of some lunatic? Who cares, just another idiot.

LOL... As opposed to an obscure political message board idiot?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

BS!

Oh, it's so hard to argue with your profound logic and wisdom! How could I possibly challenge that well-articulated rebuttal?

Show cause? What the fuck are you talking about? http://www.answers.com/topic/show-cause-order

You are misusing the term and pretending it means something it does not, moron. What you apparently mean is they have to have standing. Clearly, they would have standing. You are a fucking retarded if you think otherwise.

No, I am not misusing a term, you even provided a link to explain exactly what 'show cause' is. The State has the authority to seize the property under eminent domain. At that point, the Muslims would have to present a 'show cause' to the court, making the case for why they shouldn't be allowed to seize the property. You are claiming the show cause would be self-evident, and it never is. In fact, in this particular case, it would be very difficult to establish. Clearly to you, they have standing, but to a court, they would have to establish that.

Taking their property CANNOT be done without due process as it interferes with their property rights. It does affect the practice of their religion as they clearly intended to use the property for religious purposes.

It doesn't matter what they "clearly intended" in your viewpoint, moron! As I said, if your idea were valid, ANYONE who had their property seized under eminent domain, could start squealing about the supposed church they were "clearly intending" to build, and the ED would have to be overturned. Courts don't operate on your word, they operate on the facts surrounding the case, and previous legal precedent.

I seriously doubt the state would bother wasting the time of the court with idiotic arguments, when it is well established that they intended to use the property for religious purposes. In fact, in order to make the retarded compelling interest argument you advocate they would have to admit that.

Then you have no concept of how court cases work.

LOL. Legal precedents WILL apply. They always do. The Hialeah case is quite relevant, as it implies the courts will apply strict scrutiny.

The Hialeah case is even more relevant to your absurd sacrificing virgins example. Hialeah tried to make it illegal to sacrifice animals in a religious practice in order to stop the formation of a church of Santeria from entering the city. They tried to craft the law in a way that allowed for slaughter of animals so long as it was not part of a religious practice. That made the law religiously biased.

Is NYC making a law to allow something so long as it's not part of Islamic practice? I must have missed that, do you have some details? The way I see it, this case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the mosque at ground zero.

Red herring. You are trying to distract attention from the motivation behind what would be the STATE'S action. A property owners motivation will not receive nearly the same attention.

So the court, who is supposed to be fair and impartial, will automatically give more attention and weight to the motivations of one side over another? Uhm, where did you get such an insane and absurd notion regarding our justice system?

Neither the court nor the state have any real capacity to determine whether the mosque is being built as a Victory mosque or for the stated purposes of Park 51/Cordoba House. What determines that? At best, they MIGHT be able to determine that once the mosque goes into actual use. The state cannot punish people for what they THINK they are going to do. Especially, not on a first amendment issue.

No one is being punished, just denied a right to build in a certain location. And yes, the state and the court have all the capacity in the world to determine this, and prohibit it. You're just a hardheaded idiot.

However, the Victory Mosque argument is ridiculously absurd. The building would be separated physically and visually by two city blocks and would not be visible from the site of Ground Zero. I would guess if it were meant for some religious symbol of victory then it would ONLY be a mosque. Instead it is planned as little more than a Y with a prayer room.

You know, I keep hearing you shitstains yammer about this mosque not being "AT" ground zero, because it's two blocks away. I don't know if you hicks have ever been to lower Manhattan, but two blocks ain't that far away. In fact, as has been pointed out, the actual building standing at that location, was damaged by falling wreckage from Mohamed Atta's "victory missile" so this site is a literal 'war memorial' for alQaeda. Now, I would LOVE to submit testimony from those who were in this general location when those towers fell, who would argue that they were certainly AT ground zero, but the problem is, all that is left to those people is their body parts.

 

[Cypress]

Hilarious! Once you have wingnuts reduced to groveling and babbling about muslim invasions of America, and a community center in Manhattan being used as a clandestine weapons depot, then liberals and sane libertarians have intellectually demolished the bigots.


Good job, Rstringfield. You've managed to reduce the jpp.com bigot cabal to a babbling pile of jello, yelping out preposterous nonsense about invasions and weapons depots. It usually doesn't get any better than this! It's on a par with the demolition of the Climate Gate anti-science Clowns


.

 

[Lao Tse]

Am I supposed to be impressed with the blog of some lunatic? Who cares, just another idiot.

She can merely see Islam clearly, unlike you, who views things through the prism of your anti-american hatred.

These people are all tied to the muslim brotherhood, a terrorist organization. Look it up. You're in denial.

You need to be reprogrammed to see the world clearly.

Wafa Sultan’s message to America

Under Islamic sharia, a woman is not considered a free being. She is mentally unfit to decide her own life.

Dr. Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-born, American psychiatrist famous for her blistering critique of Islam in a debate with a Muslim cleric first aired on al-Jazeera television in 2006. The video of this controversial chastisement was posted online and has been seen by millions of people worldwide. So popular was this courageous and passionate exposé that TIME magazine voted Dr. Sultan one of the world’s 100 most influential people of that year.

Dr. Sultan is also a co-founder of the American human rights group Former Muslims United, whose members include other important ex-Muslim activists such Nonie Darwish and Amil Imani, along with other brave souls. One of the main purposes of FMU is to ensure that Muslim apostates are protected under U.S. law, which charges people with murder who kill other human beings, regardless of their faith or non-belief. Unfortunately, according to the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, apostates from Islam can be murdered freely and legally—and many of the Muslim faithful have been taught to believe this slaughter is necessary, according to “God’s law.”

Former Muslims United also educates the public as to other threats to their basic human rights and freedoms under Islamic or sharia law, which is being pushed in non-Muslim countries around the world. One look at the kingdom of Saudi Arabia reveals the fundamentalist Islamic state under sharia law—and this way of life is being exported globally along with an agenda to compel sharia law upon the non-Muslim population as well. Along with sharia comes apostate murder, legal wife beatings, “honor killings,” child marriages, public beheadings, stonings and hangings, limb amputations, discrimination against and forced covering up of women, as well as other brutal and harsh atrocities and mistreatments of human beings.
dr. wafa sultan book god who hates evils of islam

Wafa Sultan is an active and courageous critic of Islam at its fundamental core, which includes not only sharia law but also violent exhortations within the Koran/Quran itself. For her vitally important work helping preserve democratic and free society, Dr. Sultan lives under a constant security threat. In order to tell her story and spread her message, she has a new book out explaining the quagmire in which much of the world finds itself currently sinking, A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam. She has kindly agreed to an interview with me here on Examiner.com about her life and mission.

D.M Murdock: Dr. Sultan, thank you for honoring us with this interview. You are a courageous woman for doing what you do. The first question is, have you personally received any threats against you for your work exposing the problems with Islamic law and tradition? Are any of these threats specifically because of your very public apostasy from Islam? How has your life been impacted by these threats?

Wafa Sultan: I receive death threats on a daily basis. I’m a well-known writer in the Arab world. My writings expose me to millions of devout Muslims who have nothing positive to prove but the sheer cruelty of their teachings. Islam has deprived them of their intellectual ability to face criticism with an effective and acceptable way.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hilarious! Once you have wingnuts reduced to groveling and babbling about muslim invasions of America, and a community center in Manhattan being used as a clandestine weapons depot, then liberals and sane libertarians have intellectually demolished the bigots.


Good job, Rstringfield. You've managed to reduce the jpp.com bigot cabal to a babbling pile of jello, yelping out preposterous nonsense about invasions and weapons depots. It usually doesn't get any better than this! It's on a par with the demolition of the Climate Gate anti-science Clowns


.

What's most hilarious is, if you had told me in 2008, that Democrats would try to run in the midterms, on a message of 'religious tolerance' against the right, I would have thought you were either insane, or on drugs. I mean seriously, you guys have really scraped the bottom of the idea barrel on this one. This mosque idea is so nutty Howard Dean can't support it! It's so politically suicidal, Harry Reid nearly broke his neck to speak out against it. Yet here you pinheads are in all your intellectually naked glory, vigorously campaigning on the message of religious tolerance against the right!

People want to know where the jobs are! People want to know what the fuck happened to their 401k? They damn sure don't give a shit about being lectured by atheist fucktards about religious tolerance!

 

[Cypress]

What's most hilarious is, if you had told me in 2008, that Democrats would try to run in the midterms, on a message of 'religious tolerance' against the right, I would have thought you were either insane, or on drugs. I mean seriously, you guys have really scraped the bottom of the idea barrel on this one. This mosque idea is so nutty Howard Dean can't support it! It's so politically suicidal, Harry Reid nearly broke his neck to speak out against it. Yet here you pinheads are in all your intellectually naked glory, vigorously campaigning on the message of religious tolerance against the right!

People want to know where the jobs are! People want to know what the fuck happened to their 401k? They damn sure don't give a shit about being lectured by atheist fucktards about religious tolerance!

Your arguments don't pass the laugh test; they can't even be taken seriously. They're barely a notch above trolling. It strains the outer limits of credulity to babble about this community center being used as a clandestine weapons depot or a terrorist training center. Its just embarrassing, man, when you bigots say shit like that.

As for elections - why are you so obsessed with how this helps or hurts the republicans? I haven't thought for one nanosecond about how it could hurt or help the democrats. I don't give a shit about that. I don't give a crap if only ten percent of people agree with me. I'm saying what I personally think - that your crusade against the ground zero mosque community center is an orchestrated media frenzy, engineered by NeoCons and bigots, to caricature and discriminate against muslims. Which I personally find offensive, because american minorities shouldn't have to cave to bigots.

I get it man. I know exactly which side the rightwing was on during the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, and the gay rights movement. This is par for the course.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your arguments don't pass the laugh test; they can't even be taken seriously. They're barely a notch above trolling. It strains the outer limits of credulity to babble about this community center being used as a clandestine weapons depot or a terrorist training center. Its just embarrassing, man, when you bigots say shit like that.

As for elections - why are you so obsessed with how this helps or hurts the republicans? I haven't thought for one nanosecond about how it could hurt or help the democrats. I don't give a shit about that. I don't give a crap if only ten percent of people agree with me. I'm saying what I personally think - that your crusade against the ground zero mosque community center is an orchestrated media frenzy, engineered by NeoCons and bigots, to caricature and discriminate against muslims. Which I personally find offensive, because american minorities shouldn't have to cave to bigots.

I get it man. I know exactly which side the rightwing was on during the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, and the gay rights movement. This is par for the course.

I've never claimed the mosque would be used as a weapons center or terrorist training camp, statement such as that, do not exist from me. However, the icon would indeed be used as a recruiting tool for radical Islam, even the moderate Muslims attest to that, which is why they are also opposed. You fuckwads act like it's just a bunch of redneck red-staters who oppose the mosque, but it's nearly 3/4ths of the country.... and they mostly think you are fucking insane! Including the Senate Majority Leader and Democratic Party Chairman!

And Prissy, don't even try to go there with your bullshit about not caring what happens in the election, that's all you fucking koolaid-drinking idiots live and breathe, is your precious political power. You would turn your own mothers over to alQaeda for beheading, if you thought it would win you an election!

 

[zoombwaz]

I've been contemplating this for a few days now. We recently had a SCOTUS ruling, which allows corporations to make political contributions, under the 1st amendment protections of free speech. Pinheads screamed and moaned about this, as you will recall. They questioned the wisdom of bestowing "human rights" or more appropriately, individual constitutional rights, on corporate entities. They've argued up, down, and sideways, that this was never intended by the founding fathers, and is an affront to our democratic system.

Fast forward to the mosque issue, where they are now standing with a "corporate entity" (the people building the mosque) and claiming their 1st amendment rights are being violated. I don't understand this contradiction, I thought "corporations" weren't supposed to have the same rights as individuals?

Now I'm sure they will argue this group doesn't 'qualify' as a 'corporation' but the funding for this project is not being provided by an individual, and this is not an individual's project, it's a group or organization. Why is one such entity entitled to full constitutional rights, and another similar entity isn't?

You are a fool. The first amendment right in question is religious freedom, not free speech. And the citizens United ruling had nothing to do with free speech, since money is not speech, and never has been. The ruling cited as the basis for this money=speech bullshit, had that conflation not in the majority opinion nor in he dissenting opinion. It was not a justice who wrote that idiocy, but a law clerk who inserted his own opinion in the introductory statement to the ruling.

In politics, money is not speech. It is bribery, plain and simple, and the 5 reactionary, right-wing, corporate whores making up the majority on the SCOTUS have just legalized corporate bribery of elected officials. Good job, assholes.