?

Log in

June 2016   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Just Me

If you have to lie to make your point, you don't have one.

Posted on 2010.08.17 at 20:10
It's not at "Ground Zero." It's not a Mosque.

If it were both of those things, it would be not merely acceptable, but deeply moving, a peaceful religion worshipping at the site of a mass murder committed by madman acting in its name.

But it's not at "Ground Zero" and it's not a Mosque.

If you have to lie to make your point, you don't have one.

Shut. Up.

Comments:


natertatersmom
natertatersmom at 2010-08-18 00:16 (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, the whole spin bullshit by the folks who just want to have something to bullshit about and who'd like to have a country of White Gawd Fearin' White Men with White Wives and White Chil-run is making me want to barf up my salmon.

And it was fucking good salmon!!!!!!
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-18 00:17 (UTC) (Link)

wait what?

what happened?

Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 00:41 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

The Republicans are making a wedge issue, and the Democrats are running and hiding like gutless scum who can't figure out yet that they've won (In short, business as usual) out of the fact that, on the site of a long-since closed Burlington Coat Factory store located, as The New Yorker put it: two blocks north of the World Trade Center site (from which it will not be visible), in a neighborhood ajumble with restaurants, shops (electronics, porn, you name it), churches, office cubes, and the rest of the New York mishmash, one of the most revered moderate Muslim leaders is building an interfaith cultural center, with Christians and Jews on its board.

This is being referred to by the news media, because it's the phrase ignorant right-wing loudmouths are using, as the "Ground Zero Mosque." The implication is that it will be a sort of celebratory gathering place where terrorists can dance on the graves of the victims of the World Trade Center.

And vast masses of ignorant jerkwads who don't deserve to be Americans are howling with outrage.
isis_uf
isis_uf at 2010-08-18 03:42 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

Did you see the Daily Show's coverage on this? Jon Stewart is my hero.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party




isis_uf
isis_uf at 2010-08-18 03:43 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

Blah, embed didn't work. Here's the direct link, which hopefully will - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade?xrs=share_copy
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 07:35 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

"who don't deserve to be Americans"

To me they seem the epitome.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 07:42 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

They aren't. They are the polar opposite of what it means to be an American. They are the very antithesis of a people whose founding document first enumerates that everyone has the right to worship as they see fit. They bellow about how they are "true" Americans, or "The mainstream of America," but that's as stupidly, offensively wrong as everything else they say.
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 08:24 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

You (ie collectively in America) don't actually make them (ie every individual in the US population) read, fully comprehend and sign up to that document and stick by it or be deported*, though. They are allowed to get away with being scum far too much (see gutless Democrats) most of their lives.

* Yes, I realise there's no convenient place to offload people who were born there but don't want to be your version of True Americans™.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 08:32 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

The point I was failing to make is that these loudmouthed asshats are no more representative of America and Americans than the 19 guys with box cutters who used four jetliners as murder weapons are representative of Islam and Muslims.

We're as guilty as any other nation of having a majority that sits on its collective ass (or, in your part of the world, arse) and lets loudmouthed asshats rampage, but that doesn't make those loudmouthed asshats the card and calander of what it means to be American. They are the very opposite.
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 09:45 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

It's questionable whether or not they are representative (regardless of being allowed to appear to represent you by being the ones doing the shouting). Yes the majority does nothing, but that doesn't necessarily mean the majority doesn't secretly hold rather similar views - and merely wouldn't be so vulgar or brave as to publicly express them.

You are arguing from an "ought" (based on the ancient written documents) and wanting it to apply to the "is" - the current population or, for that matter, what the real majority of the hick public would have thought way back when the elite (and perhaps even meritocratic) few were getting to do the writing.

When polled, the majority turn out to be in favour of the death penalty and all sorts of abominable views. It's really quite likely (whether through stupidity, ignorance or whatever) that the majority of Americans don't want other people to be allowed to worship (or not!) as those other people see fit.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 12:22 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

I speak from the experience of a 49-year lifetime being an American. 49 years of living in this nation, living among its people, being raised and taught its values, and experiencing them up close and personal, from the ground up. I'm here to tell you from that position of experience that it's not questionable. They are not representative, any more than Mohammed Atta represents Islam.

This fact, while inconvenient to those who wish to view Americans as a vast horde if visigoth bumpkins, rampaging across the earth with simple-minded, hamburger-eating bigotry, remains true. As a nation we do live those values, no more irrelevent in our daily lives than those of the Magna Carta are in yours.
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 14:08 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

Poor example. The Magna Carta is irrelevant in that way in the UK!
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 19:05 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

You mean the Queen can imprison or execute anybody she feels like, because the sovereign is not bound by rule of law? The Magna Carta informs every part of society, because it is the foundation on which the rest is built.

Edited at 2010-08-18 09:12 pm (UTC)
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 23:16 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

No, I mean that no-one much in the UK goes on about or cares about the Magna Carta. It was only for nobles anyway, not for the peasantry. They were still to be down-trodden in a business as usual kind of way once the knobs had fought it out amongst themselves and demanded some rights. The Magna Carta is not the real foundation of UK society at all - you need to study Roman law to get closer to that sort of basis.

The one thing which is characteristically American rather than human (for obvious reasons!) is your collective "worship" of your constitution. It's very much a form of bibliolatry - with the Bible being a classic example. A huge deal is made out of it (which doesn't happen in the UK with the Magna Carta) and yet the worshippers remain shockingly ignorant of its actual content and intent while proclaiming it to be the bestest thing ever.

It's certainly a more common phenomenon with holy books around the rest of the world (possibly the Bible more than anything else). Though there may be some examples of other secular/legal works which I haven't encountered (or remembered) that get the same treatment from the people of the countries they're based in.

The queen(/ king / UK monarch) does still theoretically have some pretty nasty and unfair powers over people (by my vague recollection) - and, because of legal inertia, will probably continue to do so right up until the moment the next royal actually tries to use any of them - at which point they will very quickly be taken away (hopefully without bloodshed)! The UK is an ongoing revolution kept under check by a tacit agreement that those with these inherited unmerited traditional powers never dare invoke them.
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-18 20:46 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?- can i ask you a question

off-topic/on-topic kind of thing, under the impression you are from great britain

does the laws in great britain have any clause or law that allow freedom of religion (practicing, believing in a peaceful manner,etc)

or because big number of people in england are not religious that law/clause has been taken down?

uk_sef at 2010-08-18 22:58 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?- can i ask you a question

I think the "uk" bit of the name is a bit of a give-away!

Firstly, the UK doesn't have a written constitution as such setting out people's rights and responsibilities or whatnot. It's more of a free-for-all pagan nothingness with things then being forbidden (in convoluted and multi-layered ways through mixed legal inheritance). The UK wasn't starting nominally from scratch the way the US was. It's kind of a mess of "common law" (ie tradition which people are supposed to magically know) with legalese then trampling all over that. Some bad things later got repealed but others are just typically ignored without actually being repealed.

Re freedom of religion - it's more like quite the reverse! There were laws actively forbidding various religions, eg no Catholics allowed in certain offices (eg royalty), and giving outrageous unmerited privileges to other religions. Plus of course all the anti witchcraft stuff. The European Union added a law (which has to be enforced across the UK too as a member state) for a sort of freedom of religion thingy - which rather reluctantly (in my impression of things) includes atheists (freedom from religion being a necessary first step in having freedom of religion).

This has already been used as an excuse/opportunity by religious people to attack non-religious people though - and the way libel laws work in practice doesn't help. Ireland has ended up reinforcing its blasphemy laws instead of getting rid of them, ie as should have happened with genuine religious freedom and freedom of speech (which has never really existed in the UK as such).

It could be *because* the UK is "officially" a Protestant Christian country (with a long history of switch-arounds) that so many people basically ignore religion and act in a secular manner. Familiarity with a state religion has bred contempt for it.
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-19 00:45 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?- can i ask you a question- im not sure i understood your answer

so outside of catholic not being able to hold office.

can people who are actually religious and practicing (Catholics/christians, jews, muslims, hindus,etc)

are they allowed to practice and admit their faith? and have no restrictions in jobs like teaching school or colleges or office jobs, theaters,etc,

or do they get restricted on all of that too?

the reason why i'm asking is because i recently read an article that said england *or was it great britain in general?* the christian population was so low.

and it ended with a line like- one step closer to a complete secular society!

and i'm having problems believing that because, like you said a lot of people dont practice it or show contempt.

but that doesn't mean religious people are going to get kicked out of the UK and not being able to live there and practice their religion if they do follow one,

right?

and since i dont live there, i dont know how things are really there.
because the article was blatantly obvious anti-relgious
uk_sef at 2010-08-19 01:12 (UTC) (Link)
People can admit their faith but are liable to get laughed at if they do - which is something of a problem if you're Tony Blair trying to put religious "reasoning" into your speech and get taken seriously (he had to be advised not to do it by his minders). Hence becoming Catholic only after abdicating from PM-hood. It's not a problem for a non-entity.

Re jobs: if their version of their faith prevents them from doing a job properly (renders them incompetent or actively against the task they are supposed to perform) then they won't usually be allowed to get away with it.

So it's OK for a nutter to refuse a blood transfusion for themselves on religious grounds but it's not OK for them to pretend to be a competent doctor, taking public money for the job (and hence denying it to a decent person instead) and then refusing to do it properly.

If an extremist believer in not having images of real world things (the obvious example being some Islamic sects) were to take a job in a cinema or art gallery and then try to stop anyone from entering and viewing stuff (or even set about destroying the materials) then that wouldn't be tolerated either.

The US has pharmacists who refuse to dispense (and even tear up) prescriptions with which they personally disagree on religious grounds. The UK wouldn't generally put up with that sort of nonsense - especially since pharmacies/chemists aren't allowed to compete too closely with each other, so the local population wouldn't be able to set up a more co-operative rival enterprise.

Some jobs which inevitably require working on specific religious days or hours may not be compatible with certain religions either. It's usually the religious person's fault for wanting to do something they shouldn't be wanting to do anyway and not the employer's fault for wanting the job done.

Some hate preachers have been banned from the UK. Does that count as getting kicked out?

England is probably the most secular part of the UK. UK preachers have been whinging about low public attendance (ie at anything much other than weddings and other ceremonies - which used not to be allowed anywhere else other than in churches etc) for at least one and a half centuries! That's quite a long time to be substantially secular.
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-19 01:42 (UTC) (Link)

*thinking over this*

so if someone is a normal religious person who has no interest in running for office.
just work at a normal job. with no prescription issues or blood tranfusion issues or problem with theater,etc
just being... well more "spiritual" than religious

and let's it slip that they enjoy going to church because they believe in *insert religion here*
would they get laughed at?

I mean, I'm sorry I admit i'm taking too long with this.

i just find it baffeling that people would laugh at this, even if they personally don't believe in anything of that.

i mean i heard that kind of thing happening in.. i don't know.. china?

but i though that uk even with the occasional wacko, was a bit more tolerant to normal, non-theatening religious people

also do people work on christmas? if someone would want to not work on christmas days and new years to be with family, would they get laid off?


uk_sef at 2010-08-19 08:10 (UTC) (Link)

Re: *thinking over this*

"Let it slip" is usually religious code for "about to attempt to convert"!

I think that most people would be rather surprised at it being mentioned at all by a "normal" person - religion being one's own business and not a typical topic of conversation in the workplace (outside of attempted conversions and arguments about religion prompted by some real world event, eg news item).

So responses would vary: from politely ignoring the religious speaker's faux pas, perhaps with a non-committal mumble and a change of topic; to humouring them in embarrassment, teasing them, giving them a withering look, smirking, leading them on (the UK sense of humour is apparently somewhat different to the US one), backing away from the nutter as soon as it seems safe. What is very unlikely to happen is a chorus of agreement or praise or enthusiasm or a leap to convert to the speaker's religion.

Religious people are tolerated. They're just not respected for their delusions or encouraged in them. You are mistaken in what you count or discount as tolerance - a mistake strongly sponsored by religious people.

They don't get killed. They don't get fired or demoted (not being re-elected is a consequence of people seeing they've lost their marbles in trying to drag religion into what should be rational decisions). They don't get mugged. They only get laughed at for being silly when they should know better - as do other silly people whose silliness is not religious in nature. Silly ideas should be mocked. It's the best response when there's no realistic hope of otherwise correcting the silly person and they are not so dangerous (to themselves or others) as to need locking up.

Religion is largely ignored in normal life. It takes the religious nutter to bring it up and make it an issue. Most people wouldn't know what religion, if any, the people around them espouse unless they wear something blatantly announcing it (and that can't be relied upon as identification because the non-religious sometimes wear religious accessories if they happen to like the look of them).

Some people, eg medics and hotel staff, do work over Christmas. Generally there's more than one person in the same job and they work out an equitable rota between them. There the religious person could make perfectly reasonable requests to have particular days off and would mostly get humoured (as with dental appointments etc). Note that Christmas is a national holiday here, not just a religious one. So nearly everyone wants time off at the same time which makes the religious person a slight nuisance for not pulling their weight. But it's not a problem as long as they do enough shifts in return to cover other people's absences.

If the job doesn't have a large interchangeable staff for swapsies then the religious person is unreasonable for pretending to be able to do it in the first place. They would have rendered themselves unfit for that work with their chosen silliness and don't deserve the job. Work tribunals, arbitrators and courts have previously found in favour of the employer in such cases. Though each case has to be considered on its own merits because sometimes the employer is being unnecessarily unreasonable about arrangements. It's on about the same level as negotiating maternity leave or part-time.
uk_sef at 2010-08-19 08:27 (UTC) (Link)

Re: *thinking over this*

I'll re-emphasise the bit you may not be grokking: mentioning religion is regarded as rude. The religious person is breaking etiquette by bringing the subject up in any manner - and is being foolish for drawing attention to their mental aberration.

They get treated the same as one would any rude and silly person - in the usual variety of ways by which society attempts to bring errant members back into line. Mockery being one of those. Religion doesn't merit or get special treatment in that arena (though it does get unmerited special treatment elsewhere).

People don't generally go out looking to mock religious people though (aside from obnoxious teenagers and thugs and rival religionists who are trying to start a riot). The religious person typically has to start the "fight" first. And even then, in most social situations, everyone else will pretend not to have noticed how rude the religious person was and try to move things off the topic as quickly as possible. Talking about the weather is a much more UK/English thing. Then there's grumbling about the transport system. Politics is another dodgy area and people can get unreasoningly attached to TV or other types of fiction, making that a potentially prickly area too.
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-19 11:47 (UTC) (Link)

Re: *thinking over this*

oh so bottom line,
if one is a religious person who doesn't give a flying heck about convertion. but still believes in whatever their belief system is. BUT also accepts science as part of life.
no matter if the person is a teacher, a friend, a colleage, your boss,etc

it doesn't matter if they are christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, etc


all they are are silly, stupid, mental people because they dont see science as american see their constitution?

is that it?



thanks for answering
uk_sef at 2010-08-19 12:11 (UTC) (Link)

Re: *thinking over this*

It's hardly *all* they are. It's merely one aspect of their personality and abilities - like being musical or tone-deaf, or a sports fan or not. It's not about comparing science to the American constitution either (people were atheists long before either of those things existed!). That's just your inevitable dishonesty getting the better/worse of you.

It "doesn't matter if they are christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, etc" as long as they are competent at whatever it is they are supposed to be doing and don't let their silliness get in the way of that. A colleague who continually hummed would be as annoying as one who continually preached. An employee who obsessively listened to the cricket/football to the detriment of their work would be rendering themselves as bad as one who kept on praying instead of getting on with the task in hand.

There *is* something of an evangelical Christian infestation in the UK, mostly via America and Africa, but they aren't allowed to ruin normal life for everyone else. Someone saying "let us pray" in a meeting would be extraordinary behaviour here (unlike the US which is given to such public displays despite its official no-religion position) and would be, quite rightly, greeted with glances or gestures of "they're mad". The state religion only holds sway at royal funerals and the like.

Talking about religion is rude / offensive in something of the same way that talking about one's genital warts or infected, pus-leaking, nail-losing, big toe is. It's a personal problem that other people don't generally want to hear about.
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 15:03 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

"Americans as a vast horde if visigoth bumpkins"

It's a general human thing, not a wholly owned American monopoly. I'm not sure you grasped that, since you seem to be getting a bit parochial about it.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 19:09 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

So, you meant that the loudmouthed dinkweeds screaming bigoted garbage about the not-mosque that isn't at "Ground Zero" seem the epitome of the general course of humanity, rather than just of America? If so it was an oddly-placed and contextually incomprehensible remark. I challenge you to find a reader who will look at that exchange without context who will not say you were talking about America.
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 22:37 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

I was only talking about America because you were talking about America! Had you said some nutters somewhere else were doing something similar, I would have thought that entirely in keeping too. You were starting out with the unjustified impression that somehow America should be special. I would have said they (ie your original complainants) don't deserve to be in a civilisation (albeit only a vague approximation to that) when they aren't properly civilised. You were the one making it out to be solely about America.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 23:03 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

No, I'm sorry, that doesn't scan.

Various countries have characters, cultures, and fundamental values that signify them. My statement characterized people who claimed to speak for the mainstream of our culture and values while their words and actions betray the most fundamental values that America stands for. In that specific context, I said that those people, who represent the polar opposite of what America stands for, don't deserve to be Americans.

Your response was that they seemed to you to be the epitome. Your description above doesn't fit that context.

I'm not here to have a huge fight with you, but if you really think that the screaming bigots are a true representation of my country, I think I'm pardonably permitted to point out that they aren't.
uk_sef at 2010-08-18 23:26 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

"Various countries have characters, cultures, and fundamental values that signify them."

Those stereotypes tend not to be true though! Neither the favourable ones with which a nation flatters itself (eg America and its much vaunted constitution) nor the unfavourable ones bestowed by neighbouring populations.

Americans (the normal majority) don't really "live" the constitution at all. They make obeisance to it as a national emblem without (generally) fully grokking it. This is exactly the same as the vast majority of Christians not "living" Christianity or properly grokking the Bible in its historical context. The UK population (and government) doesn't treat the Magna Carta in anything remotely like a similar manner, so the issue doesn't arise.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 23:33 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

I've lived among Americans for 49 years. You're simply wrong. I'm not being argumentative, but I know where I live and with whom I live. Americans do, by and large, understand the basic values our nation was founded on. One of those values is that even the most odious ideas may be heard. That allows the loudmouthed morons to be heard disporportionately, so it's understandable that you've reached such an erroneous conclusion, but it is erroneous.
uk_sef at 2010-08-19 00:52 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

You can see where the US really stands (compared with other countries) on this chart. Being outspoken while being on the wrong side of the traditional vs rational divide is actually very American (the norm for the population). Its nearest rival for that corner is Puerto Rico (coming from the other direction). The UK does somewhat better, despite having a state religion and no written constitution. Clearly Sweden is the best place to be though (followed by a bunch of other nordic countries).
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-19 00:58 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

You can see where the US really stands (compared with other countries) on this chart.

No, you can't. You can see a particular academic theory on that chart. You can see where a nation really stands by living in it. There can be an abyssal gulf between theory and reality, and this is especially true of the theories of a science as soft as sociology.

Enjoy the mental exercise of your textbooks, but experience trumps theory every time. You don't understand America or Americans.
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 12:24 (UTC) (Link)

Re: wait what?

Oh, and polls teach you nothing but what the polls' commissioners want you to believe of them. The science of writing poll questions to produce a desired result has long since been mastered. Unless you've read and understood each question, and how those questions interact, you can learn nothing worthwhile from a poll.
empty heart on fire
solipsistnation at 2010-08-18 00:20 (UTC) (Link)

If you don't already read Slacktivist, you should.
Machiavellian Puppet Master
tjs_whatnot at 2010-08-18 01:11 (UTC) (Link)
Abby Normal
ozma_katiebell at 2010-08-18 01:22 (UTC) (Link)
THIS
B00
i_m_b00 at 2010-08-18 01:35 (UTC) (Link)
Democrats are running and hiding like gutless scum

but we must pander they may start to like us. For my part I'm making cupcakes for Glenn Beck.

And if we just get rid of Thomas Jefferson like Texas then we wouldn't have to worry about this little freedom of religion thing at all
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-18 20:21 (UTC) (Link)

WTF?????

"And if we just get rid of Thomas Jefferson like Texas then we wouldn't have to worry about this little freedom of religion thing at all"

please tell you are being doing a very poor attempt at sarcasm
B00
i_m_b00 at 2010-08-18 20:37 (UTC) (Link)

Re: WTF?????

well most of it is.

all except for the bit about Texas wanting to down play down Thomas Jefferson in the text books. They say that freedom of religion is not what Jefferson meant any way.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/6313/the_textbook_case

http://www.sj-r.com/letters/x297213486/Letter-We-don-t-want-church-to-be-function-of-state
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-18 20:41 (UTC) (Link)

Re: WTF?????

oh.

well Texas can suck it up and deal with it, because it's only one of 50 states.

and if they dont say what the other 50 states should or shouldn't do.

also I find the whole bit tremendously hypocritical because, correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the first setlers (not habitants, the indian lived in america first) but the first groups of people who moved into american soil and created colonies...

didn't they came to America Because they were persecuted for what they believed?

so why the flying heck are people complaining that America shouldn't have freedom of religion?
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 21:11 (UTC) (Link)

Re: WTF?????

well Texas can suck it up and deal with it, because it's only one of 50 states.

and if they dont say what the other 50 states should or shouldn't do.


And yet, as one the largest buyers of testbooks in the nation, they do get to tell many other states in the Union how to teach their kids science and history. Coming soon to a middle school near you, courtesy of the rules of the state of Texas, there was no Slave Trade in the United States before the civil war. There was, rather, the "Atlantic triangular trade."
B00
i_m_b00 at 2010-08-18 21:19 (UTC) (Link)

Re: WTF?????

Yeah but don’t forget they joined the confederacy. And they have some very scary conservative pockets. Like really scary.

Text book stuff:
it's part the publishers part economics. Texas is buys as a state other schools buy by district. So the publishers put in what TX wants to get the giant contact. That makes the TX books the cheapest. so other schools who buy by distract and are losing funding due to the repubs are looking for a bargain.


The tea baggers are not fond of Jefferson...or the 1 and 14 amendments. But hey they are constitutionist. .. how ever the hell that works. But the intweb is full of tea baggers saying that we misinterpret Jefferson. They really and truly want to get RID of freedom of religion. scary stuff if you take them seriously and not just as the nut job they are.



Eek! I just notice we don't know each other I hope you don't think I'm some kind of nut job.
(Anonymous) at 2010-08-19 00:47 (UTC) (Link)

Re: WTF?????

oh and thanks for answering

you dont sound likea nut job at all
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
leviathan0999 at 2010-08-18 21:09 (UTC) (Link)

Re: WTF?????

No, no, it was excellent use of savage sarcasm, and well played indeed by i_m_b00.
mythicvictory
mythicvictory at 2010-08-18 01:46 (UTC) (Link)
THANK YOU!!! I'm so tired of shouting this!!! It's a community center, NOT a Muslim Supercenter. Just because the Baptists like Goditoriums doesn't mean everyone does. Supercenter...like Target??? And prayer rooms on the top two floors, like a Christian Science Reading Room?? The Horror!! I am cotton picking sick and tired of these people and their idiocy. If we didn't have freedom of Religion, you morons, YOU wouldn't be allowed to spout idiocy!!!!!!! Gurrrr.

There, now I've yelled, and nobody will change their tiny little minds, so nope, don't feel better.

**crawls back into hole and pulls top over head****
Ashley
louboutin at 2010-08-18 02:39 (UTC) (Link)
I don't think you saw on facebook where I was verbally abused for daring to say that this should be allowed. I was called a liberal un-American nazi bitch who doesn't have the right to say things about issues like this since I haven't gone to the middle east to serve my country.

I'm sorry, what? My staunch support of religious and ethical freedom apparently makes me Un-American now? If that's not what America stands for, maybe I don't want to be American.
isis_uf
isis_uf at 2010-08-18 03:37 (UTC) (Link)
THANK YOU!
mrsquizzical
mrsquizzical at 2010-08-18 06:46 (UTC) (Link)
(Deleted comment)
uk_sef at 2010-08-24 15:05 (UTC) (Link)
You might be interested to know that there's a counter-protest at the actual site. My expectation would be that it doesn't get nearly as much media coverage.
Previous Entry  Next Entry