Author: Papa Giorgio
Some Historical Connections To The Ground-Zero Mosque Issue
PJTV h/t:
Just One Minute has an excellent post in regards to the Ground-Zero Mosque, here is the end to his post:
We were attacked by Muslim extremists; this mosque would be a powerful symbol of victory for extremists, it may be financed by extremists, and it may be that, regardless of the motivations of the founder, it will be one day be run by extremists.
If the imam seriously wants reconciliation and bridge-building, he should relocate. If he wants to give offense (as is his right), he should stay on his current course, and we will see how the debate unfolds.
Personally, I doubt he can raise the money. Any investor will be calling attention to himself, his family, his business associates, and all past deals, all of which will go under a microscope. If there is a hint of a whiff of a suggestion of a link to extremists, we will read about nothing else. Who needs the publicity?
THE DEBATE SO FAR: From the cacophony I hear my people from Jersey: “Yo, fool, reconcile yourself to this!” Yeah, I got something for you to tolerate right here, buddy.”
My main man, Chris Christie, punted; I guess he doesn’t have the body to tap dance.
LET’S PUT ALL THE ‘PC’ EGGS IN ONE BASKET… Maybe they can complete the mosque quickly enough that it will be available to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during his NYC trial.
OUCH!
One should not miss my posts on this either:
- Tearing Down That Which No One Believes-The Left and the Ground Zero Mosque
- Two More Truly Moderate Muslims Come Out About Intentions of the Mosque Site in NY
- What is a Sacred Place Defined As?
- 600ft Away
- Pinkerton on the Ground Zero [Mega] Mosque
- Good News in the Bad and Crazy!
- Greg Gutfeld’s Greatest Idea EVA!
- Muslims Against Ground Zero Mosque
- Ground Zero Mosque-NOPE
~I Would Never Choose This Lifestyle!~Says Gay Activist to Heterosexual
So, for years I have posted a quote from a 1995 book, The Assault: Liberalism’s Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy, by Dale A. Berryhill. I recommend his other book as well, The Liberal Contradiction: How Contemporary Liberalism Violates Its Own Principles and Endangers Its Own Goals. (Both are out of print so you know.) The quote is this:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”
This quote, in my mind’s eye, hits close at the contradictions present in equal rights versus special rights. Well, the gay community has another medical procedure to contend with soon. First Things, a wonderful conservative Catholic Journal, has a great article entitle, “Gay Gene Eugenics,” by Joe Carter. In it (I recommend the entire reading of the article if you have time) this idea of special rights is in conflict with societal norms, humanity, and medical ethics. Joe Carter points out that soon homosexuality may be a thing of the past:
Ironically, such an explanation could have just the opposite effect of what they hope for. As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, a prenatal pill used to prevent ambiguous genitalia may reduce the chance that a female with the disorder will be gay. A bioethicist quoted in the story worried that the treatment could lead to “engineering in the womb for sexual orientation.”
The ability to chemically steer a child’s sexual orientation has become increasingly possible in recent years, with evidence building that homosexuality has biological roots and with advances in the treatment of babies in utero. Prenatal treatment for congenital adrenal hyperplasia is the first to test—unintentionally or not—that potential.
No one who has followed the trajectory of eugenics-oriented biotechnology will be surprised that one the first targets for manipulation would be sexual orientation. In 2002 Francis Fukuyama speculated that within twenty years we would be able to devise a way for parents to sharply reduce the likelihood that they will give birth to a gay child. Even in a society in which “social norms have become totally accepting of homosexuality,” he argues, most parents would choose the treatment.
Fukuyama is right. Even if homosexuality were considered a benign trait such as baldness or left-handedness, the majority of parents would opt to have a heterosexual child (“What if we want grandchildren?”).
WOW. of course this whole choice of orientation creates an ethical mess, Carter continues:
Although they will naturally abhor the aborting of such children, many conservative Christians will be amenable to changing sexual orientations in the womb. A prenatal treatment seems a humane solution for a moral problem, an easy way to deliver children from a particularly difficult temptation.
This acceptance of the “medicalization” of sexual orientations is misguided. Treating orientation as a malady promotes a reductionist view in which human behavior is explainable by chemical and physical laws. As we’ve seen in other areas of bioethics, reductionism inevitably undermines both moral autonomy and the dignity of the individual.
But even Christians who disagree with me should recognize that embracing the use of drugs and genetic engineering to correct for behavioral orientations opens the Pandora’s box of natal eugenics. Bioethicist Samuel Hensley also warns that rather than unconditionally accepting offspring as a gift of God, we will be tempted to redefine parenthood to include choosing the particular characteristics we want in children.
Christians should reject this cult of choice. We should be vigilant in expressing the truth that children are a blessing from God, not a product we manufacture to our specifications.
Out of the frying pan into the fire? The radical homosexual community will be in an awkward place of teaming up with Christians to not allow genetic engineering to eradicate them. Carter says that we
“need an entente [an international understanding providing for a common course of action] between Christians and gay activists to prevent the issue of homosexuality from being determined by genetic engineers and abortionists. This will not lead to an agreement about whether such behavior is benign or immoral. But at least we will be able to discuss the issue with our human dignity intact.”
Oh what a tangled web technology weaves. (read more)
Victorian Style Star Wars Figures
Roger Federer Performs William Tell Shot (HD)
The Moss Bath Mat
“The humidity of the bathroom and the drops flowing from the body, water the mosses. This vegetation carpet procures a great feeling to your feet.The idea was to a new way of having your plants inside. Not only plants in pots quietly standing in the corner of a living room but alive plants, evolving in the house.”
Skateboarding Priest
A Hungarian priest who performs skateboard tricks in a bid to encourage youngsters to go to church has become an online hit. Roman Catholic Zoltan Lendvai claims skateboarding is the ideal way in which God can communicate with young people.
Panel Discusses Sharia Law and Feisal Abdul Rauf Wanting It Here In America
Walid Shoebat Discusses Why Islam Is Not A Religion of Peace
How many radical Muslims are there in the world?
Writing at the Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word “radical,” the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors’ own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.
The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.” The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”
7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority.
The theme of the Esposito-Mogahed book is that most Muslims are just like us, a notion mocked by the title of Satloff’s article: “Just Like Us! Really?” This is most ironic, given that the Weekly Standard is a leading supporter of President Bush and his Islam democratization policy, which is founded on the assumption that Muslims are … just like us. The Standard thus happily takes apart leftists who say that Muslims are just like us, while it remains silent about and keeps supporting the president who says that Muslims are just like us.
Clearly, the right-liberal hand doesn’t know what the left-liberal hand is doing, or, more precisely, the right-liberal hand refuses to recognize that it is doing the same thing as the left-liberal hand, even as it condemns the left-liberal hand.
Pic I Like (make sure you click it to say hello to the source)
Tearing Down That Which No One Believes-The Left and the Ground Zero Mosque
This line of defense for a building that was hit with debris and body parts is telling. The Left sets up non-sequiturs and straw-men and tears them down. Not to mention their seemingly un-liberal or feminist ways. NewsBusters h/t:
Charles Kruthammer and some Islamic columnists as well as Dennis Prager show this idea of hallowed ground in action Here are Muslim’s Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah:
Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?
Krauthammer:
That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign…
…Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero….
Read more: RPT What is a Sacred Place Defined As?
Prager:
However, even after these erudite ideas founded in common sense, logic, and history, you still have people responding like the video att he top and this response to me from a FaceBook friend:
The “hallowed ground” of which you speak is home to a strip club and an OTB…sounds like you’re full of…non-sequiturs.
At this sites link you can see these pictures (and more):
I responded in two separate posts thusly:
Those were in place before 9/11, plus, 19 strippers didn’t fly planes into the Towers. (Non-sequitur: you proved my point, guys carrying Qur’ans not whips and chains or cherry flavored undies attacked us.) 3,000 people were killed by people doing it in the name of Islam. In fact, part of the reason they attacked was because of these gentlemen clubs, so I would rather have more of those and less of mosques to foment radical religion. So there should be — like other places where tragic events happen — a buffer zone for sensibilities. That building (besides being funded by “funny money” and being headed up by an Imam that said we were partly responsible for 9/11. There are other places for him to build a Mosque and for conservatives to bury Dems by their support of him as more quotes and radical positions come out. But a building where parts of human remains and pieces of jet were found, is unsupportable. Hell, even Howard Stern gets it. But I love it…. Dems are dying on this:
https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/08/good-news-in-the-bad-and-crazy/
and,
B[y] the way, two more moderate Muslim’s have come out against the Ground-Zero Mosque. I have posted a few of their comments here:
[I] recommend their entire article. You have a choice. Support moderate (reformational) Muslims like you did during the Iranian disputes, or support a more radical version thereof. NO ONE (not Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, or the like) has said Muslim’s do not have the right to practice there religion freely. To say any different is a red-herring. To say people are trying to restrict Constitutional rights is a non-sequitur. I suggest you and others here support these moderate Muslims. These are the voices of bridges and peace, not this mega-mosque Imam.
These pictures prove nothing in the face of such refined arguments. As I already said, 19 strippers didn’t perform these acts. The Hamburgler and Ronald McDonald didn’t plan these attacks in the name of burger wars. Nor did 19 drunk Irish-men kill 3,000 on 9/11. There are no connections with those pictures nor the argument at hand. There is no Constitutional premise under attack… whatsoever. You can see this play out between a Democrat and Bill O’Reilly (the entire exchange if you wish can be found HERE):
Clarity in thought should be the highest principle. As usual, it doesn’t come from across the fence (and as a fellow blogger aptly points out, a few on our side as well).
DEATH PANELS-A Repost With Glenn Beck Video Added
I originally posted on this on July 26th of this year. Glenn Beck just mentioned the story:
See also this relevant story, “Paying for Programs,” where I quote Margaret Thatcher who said:
- “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].”
Actually this is the second shot, the first involved the kids (Egalitarianism Doing the Opposite of What It Sets Out To Do), but this snowball will get bigger and bigger as time goes on.
ObamaCare: The Rationing Begins in Earnest
This is the first shot in the health care revolution.
On Thursday the Food and Drug Administration will try to take the anti-cancer drug Avastin “off-label.” Avastin is a Stage 4 drug used to battle breast cancer. Avastin is not a cure but has been shown to stop the growth of cancer for an average of five months — meaning some late stage breast cancer victims live beyond five months.
But late stage breast cancer patients do not fit into the cost-benefit analysis of the Obama Administration. We told America rationing would happen if the health care takeover bill passed and Thursday women with breast cancer will be its first victims.
Avastin is the first medicine to fight cancer by blocking the growth of blood vessels that feed tumors. While Avastin is expensive and may not be the miracle drug some anticipated for breast cancer (it is for other types of cancer) from the success of the early trials, the overwhelming majority of breast cancer specialists believe the drug can be effective and useful in certain patients….
….Dr. Richard Pazdur is the FDA’s Cancer Czar. Pazdur decides which anti-cancer drugs patients can have access to. In the case of Avastin, Pazdur changed the criteria to a new very subjective and slippery standard of “clinically meaningful.” And apparently the FDA and Pazdur don’t believe that extending the life of a Breast Cancer victim by 3 to 5 months or more is “Clinically Meaningful.”
How do you put a price tag on those precious months for the families who are living through the hell of losing a Mother, Sister, Daughter, Aunt or Wife? Taking Avastin off label is nothing more then government rationing of healthcare. Period….
…(read more)…