why would so called conspiracy theorists try to prove that it was hoax? If that was true then their should be no flaws... WTB Iraqi mass weapons of destruction. Atleast in the reign of Sadam people were not getting killed. Now look at Iraq, They have brought democracy or destruction? 3000 vs 300,000 NiCE jOKE.
Pathetic video Americans 9/11 is 24/7 of People of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine. How stupid. When they weep you enjoy and rejoice and sleep. Why America? so called world protector have declared war against almost each and every country that opposes its might? Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Wht's wrong with these countries? Just because they want to live independently? Which country spends much money on military half of which if spent in Africa whole AIDS can be ended. Its hypocrisy
@burnyourcrutch Only stupid and illiterate Follow Mullah, i am sorry to say , we Muslims have Quran to follow, We say kafir to those who don't believe or associate partners with One God. Kafir means infidels. Islam Testifies and confirms the religions of Jesus, Abraham, Moses and David but strictly rejects the idea that any of these are God. According to Quran every man that came up with word of God was a Human, no more than that.
@lovellespice ok but i challenge you sir, Jesus in whole bible never claim divinity. He was a servant and an apostle of God. One should know the difference between apostle and prophet. Peace be upon him.
@lovellespice i have watch their debate and i do respect WLC but as i said his theories are same as ordinary christians but i am a Muslim and i can very easily answer them. like God is Love and his reply that Islam says GoD do not love etc.
@lovellespice love is an attribute of God. He is all loving BUT he is all Just too. He will not give up his other attributes for loving. This is major misconception of Christianity. A judge will never forgive a person because he loves the other one. He will be considered best judge if he leaves his loving nature n do justice. We are being taught that He can forgive the crimes we have done related to Him like not worshipping but not those committed by us to other Humans and on our own body.
@lovellespice so i differ with you, Islam is best but Muslims do not represent what Islam is now a days otherwise we would be living in a diff world. I Would love if you watch this Pure history and clips taken from two movies made by non muslims. This is pure history. watch?v=ex5Szpi_cNA
Religious people are building a building they have the right to build. And Craig's narative seemed pretty on point.
This is all just being dressed up to put the US into another goddamned war in the middle east for the fucking Jews and Saudis. The fucking sand tribe Saudis and the racist Jews. GREAT. MORE WAR. FOR SHIT 98% OF THIS COUNTRY COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT REALLY. Bravo Christianity, bravo. Let's all go save the master race in the middle east, oops, I mean "God's chosen people."
I wish Craig had used his position as a Christian leader, his bully pulpit you could say, to entreat all Christians to allow Park51 to be built as a gesture of goodwill and American unity.
The community center will have a 9/11 memorial in it. The "mosque" part is only a prayer room. And Muslims were also among the victims in 9/11. One of the major opponents of this initiative (SIOA) also opposed mosques in Staten Island, Brooklyn, and as far away as Tennessee and Wisconsin. It seems for these people, it is not about the location. they are just plain old bigoted.
All religion is disgusting to me. I am absolutely unwilling to compromise on that point. Some people are so smitten with gullibility, superstition, pretentiousness, etcetera regarding the claims of their religion that I cannot help but indict them as people I do not like, in spite of their other potential qualities.
But alas, freedom of religious expression/exercise is as important as free speech. There must be no legal restrictions to the C.C's construction.
Craig's hyperbole does not change the character of the construction of the Mosque in that place. It is in very poor taste. It is something that Its builders have the right to do, but it is wrong that they do so.
Will I tolerate it? Of course, and I would have no abuse of the law stop it, but I will not like it. I will speak against it.
@theowarner Why, Theo, is it in poor taste? Draw a square 6"x6" on a sheet of tracing paper. Go over a couple of inches and put a mark there. That will fit up nicely with the plans for the planned Cordoba Mosque. Use that scale for, let's say a German cultural center next to Auschwitz. Now this center is headed by a man that has clearly and repeatedly stated that what happened to the Jews at the hands of the Third Reich was caused by them, as Imam Rauf has said of the USA via 9-11.
Prefectly reasonable response. I have some equally sensible suggestions.
No farming or agriculture related industry should ever be allowed to set up offices in downtown oklahoma because Timothy McVeigh used explosives manufactured from manure in his 1995 bombing.
Or why not suggest that it's in poor taste for someone to open a security supply store stocking a large quantity of handcuffs, batons and tasers in south central LA because of the 1992 Rodney King case
The ludicrous nature of each argument I made was meant to be evident to you..
Clearly it's silly to suggest that we show disdain for any group that is exercising it's rights, just as any group we belong to might, simply because of a common characteristic shared between them and some individuals who have legitimately done something distasteful and therefore worthy of disdain.
What you seem to be willfully ignorant of is that is precisely what you were doing.
@JebusGeist You say, "Clearly it's silly to suggest that we show disdain for any group that is exercising it's rights..." I find that unsustainable. Just so for Nazi parades, Clan rallies, or the building of Mosques by groups, headed by individuals that hold the US responsible for 9/11, so close to the spot of the attack. I do not suggest a suspension of any of those three actions, but disdain, yes it is an reasonable response.
"Clearly it's silly to suggest that we show disdain for any group that is exercising it's rights, just as any group we belong to might, simply because of a common characteristic shared between them and some individuals who have legitimately done something distasteful and therefore worthy of disdain."
There's a very important qualifier which you left out when you quote mined, both examples given absolutely require members to support racial supremacy, see "legitimately... distasteful"
@pumkinpi2 - I thought theowarner explained it very lucidly and eloquently when he differentiated between Muslim terrorists - Al Qaeda for example - and other non-violent Muslims. Why would you speak agains non-violent Muslims building a mosque? Unless, of course, you are simply intolerant to all of Islam...
I agree with the president that it is the Muslim community's right to build a Mosque wherever they please in accordance with local law. However, because of the fact Muslim extremists killed so many at Ground Zero, that building a Muslim place of worship right next to it seems to be in bad taste. While those behind the project may not view it as a "monument of victory", undoubtedly there are those extremists who will. I do hope those responsible for the project will bear this in mind.
[60:8] GOD does not forbid you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.
[60:9] GOD forbids you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.
@theowarner Sure I do. A plain reading of the Qu'ran/Bible SHOULD lead one to the conclusion that the Qu'ran/Bible cannot be the word of Allah/God. Nevertheless, the verses I posted plainly state that Muslims may befriend non-Muslims as opposed to those that say Muslims must convert or kill all non-Muslims, i.e., Muslims must terrorize.
@theowarner Because that will give one an understanding of what is being conveyed without unnecessary enhanced elaboration. And it comes in handy when debating Muslims/Christians.
(Surah Al-Imaran, Verse 85): And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
(Surah Al-Mumtahinah, Verse 13): O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath of Allâh (i.e. the Jews). Surely, they have despaired of the Hereafter, just as the disbelievers have despaired of those in graves (that they will not be resurrected).
@Wrath0fKhan Verse 85 is no better or worse than the New Testament. In verse 13 you added "i.e. the Jews", i.e., unnecessary enhanced elaboration.
Moreover, Israel has evicted many Muslims from their homes. Therefore, in the eyes of Muslims, Israel is not to be befriended. I wouldn't befriend someone who evicted me from my home, would you?
There are many possible interpretations of the NT. The Christians dont force me to live as a "dhimmi". We cant say this about like-minded people who are forced into "dhimmitude" by Muslims (who obviously follow these Quranic and Prophetic instructions in detail). Already forgot about the "never-clause"?
"added"
No. I didnt add anything. The source Im using is the following one:
Possibly. However, Egypt and Jordan singed peace treaties with Israel and seemed to have been quite committed since then.
"I wouldnt befriend .. would you"
I would. Why not. Look at the historic example of Czechoslovakia and the so called Sudeten Germans and Slovakian Hungarians (in connection with the so called Benes Decrees). Nowadays we all have better relationships than ever before.
@Wrath0fKhan There are many possible interpretations of the Qu'ran. Not too long ago Christians held slaves. Is the "dhimmi" any worse? Which "never-clause"?
Well, since I don't read Arabic, I can't say who's translation is correct. At best we have a contradiction. Go figure.
Fact is, Israel is occupying the West Bank and has a stranglehold on Gaza. Are they required to concede?
I wouldn't befriend them because they kicked me out of my home, that's why not. I would try to take my home back.
@Wrath0fKhan "Which Christians?" "But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense,. . ." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362).
Again, nothing of this is relevant in "our" case. Especially not if we compare the "state of affairs" in Europe to the "state of affairs" in, lets say, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.
"If you say so"
If I say so? I gave you "quite valid" historic examples (which you can easily verify) and all you did was complaining and invoking a "rebellion".
@Wrath0fKhan How did we get from arguing the Qu'ran to this? The Qu'ran says Muslims may befriend those not fighting them for religion, or those not evicting them from their homes, yes or no? It further states that Muslims are only prohibited from befriending those that fight them because of religion, evict them from their homes, and band together with others to banish them, yes or no?
Yea. It does. Yet it as well says other "things", too. E.g. those I was referring to, whereby you started "your excursus".
"only prohibited"
I disagree with such a statement.
"eviction .. banish them"
Islam is like a one way street. The Muhammadans kicked out all the "practically" native Jews and Christians from the Arabian peninsula. Those events are cryptically mentioned in the Quran and described in more detail in the Sunnah. →
→ Imagine "we" (as the hypothetical distant cultural and biological ancestors) would start a reconquest of the Arabian Peninsula. Wouldnt that be much fun? (What a load of nonsense, of course.)
You made a crucial mistake by quoting the Quran (fallaciously). You need to improve your "Quranic quoting game" - literally. I guess, you still dont get it. :)
Thats impossible to do by using this particular format of communication. Besides, the deeper we would go, the language barrier would quite likely become an issue. My options/abilities in this field are (unfortunately) still quite limited.
"dont get"
I think its quite a lot what you dont seem to get. Maybe if you looked into the details, read a couple of books like historic Islamic literature (Hadith, Tafsir, Sirah, Fiqh, etc.), you would get a better overall picture.
@Wrath0fKhan "Impossible" How about a PM. This can't be that difficult.
"lot I don't get"
Sure, I don't know everything. I know that all religions are bogus. I am sure that the history of Islam is full of violence. The history of humanity is full of violence. Jews and Christians were and are violent.
Anyway, I still want to know what it is I don't get. PM me if need be.
What you need to do is to start reading the mentioned literary forms. It doesnt make sense to me to start writing here essays about Islam. Neither can I do it properly, since my options are quite limited. (Which of course doesnt mean it was impossible for me to get acquainted with the relevant content.)
"religions are bogus"
Perhaps...
"J .. violent"
Perhaps. Yet despite all our western and in general human flaws we can measure certain economic, social and scientific achievements.
Thats the problem. It was a "different kind" of Islam. One that had to be abolished, since it didnt respect the prophetic traditions and (under the bottom line) was at (intellectual) war with the wisdom of revelation. This is what people dont seem to appreciate. Its obvious too that NO knew knowledge is being created at the "madaris". Looks like youve fallen into the same trap.
I see. Well, what can I say. Not much. Perhaps its (because of) people like "you" why there is no peace "down there" and its (because of) people like "me" why there is peace "up here".
If it only was as simple as that, right? 1920 it were the "Muftis henchmen" attacking the (at that time non-Zionist) Old Yishuv (and not vice versa). Yet I dont expect you to be well versed in all the peculiarities of this "delicate" matter of inquiry.
"disturber of peace .. take it back"
Again, I dont see Germans taking back the Sudeten, nor the Hungarians the so called Great Rye Island.
"Western"
Indeed. Especially the "drive" to establish a national state.
When you say "Old Yishuv" you mean the indigenous Jews? And you further mean that there was no immigration going on at this time? And what about the Palin Report?
If you dont know what "Old Yishuv" is about, then perhaps its really time to catch up.
"no .. going on"
Of course there was immigration going on. At that particular time the immigration was going on quite "sloppy" though. What is more striking thats the stats of Arab population, which document a 100% increase in the following 20 years. Despite all the tensions, the conditions must have been quite favorable.
Last but not least, if "the Saudi" source seems to be too hard of a bite for you, maybe you will look up some (of the) generally accepted Tafsir provided by the Jordanian "Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought".
Americans want that mosque to be built, American Muslims. It is not "on ground zero" but a few blocks away. The Imam that helped the Bush administration's counter-terrorism efforts, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the guy building it. The entire controversy surrounding this is nothing more than a cynical ploy by sleazy political hacks to manipulate the masses.
@TarrandFether I'm an American first and an atheist second. The law of our country states that people have a right to practice whatever religion they want to. This isn't a mosque, it's not on "sacred ground", and it's run by moderates not hardliners. I don't like Islam for a number of reasons but we as a nation become no worse than Saudi Arabia when we tell people who and what and where they can worship.
@theowarner While it should be said that those who support terrorism are the Islamic far right and believe the Qu'ran literally, it is important that there is considerable support for terrorist acts in the Muslim world. The Islamic far right makes up a large section of the current population in Muslim countries. And it is also notable that other factors outside of religion (economics, politics) play a tiny role at best in explaining Muslim terrorism. These are distinctions worth remembering.
@theowarner Clearly the mosque should be built but I disagree with the thinking that the Qu'ran doesn't, at the very least, condone what we would call terrorist acts, as does the Bible (with the large exception of no imaginable support for suicide bombing).
Both clearly promote the murder of all who are not believers, or those who shield them, but the major difference is that Christianity has yielded to the forces of secularism over the centuries and Islam hasn't yet done the same. (cont.)
My problem is with the word "clearly." That's a word which speaks to interpretation and that means that you're suggesting that that interpretation is the most clear. I would say that other interpretations are simply more clearly not about murder.
@theowarner Of course you could say, and many do say, that all those passages which say that are metaphorical but it is clear and that's why a metaphorical interpretation is needed.
But I understand your point. I just think if you are going to say, for example, that explicit commands of law in the Pentateuch aren't clear then what is clear? Of course you can say it's not clear, and they have every right to interpret it differently, but I don't think that makes it any less clear.
Good video, but I still disagree that the Mosque should be built there. IF this were simply a Mosque that happens to be near the 9/11 site I would have no objection whatsoever, but that is not the case. The location was in fact chosen specifically because of it proximity to the 9/11 site. In addition the original name of the Mosque was Cordoba House. Now that may have simply been a VERY POOR choice of a name, but it certainly looks otherwise, and understandably appears intentionally provocative.
What's wrong with building a mosque specifically because of its proximity to the World Trade Center? Muslims can't recognize the tragedy of September 11? And they can't build a mosque there where a tragedy occurred?
And as for Cordoba -- I don't know why that name was used. Or what it's connotations are supposed to me.
-What's wrong with building a mosque specifically because of its proximity to the World Trade Center?
What's wrong with building a McDonalds in a cemetery, or a church on the site of a bombed out abortion clinic where the bomber was in part inspired by religion. First of all even if it's meant in the most positive way it's exploiting the site for propaganda. Secondly a Mosque is a monument to religion which in part inspired the extremists.
I wanted to add I would oppose equally a church intentionally being built near the site because I think it would be both a propaganda ploy (as is the Mosque). Would against be a monument to religion which in part inspired the terrorists, and because it would likely be seen as an insult to Muslims.
As to your two examples, cemeteries are solemn places. Typically, there are restaurants there. That's why.
As for the church at the site of the former clinic, nothing. I think that that's a good place for a church, actually. Tragedies are good places for religion to practice.
-As to your two examples, cemeteries are solemn places.
So you concede, and we agree that there are certain places where certain things shouldn't be built. The difference we seem to have is only one of personal preference as to what we consider solemn, or appropriate.
Well, maybe. I'm thinking about. I think I would think a McDonald's in a cemetery would be out of place but I can't think of reason why I would object to it. It does seem to contrast with solemnity but solemnity is a very individual thing. Who's to say where solemnity comes from or how we establish it?
What if it was a cemetery where many McDonald's employees were buried for some reason? Weird concept.
@TheNakedAtheist "First of all even if it's meant in the most positive way it's exploiting the site for propaganda." It is not close enough to Ground Zero for that to apply. Also, I don't think there's anything that they could put at ground zero that wouldn't be liable to this criticism. I think businesses are just as bad because business are all about advertising and making money, which is something that I think is not worthy of being at a sacred place either.
-It is not close enough to Ground Zero for that to apply.
Tell that to Daisy Khan (wife of the Iman promoting the Mosque) who among others on the board say they specifically chose the Burlington Coat factory BECAUSE it was damaged on 9/11, and condemned as a result.
-I don't think there's anything that they could put at ground zero that wouldn't be liable to this criticism.
I agree, but I couldn't imagine a corporation building there without community input, or against their wishes.
@TheNakedAtheist I think the important part of that sentence is the fact that it was condemned, and therefore would have to be rebuilt anyway. For that reason I don't think the proximity to ground zero is important, I think it's the fact that it was damaged. Obviously it has to be close to be damaged as a result, but it doesn't sound like they just picked the closest building they could find or that proximity was their chief concern.
Again you're missing my point this was not a Mosque that just happens to be near the 9/11 site. It's a Mosque that was conceived of specifically to be built near the site. That was it's selling point when it was pitched to potential investors. It wouldn't be being built otherwise.
-And as for Cordoba -- I don't know why that name was used.
At BEST it was used because the someone hadn't properly researched the fact that it was named after a Mosque that was built in celebration of the Moors making Cordoba their capital on the site of a former Christians church, at worst the person who came up with the idea had the intent of it symbolizing victory over Christianity.
@theowarner Cordoba was a center of worship in Spain that was originally a Visigoth Cathedral, then a Mosque when it was captured by the Muslims, then turned back into a cathedral in 1236 C.E. of which it has been ever since. People like to think that the Cordoba reference brings to mind Muslim conquest but they do this not realizing that Europe was spreading Christianity by the point of a sword no different than the Muslim world was doing.
i think you should watch thunderf00ts two videos about this.
i think they should be allowed to build that mosque, but given that non-muslims are not even allowed to visit the holy place they pray to and how intolerant that religion tends to be it is a display of highest levels of hypocrisy to build that mosque. it will cause a backlash, it will invite criticism, and i personally hope and think they deserve a non-violent backlash to this in the media.
I know it wasn't your point and you know it. I was mocking you analogy because it was poor and mis-formulated. Also, it was not a defense of the point you are trying to make.
You can explain ideas about purity and cleanliness and religious observation and present that in very positive terms. Likewise, Catholics don't allow the non-baptized to partake of communion. This can be respected.
Your can make your antagonistic, broken analogies that invite my mockery.
Hardly. It was to show that certain forms of exclusion are justified depending on the intention and circumstance. Analogies are never meant to be carbon copies of that which they represent...they are simply meant to address the absurdity of a particular objection or to expound on something that is not entirely clear to begin with.
then he should have known that states like Connecticut had official state religions, or that Church services were held in the Capitol at the time of ratification.
I recall a similar misuse of the word "tolerance" from the UK back when Blair was still Prime Minister. He gave, what I thought, was a draw-dropping speech, in which he reprimanded Muslim women who chose to wear the Burka. A "symbol" of separation he called it. He claimed that these women should learn Western tolerance by not wearing the Burka, because it made people uncomfortable.
The reason we are talking about this is all about timing. The elections are less then 3 months away. The economy is 'sort of' looking like it is turning around & the GOP needs a solid issue to gin up passion of their base.
This 'Mosque' has been on the books for awhile now. Notice we went from 0 to 60 almost overnight on this. This is nothing more then the latest wedge issue that I GUARANTEE will be forgotten by Christmas.
Great vid Theo. Perhaps the title should be; WLC is not tolerant :)
How about we pass a law that no christian church can be built within several kilometers of a Planned Parenthood center that's been bombed or otherwise attacked by a christian fundie.
im neutral in terms of a racial dispute on this subject as im british but it is clearly evident that the project will cause offense to more people if it is undertaken than if it was abolished and there is nothing stopping the leaders of the project from moving it elsewhere
You are mistaken in thinking that William Lane Craig is a Biblical literalist. He's always talking about the origin of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
Every time she opens her mouth, Sarah Palin makes me cringe to be an Alaskan...
For the record, every sane Alaskan (even those in the republican party) totally disowns that camera whoring little bitch. Only the insane and the backwater hicks with inferiority complexes from her hometown of Wasilla support her.
@sammcalpine - I got this feeling that you're one of those hypocrites that spent the $2000/year oil-profit dividend that Sarah Palin championed and won for Alaskans and you probably blew the $1200 special windfall tax on oil companies that she again championed and won for you. I highly doubt you returned those checks to her saying "no thanks, I hate your whiny camera-whoring guts". Nope, I bet you wasted that money on hookers and booze. What else is there in Alaska to spend your money on?
That's hilarious given that the dividend has been being paid since she was in High School. Do some research, think for yourself, and try not to make yourself look like a fool.
@TheNakedAtheist - No actually with her ACES initiative it was increased to $2000. and what, no comment on the special $1200 oil-company royalties that she got for every tax payer of Alaska? Admit it, you guys can't stand her becasue deep down, you're really just sexists. How dare she even attempt to do a man's job right? The audacity of her to think of being a vice-president when that's a mans job, eh?
Sorry wrong again. There was a ONE TIME $1200 windfall in 2008 which made that years dividend $2000. It was also near $2000 from 1998-2001. The $1200 windfall had nothing to do with Palin (other than her having signed the bill as governor) I'll ignore, and forgive your ridiculous ad hom as I would any child throwing a tantrum.
you have no idea how ignorant you sound. If you'd like a crash course in the reality of Alaska politics I'd be happy to talk with you on skype. In the meantime you can read about the Alaska State Permanent Fund Dividend (which Sarah had absolutely nothing to do with) on wikipedia. There you will find that the annual amount averages far less than $2000 and that the one time $1200 additional payment in 2008 was authorized by the Alaska legislature, not your dear Sarah Palin.
@sammcalpine - Wow, do you always blow this much smoke up people's asses? So you're trying to tell me that the legislature of Alaska just does whatever it wants without the signature of the governor? That would go against your Alaskan constitution.
And I did double check, both the tax foundation dawt org and forbes say that you're full of crap.
See keep making fun of the camera whore while ole Barry Seotoro, the real camera whore, is stickiing it in your butt.
@sammcalpine - That she championed and got the legislature to approve, for her to sign, the $1200 additional refund to taxpayers in 2008. It was called the ACES program and it was her design. I even factchecked it using your own liberal website. so now answer the question, are you a hypocrite or did you return the check?
refund? taxpayers? No. The payment came from the Alaska Permanent Fund. It was payed to ALL Alaskan residents because the Permanent Fund belongs to Alaska and its residents. The legislature was already considering an additional payment to help support rural residents who were suffering from high energy costs that year. Yeah, Sarah made a lot of noise about it. Yeah she DID HER JOB and signed it. But Alaska residents don't owe her anything for giving us our own money.
@sammcalpine - Last time I'll explain it to the kiddos. This is from Factcheck dawt org
"The Alaska Legislature adopted a plan proposed by Palin in 2007 (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share) that raised the tax that oil companies have to pay on their profits from a base rate of 22.5 percent to 25 percent. The revenue generated from the tax increase, which significantly added to the state’s budget surplus, allowed Palin’s administration... (Con't)
@thereprieve ...to issue a one time "resource rebate" of $1,200 to eligible state residents in 2008 to help with increasing energy prices"
Revenue generated from a tax increase. What part of tax don't you understand? What part of "you wouldn't have it if it weren't for her" don't you understand?
@sammcalpine - Yeah right. when a liberal quotes factcheck it's like having the inerrant word of God in their hands. When a conservative quotes them, they're wrong and don't check their facts. I'm done with you. You are so deep in your own liberalism that you'll lie to make Palin look bad.
dude, I'm not a liberal. I'm an Alaskan. I could care less about factcheck 'dawt' org and I've never in my life quoted them. As an Alaskan (who is very familiar with the operation of the Permanent Fund) I am telling you that ACES and the Resource Rebate are completely unconnected.
How does it make Sarah Palin 'look bad' to point out this fact? It doesn't. It only undermines your specific argument that I somehow "owe" Sarah Palin for giving me that which was mine to begin.
ACES is a tax initiative relating to the taxes that the oil companies pay for operating in Alaska. This $1200 that you are so bent about was called the Alaska Resource Rebate, was payed from the Alaska Permanent Fund, and has nothing, NOTHING to do with oil taxes. These are two completely separate issues.
Skype me and let's chat before you display your ignorance even further.
you will also find (if you bother to read) that the permanent fund is not generated from taxes on oil companies but from royalties (i.e. the money which oil companies pay to the State to purchase it's oil) as well as from investment revenues from those royalties.
It only confirms my disdain that the little camera whore receives credit where it is not due from ignorant fellows like yourself who will believe anything the Fox Propaganda Corporation and friends put out.
@sammcalpine - I'll bet what really bothers you is the new ethics rules she put in place. Can't have ethics up there where the men are men and the women are easily replaced by elk. Oh and cutting government spending... yeah, you're right, she's such a horrible governor.
and that whole ACES that increased income from taxes on oil-companies... God, she's so horrible. the disgrace.
@thereprieve - But I'm guessing that you spent that $1200 bucks right? Be honest, you didn't send it back to her like you should have to avoid being a hypocrite.
dude, SHE didn't send me $1200. As a resident of Alaska, the PermanentFund is MY property. You understand? It's public property belonging to the citizens of Alaska.
Sarah Palin doesn't own it, she didn't champion it, she has nothing to do with it other than that, she happened to sign a single bill (which was her job either to sign or veto) which the Alaska legislature passed authorizing a one time additional payment.
No, I don't feel bad about spending it, it was my money.
@sammcalpine - Apparently you flunked math class. You have a $175,000/year job but it costs you half a million every 8 months to fight the liberal weenies that kept her in court. Which she won every single time. How could she get any work done as governor?
my question is how far from Ground Zero need the Muslims move their planned construction for it not to offend? I think that the answer for people like Palin and Craig is over the Atlantic Ocean into the Middle East, taking with them all their fellow Muslims....what ugly people.
Is it still suggested that Muslims are their own race, or that people simply dislike arabs and do not want them to build their islamic buildings in the west, and this is all hatred (aka racism)?
The trap is somewhere else. Moderate Islam does not exist. Neither does moderate Sharia exist. So called moderate Muslims only make room (willingly, unwillingly, knowingly, unknowingly) allowing "hardliners" to spread Islam as it was divinely commanded and as it supposed to be implemented all over the world. This is a "field lesson" from Europe...
why would so called conspiracy theorists try to prove that it was hoax? If that was true then their should be no flaws... WTB Iraqi mass weapons of destruction. Atleast in the reign of Sadam people were not getting killed. Now look at Iraq, They have brought democracy or destruction? 3000 vs 300,000 NiCE jOKE.
flexpape 4 months ago
Pathetic video Americans 9/11 is 24/7 of People of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine. How stupid. When they weep you enjoy and rejoice and sleep. Why America? so called world protector have declared war against almost each and every country that opposes its might? Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Wht's wrong with these countries? Just because they want to live independently? Which country spends much money on military half of which if spent in Africa whole AIDS can be ended. Its hypocrisy
flexpape 4 months ago
@burnyourcrutch Only stupid and illiterate Follow Mullah, i am sorry to say , we Muslims have Quran to follow, We say kafir to those who don't believe or associate partners with One God. Kafir means infidels. Islam Testifies and confirms the religions of Jesus, Abraham, Moses and David but strictly rejects the idea that any of these are God. According to Quran every man that came up with word of God was a Human, no more than that.
flexpape 4 months ago
@burnyourcrutch
So... lets say, hypothetically, that park51 contained not only Muslim prayer spaces but also Christian and Jewish prayer spaces?
Would Park51 still be a monument to bigotry and intolerance?
blackplatypus 9 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig Is Not A Playlist
@burnyourcrutch Thanks for clarifying.
theowarner 9 months ago
@burnyourcrutch
Are you suggesting that Islam is intrinsically bigoted? Or that all Muslims are bigots?
theowarner 9 months ago
@theowarner islam is bigoted, muslims are generally nice people ;) lol
lovellespice 4 months ago
@lovellespice i am sorry i disagree, Islam is submitting will to God , some Muslims are bigoted and most of west is bigoted.
flexpape 4 months ago
@flexpape ok, watch william lane craig's debate with badawi :)
lovellespice 4 months ago
@lovellespice ok but i challenge you sir, Jesus in whole bible never claim divinity. He was a servant and an apostle of God. One should know the difference between apostle and prophet. Peace be upon him.
flexpape 4 months ago
@lovellespice btw i have a respect for WLC because he believes in God.
flexpape 4 months ago
@flexpape then you'd respect him even more in his debate with badawi. watch.
lovellespice 4 months ago
@lovellespice i have watch their debate and i do respect WLC but as i said his theories are same as ordinary christians but i am a Muslim and i can very easily answer them. like God is Love and his reply that Islam says GoD do not love etc.
flexpape 4 months ago
@flexpape God is love is a Christian idea. None of the 99 names of Allah describes him as a god of "love"
lovellespice 4 months ago
@lovellespice love is an attribute of God. He is all loving BUT he is all Just too. He will not give up his other attributes for loving. This is major misconception of Christianity. A judge will never forgive a person because he loves the other one. He will be considered best judge if he leaves his loving nature n do justice. We are being taught that He can forgive the crimes we have done related to Him like not worshipping but not those committed by us to other Humans and on our own body.
flexpape 4 months ago
@lovellespice so i differ with you, Islam is best but Muslims do not represent what Islam is now a days otherwise we would be living in a diff world. I Would love if you watch this Pure history and clips taken from two movies made by non muslims. This is pure history. watch?v=ex5Szpi_cNA
flexpape 4 months ago
God Is Imaginary. Proof positive.
vozuluzov 1 year ago
Religious people are building a building they have the right to build. And Craig's narative seemed pretty on point.
This is all just being dressed up to put the US into another goddamned war in the middle east for the fucking Jews and Saudis. The fucking sand tribe Saudis and the racist Jews. GREAT. MORE WAR. FOR SHIT 98% OF THIS COUNTRY COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT REALLY. Bravo Christianity, bravo. Let's all go save the master race in the middle east, oops, I mean "God's chosen people."
1010011010is29a 1 year ago
nice vid!!!
ugoezy 1 year ago
I just left a comment of one this guy's videos. He called me close minded, deleted my comment, and blocked me.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
Yep! Two different "theys"
Elaina43 1 year ago
I wish Craig had used his position as a Christian leader, his bully pulpit you could say, to entreat all Christians to allow Park51 to be built as a gesture of goodwill and American unity.
DamienPales 1 year ago
Kill, wow
Interesting word in that ad
VolansTheNaturalist 1 year ago
What Bible are you reading, Mr. Craig?
arsenelupin123 1 year ago
The community center will have a 9/11 memorial in it. The "mosque" part is only a prayer room. And Muslims were also among the victims in 9/11. One of the major opponents of this initiative (SIOA) also opposed mosques in Staten Island, Brooklyn, and as far away as Tennessee and Wisconsin. It seems for these people, it is not about the location. they are just plain old bigoted.
mykeBC 1 year ago
moose hunter lol
zapo147 1 year ago
Conversly quite a few Muslims died in those towers I wonder how they feel about this?
angrydead 1 year ago
I am an atheist. Obviously.
All religion is disgusting to me. I am absolutely unwilling to compromise on that point. Some people are so smitten with gullibility, superstition, pretentiousness, etcetera regarding the claims of their religion that I cannot help but indict them as people I do not like, in spite of their other potential qualities.
But alas, freedom of religious expression/exercise is as important as free speech. There must be no legal restrictions to the C.C's construction.
Redfingers 1 year ago
Craig's hyperbole does not change the character of the construction of the Mosque in that place. It is in very poor taste. It is something that Its builders have the right to do, but it is wrong that they do so.
Will I tolerate it? Of course, and I would have no abuse of the law stop it, but I will not like it. I will speak against it.
pumkinpi2 1 year ago
@pumkinpi2
Why is it in poor taste?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Why, Theo, is it in poor taste? Draw a square 6"x6" on a sheet of tracing paper. Go over a couple of inches and put a mark there. That will fit up nicely with the plans for the planned Cordoba Mosque. Use that scale for, let's say a German cultural center next to Auschwitz. Now this center is headed by a man that has clearly and repeatedly stated that what happened to the Jews at the hands of the Third Reich was caused by them, as Imam Rauf has said of the USA via 9-11.
pumkinpi2 1 year ago
@pumkinpi2
In what place? It is nowhere near the actual ground zero.
anono5 1 year ago
@pumkinpi2
Prefectly reasonable response. I have some equally sensible suggestions.
No farming or agriculture related industry should ever be allowed to set up offices in downtown oklahoma because Timothy McVeigh used explosives manufactured from manure in his 1995 bombing.
Or why not suggest that it's in poor taste for someone to open a security supply store stocking a large quantity of handcuffs, batons and tasers in south central LA because of the 1992 Rodney King case
Or is that too silly?
JebusGeist 1 year ago
@JebusGeist Yes JG, you choose your last words well, silly is the best way to describe your argument. Still, thanks for playing.
pumkinpi2 1 year ago
@pumkinpi2
The ludicrous nature of each argument I made was meant to be evident to you..
Clearly it's silly to suggest that we show disdain for any group that is exercising it's rights, just as any group we belong to might, simply because of a common characteristic shared between them and some individuals who have legitimately done something distasteful and therefore worthy of disdain.
What you seem to be willfully ignorant of is that is precisely what you were doing.
JebusGeist 1 year ago
@JebusGeist You say, "Clearly it's silly to suggest that we show disdain for any group that is exercising it's rights..." I find that unsustainable. Just so for Nazi parades, Clan rallies, or the building of Mosques by groups, headed by individuals that hold the US responsible for 9/11, so close to the spot of the attack. I do not suggest a suspension of any of those three actions, but disdain, yes it is an reasonable response.
pumkinpi2 1 year ago
@pumkinpi2
"Clearly it's silly to suggest that we show disdain for any group that is exercising it's rights, just as any group we belong to might, simply because of a common characteristic shared between them and some individuals who have legitimately done something distasteful and therefore worthy of disdain."
There's a very important qualifier which you left out when you quote mined, both examples given absolutely require members to support racial supremacy, see "legitimately... distasteful"
JebusGeist 1 year ago
@pumkinpi2 - I thought theowarner explained it very lucidly and eloquently when he differentiated between Muslim terrorists - Al Qaeda for example - and other non-violent Muslims. Why would you speak agains non-violent Muslims building a mosque? Unless, of course, you are simply intolerant to all of Islam...
CertainUncertainty 1 year ago
funny thing, when the Christians conquered Jerusalem the turned the Dome of the Rock into a church.
DrFoolishit 1 year ago
I agree with the president that it is the Muslim community's right to build a Mosque wherever they please in accordance with local law. However, because of the fact Muslim extremists killed so many at Ground Zero, that building a Muslim place of worship right next to it seems to be in bad taste. While those behind the project may not view it as a "monument of victory", undoubtedly there are those extremists who will. I do hope those responsible for the project will bear this in mind.
EnDSchultz1 1 year ago
I am a atheist, but the Qu'ran plainly states:
[60:8] GOD does not forbid you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.
[60:9] GOD forbids you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
But "plain" is a mode of interpretation. You almost certainly do not subscribe to plain reading as a viable mode of interpretation.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Sure I do. A plain reading of the Qu'ran/Bible SHOULD lead one to the conclusion that the Qu'ran/Bible cannot be the word of Allah/God. Nevertheless, the verses I posted plainly state that Muslims may befriend non-Muslims as opposed to those that say Muslims must convert or kill all non-Muslims, i.e., Muslims must terrorize.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
But why should I read the Qu'ran/Bible plainly?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Because that will give one an understanding of what is being conveyed without unnecessary enhanced elaboration. And it comes in handy when debating Muslims/Christians.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
So... because it's snarky?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
I think you could say that.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
The Quran as well plainly states:
(Surah Al-Imaran, Verse 85): And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
(Surah Al-Mumtahinah, Verse 13): O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath of Allâh (i.e. the Jews). Surely, they have despaired of the Hereafter, just as the disbelievers have despaired of those in graves (that they will not be resurrected).
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan Verse 85 is no better or worse than the New Testament. In verse 13 you added "i.e. the Jews", i.e., unnecessary enhanced elaboration.
Moreover, Israel has evicted many Muslims from their homes. Therefore, in the eyes of Muslims, Israel is not to be befriended. I wouldn't befriend someone who evicted me from my home, would you?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"New Testament"
There are many possible interpretations of the NT. The Christians dont force me to live as a "dhimmi". We cant say this about like-minded people who are forced into "dhimmitude" by Muslims (who obviously follow these Quranic and Prophetic instructions in detail). Already forgot about the "never-clause"?
"added"
No. I didnt add anything. The source Im using is the following one:
qurancomplex(.)com/Quran/Targama/Targama(.)asp?L=eng&Page=551#60_1
tinyurl(.)com/35ylxae
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"Israel evicted"
Yes.
"not to be befriended"
Possibly. However, Egypt and Jordan singed peace treaties with Israel and seemed to have been quite committed since then.
"I wouldnt befriend .. would you"
I would. Why not. Look at the historic example of Czechoslovakia and the so called Sudeten Germans and Slovakian Hungarians (in connection with the so called Benes Decrees). Nowadays we all have better relationships than ever before.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan There are many possible interpretations of the Qu'ran. Not too long ago Christians held slaves. Is the "dhimmi" any worse? Which "never-clause"?
Well, since I don't read Arabic, I can't say who's translation is correct. At best we have a contradiction. Go figure.
Fact is, Israel is occupying the West Bank and has a stranglehold on Gaza. Are they required to concede?
I wouldn't befriend them because they kicked me out of my home, that's why not. I would try to take my home back.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"Many possible interpretations"
Not according to the Sunnah and the early Islamic scholars who subsequently "codified" Islam.
"Not too long .. slaves"
Sure. Im gland I dont have to live in such social conditions. Yet what is this argument supposed to be about? Argument of equivocation?
"contradiction"
No, we dont have one. Its not about translation, but about "interpretation" (of the underlying text). See the relevant Tafsir.
"Fact"
Unfortunately a fact of "irrelevance".
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan
*I am glad...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "Not according to the Sunnah and the early Islamic scholars"
So? Christians will say the Bible is not subject to interpretation.
"Argument of equivocation?"
Not sure. Just making the case that a group of people can change.
"See the relevant Tafsir."
Good grief. Maybe later.
"Unfortunately a fact of "irrelevance"."
Are Palestinians required by law to concede?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"Christians will say"
Which Christians? A minority (especially in relation to world Christian population)?
"Just making case .. change"
Im not sure about that one. I hinted to a historic precedent and to the current state of affairs. All you did was giving me a "cold shoulder".
"Good .. later"
Its quite funny to argue/discuss with people who havent done their homework.
"Palestinians .. concede"
Its up to them. Unfortunately its them who are "pulling the short one".
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "Which Christians?" "But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense,. . ." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362).
"cold shoulder"
If you say so.
"homework"
Bite me!
"up to them"
Are they required by law?!
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"Saint Athanasius and co"
Again, nothing of this is relevant in "our" case. Especially not if we compare the "state of affairs" in Europe to the "state of affairs" in, lets say, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.
"If you say so"
If I say so? I gave you "quite valid" historic examples (which you can easily verify) and all you did was complaining and invoking a "rebellion".
"Bite me"
Thank you, but I must decline your suggestion.
"law"
What kind of law? Divine law? ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan How did we get from arguing the Qu'ran to this? The Qu'ran says Muslims may befriend those not fighting them for religion, or those not evicting them from their homes, yes or no? It further states that Muslims are only prohibited from befriending those that fight them because of religion, evict them from their homes, and band together with others to banish them, yes or no?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"How did we get"
I do have an idea...
"Quran says"
Yea. It does. Yet it as well says other "things", too. E.g. those I was referring to, whereby you started "your excursus".
"only prohibited"
I disagree with such a statement.
"eviction .. banish them"
Islam is like a one way street. The Muhammadans kicked out all the "practically" native Jews and Christians from the Arabian peninsula. Those events are cryptically mentioned in the Quran and described in more detail in the Sunnah. →
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
→ Imagine "we" (as the hypothetical distant cultural and biological ancestors) would start a reconquest of the Arabian Peninsula. Wouldnt that be much fun? (What a load of nonsense, of course.)
You made a crucial mistake by quoting the Quran (fallaciously). You need to improve your "Quranic quoting game" - literally. I guess, you still dont get it. :)
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan Let's nutshell this. What don't I get?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"nutshell this"
Thats impossible to do by using this particular format of communication. Besides, the deeper we would go, the language barrier would quite likely become an issue. My options/abilities in this field are (unfortunately) still quite limited.
"dont get"
I think its quite a lot what you dont seem to get. Maybe if you looked into the details, read a couple of books like historic Islamic literature (Hadith, Tafsir, Sirah, Fiqh, etc.), you would get a better overall picture.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "Impossible" How about a PM. This can't be that difficult.
"lot I don't get"
Sure, I don't know everything. I know that all religions are bogus. I am sure that the history of Islam is full of violence. The history of humanity is full of violence. Jews and Christians were and are violent.
Anyway, I still want to know what it is I don't get. PM me if need be.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
What you need to do is to start reading the mentioned literary forms. It doesnt make sense to me to start writing here essays about Islam. Neither can I do it properly, since my options are quite limited. (Which of course doesnt mean it was impossible for me to get acquainted with the relevant content.)
"religions are bogus"
Perhaps...
"J .. violent"
Perhaps. Yet despite all our western and in general human flaws we can measure certain economic, social and scientific achievements.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "reading" Could you send a link?
"Perhaps..."
You don't know?
"achievements"
Sure. Does that mean we couldn't have done it without violence. And even Islam had a period of achievement as well.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"period of achievement"
Thats the problem. It was a "different kind" of Islam. One that had to be abolished, since it didnt respect the prophetic traditions and (under the bottom line) was at (intellectual) war with the wisdom of revelation. This is what people dont seem to appreciate. Its obvious too that NO knew knowledge is being created at the "madaris". Looks like youve fallen into the same trap.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"I wouldnt befriend them"
I see. Well, what can I say. Not much. Perhaps its (because of) people like "you" why there is no peace "down there" and its (because of) people like "me" why there is peace "up here".
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan
Interesting. An aggressor kicks me out of my home, and I am labeled a disturber of the peace for trying to take it back. How very Western.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"aggressor .. home"
If it only was as simple as that, right? 1920 it were the "Muftis henchmen" attacking the (at that time non-Zionist) Old Yishuv (and not vice versa). Yet I dont expect you to be well versed in all the peculiarities of this "delicate" matter of inquiry.
"disturber of peace .. take it back"
Again, I dont see Germans taking back the Sudeten, nor the Hungarians the so called Great Rye Island.
"Western"
Indeed. Especially the "drive" to establish a national state.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "well versed"
When you say "Old Yishuv" you mean the indigenous Jews? And you further mean that there was no immigration going on at this time? And what about the Palin Report?
"I don't see"
Doesn't change my point.
"Indeed"
Indeed.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey
"indigenous Jews"
If you dont know what "Old Yishuv" is about, then perhaps its really time to catch up.
"no .. going on"
Of course there was immigration going on. At that particular time the immigration was going on quite "sloppy" though. What is more striking thats the stats of Arab population, which document a 100% increase in the following 20 years. Despite all the tensions, the conditions must have been quite favorable.
"point"
It doesnt have to. Your point is still invalid.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnnRKey
Last but not least, if "the Saudi" source seems to be too hard of a bite for you, maybe you will look up some (of the) generally accepted Tafsir provided by the Jordanian "Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought".
tinyurl(.)com/38s4v39
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan
Oy vey.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
... and slowly, coming from the infinite and approaching the finite, theowarner will uncover, what William Craig actually is ...
AppliedMathematician 1 year ago
Americans want that mosque to be built, American Muslims. It is not "on ground zero" but a few blocks away. The Imam that helped the Bush administration's counter-terrorism efforts, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the guy building it. The entire controversy surrounding this is nothing more than a cynical ploy by sleazy political hacks to manipulate the masses.
ShadowPa1adin 1 year ago
@TarrandFether I'm an American first and an atheist second. The law of our country states that people have a right to practice whatever religion they want to. This isn't a mosque, it's not on "sacred ground", and it's run by moderates not hardliners. I don't like Islam for a number of reasons but we as a nation become no worse than Saudi Arabia when we tell people who and what and where they can worship.
JanusChristIsRisen 1 year ago
@theowarner While it should be said that those who support terrorism are the Islamic far right and believe the Qu'ran literally, it is important that there is considerable support for terrorist acts in the Muslim world. The Islamic far right makes up a large section of the current population in Muslim countries. And it is also notable that other factors outside of religion (economics, politics) play a tiny role at best in explaining Muslim terrorism. These are distinctions worth remembering.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@theowarner Clearly the mosque should be built but I disagree with the thinking that the Qu'ran doesn't, at the very least, condone what we would call terrorist acts, as does the Bible (with the large exception of no imaginable support for suicide bombing).
Both clearly promote the murder of all who are not believers, or those who shield them, but the major difference is that Christianity has yielded to the forces of secularism over the centuries and Islam hasn't yet done the same. (cont.)
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24
Both "clearly" promote murder?
My problem is with the word "clearly." That's a word which speaks to interpretation and that means that you're suggesting that that interpretation is the most clear. I would say that other interpretations are simply more clearly not about murder.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Of course you could say, and many do say, that all those passages which say that are metaphorical but it is clear and that's why a metaphorical interpretation is needed.
But I understand your point. I just think if you are going to say, for example, that explicit commands of law in the Pentateuch aren't clear then what is clear? Of course you can say it's not clear, and they have every right to interpret it differently, but I don't think that makes it any less clear.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
Good video, but I still disagree that the Mosque should be built there. IF this were simply a Mosque that happens to be near the 9/11 site I would have no objection whatsoever, but that is not the case. The location was in fact chosen specifically because of it proximity to the 9/11 site. In addition the original name of the Mosque was Cordoba House. Now that may have simply been a VERY POOR choice of a name, but it certainly looks otherwise, and understandably appears intentionally provocative.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
What's wrong with building a mosque specifically because of its proximity to the World Trade Center? Muslims can't recognize the tragedy of September 11? And they can't build a mosque there where a tragedy occurred?
And as for Cordoba -- I don't know why that name was used. Or what it's connotations are supposed to me.
theowarner 1 year ago
-What's wrong with building a mosque specifically because of its proximity to the World Trade Center?
What's wrong with building a McDonalds in a cemetery, or a church on the site of a bombed out abortion clinic where the bomber was in part inspired by religion. First of all even if it's meant in the most positive way it's exploiting the site for propaganda. Secondly a Mosque is a monument to religion which in part inspired the extremists.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
(cont)
I wanted to add I would oppose equally a church intentionally being built near the site because I think it would be both a propaganda ploy (as is the Mosque). Would against be a monument to religion which in part inspired the terrorists, and because it would likely be seen as an insult to Muslims.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
*again
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
As to your two examples, cemeteries are solemn places. Typically, there are restaurants there. That's why.
As for the church at the site of the former clinic, nothing. I think that that's a good place for a church, actually. Tragedies are good places for religion to practice.
theowarner 1 year ago
-As to your two examples, cemeteries are solemn places.
So you concede, and we agree that there are certain places where certain things shouldn't be built. The difference we seem to have is only one of personal preference as to what we consider solemn, or appropriate.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Well, maybe. I'm thinking about. I think I would think a McDonald's in a cemetery would be out of place but I can't think of reason why I would object to it. It does seem to contrast with solemnity but solemnity is a very individual thing. Who's to say where solemnity comes from or how we establish it?
What if it was a cemetery where many McDonald's employees were buried for some reason? Weird concept.
theowarner 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist "First of all even if it's meant in the most positive way it's exploiting the site for propaganda." It is not close enough to Ground Zero for that to apply. Also, I don't think there's anything that they could put at ground zero that wouldn't be liable to this criticism. I think businesses are just as bad because business are all about advertising and making money, which is something that I think is not worthy of being at a sacred place either.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
-It is not close enough to Ground Zero for that to apply.
Tell that to Daisy Khan (wife of the Iman promoting the Mosque) who among others on the board say they specifically chose the Burlington Coat factory BECAUSE it was damaged on 9/11, and condemned as a result.
-I don't think there's anything that they could put at ground zero that wouldn't be liable to this criticism.
I agree, but I couldn't imagine a corporation building there without community input, or against their wishes.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist I think the important part of that sentence is the fact that it was condemned, and therefore would have to be rebuilt anyway. For that reason I don't think the proximity to ground zero is important, I think it's the fact that it was damaged. Obviously it has to be close to be damaged as a result, but it doesn't sound like they just picked the closest building they could find or that proximity was their chief concern.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk
Again you're missing my point this was not a Mosque that just happens to be near the 9/11 site. It's a Mosque that was conceived of specifically to be built near the site. That was it's selling point when it was pitched to potential investors. It wouldn't be being built otherwise.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
-And as for Cordoba -- I don't know why that name was used.
At BEST it was used because the someone hadn't properly researched the fact that it was named after a Mosque that was built in celebration of the Moors making Cordoba their capital on the site of a former Christians church, at worst the person who came up with the idea had the intent of it symbolizing victory over Christianity.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@theowarner Cordoba was a center of worship in Spain that was originally a Visigoth Cathedral, then a Mosque when it was captured by the Muslims, then turned back into a cathedral in 1236 C.E. of which it has been ever since. People like to think that the Cordoba reference brings to mind Muslim conquest but they do this not realizing that Europe was spreading Christianity by the point of a sword no different than the Muslim world was doing.
JanusChristIsRisen 1 year ago
Unfortunately I fear that Park 51 will suffer harm because America is proud to be an ignorant and backwards people.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
WLC is also not a handsome young stud.
TurboDally 1 year ago
i think you should watch thunderf00ts two videos about this.
i think they should be allowed to build that mosque, but given that non-muslims are not even allowed to visit the holy place they pray to and how intolerant that religion tends to be it is a display of highest levels of hypocrisy to build that mosque. it will cause a backlash, it will invite criticism, and i personally hope and think they deserve a non-violent backlash to this in the media.
kurtilein3 1 year ago
@kurtilein3
So just because we don't let our most holy site be a tourist attraction we're being intolerant?
I guess womens health clubs are sexist.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
Yes. Islam is like a health club.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
That wasn't the point and you know that.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
I know it wasn't your point and you know it. I was mocking you analogy because it was poor and mis-formulated. Also, it was not a defense of the point you are trying to make.
You can explain ideas about purity and cleanliness and religious observation and present that in very positive terms. Likewise, Catholics don't allow the non-baptized to partake of communion. This can be respected.
Your can make your antagonistic, broken analogies that invite my mockery.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
Hardly. It was to show that certain forms of exclusion are justified depending on the intention and circumstance. Analogies are never meant to be carbon copies of that which they represent...they are simply meant to address the absurdity of a particular objection or to expound on something that is not entirely clear to begin with.
I still think my example has worth.
DawahFilms 1 year ago
@DawahFilms
Really? That's what your point was? That certain forms of exclusion... and so on.
You didn't just want to explain something positive about Islam? That's what I would have done.
So, your example is valuable if that's what you wanted to do. If you wanted to talk about Islam... well, you didn't do that.
theowarner 1 year ago
@DawahFilms Not only is that a bad analogy, but women's health clubs are indeed sexist.
webhed003 1 year ago
"The writ of the founders must endure"
Oh my God, has this guy ever opened up a Con Law book?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
Yes. He's was a professor of Constitutional Law.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
then he should have known that states like Connecticut had official state religions, or that Church services were held in the Capitol at the time of ratification.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
I'm sure he does. And I'm sure he would ask you what your point is.
theowarner 1 year ago
Also, I love the implication of Mr. Craig that "in the name of unity" Muslim places of worship should voluntarily exclude themselves from the area.
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
I recall a similar misuse of the word "tolerance" from the UK back when Blair was still Prime Minister. He gave, what I thought, was a draw-dropping speech, in which he reprimanded Muslim women who chose to wear the Burka. A "symbol" of separation he called it. He claimed that these women should learn Western tolerance by not wearing the Burka, because it made people uncomfortable.
It really made me sick.
jessemaurais 1 year ago
"The audacity of Jihad" I'm sure that's not a reference to Obama in any way...
AbbeyNormal 1 year ago
Had McCain won the Election Republicans wouldn't have made this an issue.
Obviously this is Political Football flamed by a sensationalistic media desperate for ratings and Include YT an us =) :(.
In the end Park51 will become a monument to Freedom of Religion and Tolerance more than a Muslim Center.
Excelente Video, Te la Comistes !! Gracias por Hacerlo.
Lucem2 1 year ago
@jrsbarker
I agree. Thanks for the correction. My meaning is unchanged.
theowarner 1 year ago
The reason we are talking about this is all about timing. The elections are less then 3 months away. The economy is 'sort of' looking like it is turning around & the GOP needs a solid issue to gin up passion of their base.
This 'Mosque' has been on the books for awhile now. Notice we went from 0 to 60 almost overnight on this. This is nothing more then the latest wedge issue that I GUARANTEE will be forgotten by Christmas.
Great vid Theo. Perhaps the title should be; WLC is not tolerant :)
Hopeful71 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is not a Muslim.
William Lane Craig is not buttered toast.
William Lane Craig is not the messiah (he's a very naughty boy.)
William Lane Craig is not a 19th century British philosopher.
Sarah Palin, however, is an idiot.
Great work, good sir.
SlackerKun 1 year ago
How about we pass a law that no christian church can be built within several kilometers of a Planned Parenthood center that's been bombed or otherwise attacked by a christian fundie.
iconoclastic23 1 year ago
Great video.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
Great video.
antybu86 1 year ago
im neutral in terms of a racial dispute on this subject as im british but it is clearly evident that the project will cause offense to more people if it is undertaken than if it was abolished and there is nothing stopping the leaders of the project from moving it elsewhere
rmichalinman 1 year ago
fantastic, theo.
AHughman08 1 year ago
I think both sides should compromise and build a fourteen-story 9/11 memorial right outside the mosque.
Jugglable 1 year ago
You are mistaken in thinking that William Lane Craig is a Biblical literalist. He's always talking about the origin of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
Jugglable 1 year ago
Is not the Koran the absolute unalterable perfect word of God, to be taken absolutely literally ?
RevDevilin 1 year ago
Those ads make me violently angry...
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
Every time she opens her mouth, Sarah Palin makes me cringe to be an Alaskan...
For the record, every sane Alaskan (even those in the republican party) totally disowns that camera whoring little bitch. Only the insane and the backwater hicks with inferiority complexes from her hometown of Wasilla support her.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - I got this feeling that you're one of those hypocrites that spent the $2000/year oil-profit dividend that Sarah Palin championed and won for Alaskans and you probably blew the $1200 special windfall tax on oil companies that she again championed and won for you. I highly doubt you returned those checks to her saying "no thanks, I hate your whiny camera-whoring guts". Nope, I bet you wasted that money on hookers and booze. What else is there in Alaska to spend your money on?
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
She won it? How did she win it?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner - By getting the legislature to approve it and send it to her desk for a signature.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
That's hilarious given that the dividend has been being paid since she was in High School. Do some research, think for yourself, and try not to make yourself look like a fool.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist - No actually with her ACES initiative it was increased to $2000. and what, no comment on the special $1200 oil-company royalties that she got for every tax payer of Alaska? Admit it, you guys can't stand her becasue deep down, you're really just sexists. How dare she even attempt to do a man's job right? The audacity of her to think of being a vice-president when that's a mans job, eh?
You sexist pigs are pathetic.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
Sorry wrong again. There was a ONE TIME $1200 windfall in 2008 which made that years dividend $2000. It was also near $2000 from 1998-2001. The $1200 windfall had nothing to do with Palin (other than her having signed the bill as governor) I'll ignore, and forgive your ridiculous ad hom as I would any child throwing a tantrum.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist - you bette rfactcheck your "facts" there cupcake. Even your own liberal website doesn't agree with you this time.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
you have no idea how ignorant you sound. If you'd like a crash course in the reality of Alaska politics I'd be happy to talk with you on skype. In the meantime you can read about the Alaska State Permanent Fund Dividend (which Sarah had absolutely nothing to do with) on wikipedia. There you will find that the annual amount averages far less than $2000 and that the one time $1200 additional payment in 2008 was authorized by the Alaska legislature, not your dear Sarah Palin.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - Wow, do you always blow this much smoke up people's asses? So you're trying to tell me that the legislature of Alaska just does whatever it wants without the signature of the governor? That would go against your Alaskan constitution.
And I did double check, both the tax foundation dawt org and forbes say that you're full of crap.
See keep making fun of the camera whore while ole Barry Seotoro, the real camera whore, is stickiing it in your butt.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
I'm full of crap about what exactly? you didn't say.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - That she championed and got the legislature to approve, for her to sign, the $1200 additional refund to taxpayers in 2008. It was called the ACES program and it was her design. I even factchecked it using your own liberal website. so now answer the question, are you a hypocrite or did you return the check?
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
refund? taxpayers? No. The payment came from the Alaska Permanent Fund. It was payed to ALL Alaskan residents because the Permanent Fund belongs to Alaska and its residents. The legislature was already considering an additional payment to help support rural residents who were suffering from high energy costs that year. Yeah, Sarah made a lot of noise about it. Yeah she DID HER JOB and signed it. But Alaska residents don't owe her anything for giving us our own money.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - Last time I'll explain it to the kiddos. This is from Factcheck dawt org
"The Alaska Legislature adopted a plan proposed by Palin in 2007 (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share) that raised the tax that oil companies have to pay on their profits from a base rate of 22.5 percent to 25 percent. The revenue generated from the tax increase, which significantly added to the state’s budget surplus, allowed Palin’s administration... (Con't)
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve ...to issue a one time "resource rebate" of $1,200 to eligible state residents in 2008 to help with increasing energy prices"
Revenue generated from a tax increase. What part of tax don't you understand? What part of "you wouldn't have it if it weren't for her" don't you understand?
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
factcheck 'dawt' org is wrong. it's just flat wrong. they apparently failed to check their own facts.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - Yeah right. when a liberal quotes factcheck it's like having the inerrant word of God in their hands. When a conservative quotes them, they're wrong and don't check their facts. I'm done with you. You are so deep in your own liberalism that you'll lie to make Palin look bad.
Enjoy your life hypocrite.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
dude, I'm not a liberal. I'm an Alaskan. I could care less about factcheck 'dawt' org and I've never in my life quoted them. As an Alaskan (who is very familiar with the operation of the Permanent Fund) I am telling you that ACES and the Resource Rebate are completely unconnected.
How does it make Sarah Palin 'look bad' to point out this fact? It doesn't. It only undermines your specific argument that I somehow "owe" Sarah Palin for giving me that which was mine to begin.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@thereprieve
ACES is a tax initiative relating to the taxes that the oil companies pay for operating in Alaska. This $1200 that you are so bent about was called the Alaska Resource Rebate, was payed from the Alaska Permanent Fund, and has nothing, NOTHING to do with oil taxes. These are two completely separate issues.
Skype me and let's chat before you display your ignorance even further.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - I don't skype. Besides the fact that I'm not a liberal, that means I'm at work.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
hahahahaha... I'm sure your employer approves of you spending his time to argue about Sarah Palin on youtube. [snicker]
and you want try to label ME a hypocrite??
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
whooooooo! [breathes]
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - I own my own company dipshit! Keep laughing while I'm making money and you're sitting there on your welfare check.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
sorry but having cafepress sell SarahPalin bumper stickers and t-shirts for you hardly qualifies as "owning your own company".
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@thereprieve
you will also find (if you bother to read) that the permanent fund is not generated from taxes on oil companies but from royalties (i.e. the money which oil companies pay to the State to purchase it's oil) as well as from investment revenues from those royalties.
It only confirms my disdain that the little camera whore receives credit where it is not due from ignorant fellows like yourself who will believe anything the Fox Propaganda Corporation and friends put out.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - I'll bet what really bothers you is the new ethics rules she put in place. Can't have ethics up there where the men are men and the women are easily replaced by elk. Oh and cutting government spending... yeah, you're right, she's such a horrible governor.
and that whole ACES that increased income from taxes on oil-companies... God, she's so horrible. the disgrace.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve - But I'm guessing that you spent that $1200 bucks right? Be honest, you didn't send it back to her like you should have to avoid being a hypocrite.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
dude, SHE didn't send me $1200. As a resident of Alaska, the PermanentFund is MY property. You understand? It's public property belonging to the citizens of Alaska.
Sarah Palin doesn't own it, she didn't champion it, she has nothing to do with it other than that, she happened to sign a single bill (which was her job either to sign or veto) which the Alaska legislature passed authorizing a one time additional payment.
No, I don't feel bad about spending it, it was my money.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - You would not have had it if it weren't for her. If you spent it, you're a hypocrite.
thereprieve 1 year ago
@thereprieve
what did you say about cutting? cut and run? yes Sarah did do that.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine - Apparently you flunked math class. You have a $175,000/year job but it costs you half a million every 8 months to fight the liberal weenies that kept her in court. Which she won every single time. How could she get any work done as governor?
thereprieve 1 year ago
my question is how far from Ground Zero need the Muslims move their planned construction for it not to offend? I think that the answer for people like Palin and Craig is over the Atlantic Ocean into the Middle East, taking with them all their fellow Muslims....what ugly people.
1n354a 1 year ago
"When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"---Sinclair Lewis
Blinders anyone?
iiiiblaze 1 year ago
Comment removed
bretep7 1 year ago
Comment removed
bretep7 1 year ago
Is it still suggested that Muslims are their own race, or that people simply dislike arabs and do not want them to build their islamic buildings in the west, and this is all hatred (aka racism)?
Schneboll 1 year ago
Of course William Craig is a Muslim. He is only unaware of being one. :))
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@TarrandFether
The trap is somewhere else. Moderate Islam does not exist. Neither does moderate Sharia exist. So called moderate Muslims only make room (willingly, unwillingly, knowingly, unknowingly) allowing "hardliners" to spread Islam as it was divinely commanded and as it supposed to be implemented all over the world. This is a "field lesson" from Europe...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago