Who will beat who down there? Holder or Jesse.. Al is getting way to old to move to fast.

Seriously, what is this obsession you have with African American activists?! Seems like you think that just inserting an "Al and Jesse" reference somehow constitutes an actual argument.

The DOJ-(Dept of Justice) is void of justice under Holder. All he does is make Freedom loving people angry with the tyrannical Obama administration. For the good of the country, being angry with the incompetence of this Administration is an excellent right step in the direction of renewal and recovery.

Obama and Holder attempt to trash the Constitution and put in place a travesty of justice. Cannot even stand seeing a picture of either of them.

Clark where were you when the patriot act was being passed? GTFO

You can call them activist, I call the sh@# stirrers.

You sure wouldn't expect moooslims to obey the laws of the state.They only answer to sharia

WHY WHEN YOU DELETE A COMMENT YOU CANNOT LEAVE THE THREAD!! Many times there are good comments in the thread that should be left up.

@mygirl1 Did you even read the article or are you just trolling for the sake of trolling?!

The mosque DOES have a building permit! Or at least, they did up until a few moments ago when the judge voided it because he believed the county didn't provide enough notice for public comment. Chances are the county will simply re-issue the permit, this time allowing a longer period of public comment so the bigots can scream nonsense about Sharia Law and have their say.

Yes, they have to have a permit. Nobody is disputing that. If you're not going to bother to read the article, please don't waste everyone's time by posting. I'd much rather spend my time reading comments that are actually well-informed.

Kris Did you even read the article or are you just trolling for the sake of torlling?!

The mosque building permit was voided so THEY DON"T HAVE ONE.

Now I'm not saying that the judge ruled correctly or not but you attacked mygirl and did the same thing you accused her of doing.

Kris....

Actually, once the judge ruled, they did NOT have a permit, and as construction is continuing, the property owners AND construction company are violating the law. Period. In reality, they can now be held in contempt and punished as the judge deems fit.

@gtouch So, your counter-argument is to basically just parrot back what I said?

@XDwhatever You obviously didn't read my comment. Take note of the part that says "up until a few moments ago" when the permit was voided.

I agree that construction should stop while this is being sorted out, simply as a matter of law. That being said, the county will undoubtedly re-issue the permit, probably sooner rather than later, so your point is entirely moot.

Kris: They technically don't have a building permit if the judge states that they don't. Whatever the reason, they don't have a building permit. They continue construction and anyplace else, they would be shut down until new permits are issued. Troll and twist it however you want. The point is not moot, as you so want it to be, the fact is they continue without a permit.

Now you want to weasel around my statement? Again?

Mygirl,

Let's break this down...

1. They went through the proper legal channels and got the permit.

2. They have a protected 1st Amendment right to worship however they want.

3. In the article it said, "No public hearing was required" and the notice for the meeting was posted.

Which basically boils this magistrate's reasoning down to, "The public should be allowed to spew more hatred". It's a delay tactic, at best, because anyone who's passed Civics 101, knows that these people have a right to build their houses of worship.

So, if the pulling of the permit, was in and of itself, illegal, how can you then convict those that stand up for what IS legal, i.e. their right to worship? Pulling it for no good reason, and then yelling how they're now breaking the law by building what they had a right to build in the first place, is akin to a five year old chanting, "Neener, neener, neener".

I have you on the list for a front row seat at the first public stoning of a woman that goes out in public without a male relative.

3. In the article it said, "No public hearing was required" and the notice for the meeting was posted.

Seems they updated the article with the correct information. The planning commission failed to give proper notice to the public. Blame the Rogue Planning Commission.

Cunical,

Can you please explain to me the logistics, of how exactly Sharia Law will be implemented here? I have some questions...

1. How are they to pass these laws, keeping in mind that we elect our legislators? How will they infiltrate congress? Why will no one notice and act to stop it?

2. Once in congress, how will they get around our system of checks and balances? How will they go about disbanding the judicial and executive branches?

3. How long will this take, and how will no one catch on prior to Sharia Law being implemented? Will we just one day wake up and "VOILA" we're all Muslim? Will it be gradual? Either way, how will it come about?

4. How will they get around law enforcement and our military? Wouldn't they protect us and the three branches of government?

So I guess, go ahead and put me at the top of the list... I'm not too concerened.

@cms5 Here's the thing: If that's their policy, why should they make an exception only for a mosque? If they don't have to have public comments on other projects, why should they have to on this one?

I think transparency is good all around, but it should be universally applied. Singling-out mosques is simply unacceptable.

@cunical Ok. In that case, can I put you on my list of people to stone to death the next time you have sex with a woman during her period? How about if you go to Red Lobster?

These are Christian teachings from the Bible. Most Muslims don't follow those rules any more than most Christians actually throw stones at people for eating porkchops.

It is not uncommon in instances like this for work to go on, on the assumption the lawyers will get richer and work it out in the courts. It's no different than a lot of other situations where people act first and ask questions later. At this point, since they HAD a permit, but no longer have one, someone would need to go to court to get an injunction to get them to stop and a judge rule on it.

Y'all don't need to get your collective panties in a bind over a few Muslims and a voided building permit. There are LOTS of other situations that are far more serious involving good old fashioned white "christians". Save all your Faux Outrage for something worthwhile.

Sarah, responding to these incredibly bigoted, paranoid, and not very smart right wing religious nuts is like casting pearls before swine. Thanks for trying, though. The Muslims in Murfreesburo will have their mosque, it is only a matter of time. They have the First Amendment on their side. I hope there isn't any violence from the righties. They are an embarrassment to the state of Tennessee, which means to me , since Tennessee is my home state. Come to think of it, it appears that about 55% of the voters in Tennessee are an embarrassment.

mygirl... you need to go back to school to learn how to read. The judge vacated the permits they were using to build. THEY have nullified permits (construction should stop) that were nullified for because the judge thought that there was not enough notice for the construction. The catch here is that the 2010 Planning Commission advertised twice in the local publication but did not specify that one of the topics covered would be mosque construction. This is an example of a judge narrowly construing a law to appease religious bigots who feel that the religion of Islam is not worthy of 1st amendment rights. These bigots would never raise any issues if it were a CHRISTIAN church being built without the planning commission giving SPECIFIC public notice.

You are free to follow any religion you choose but when you start parsing the Constitutional right of religious freedom to EXCLUDE certain religions due to your bass-ackwards belief system then YOU are running afoul of the law.

Cunical,

According to you, I should have been stoned to death years ago considering that I'm not Muslim but I've been married to one for over 6 years, drive my kids to school alone, and work full-time. Thank goodness I don't live in your fantasy world or I'd be afraid of the dark, boogeyman, and heaven forbid, any American citizen that has a different belief system than I.

This is an easy one:

1) The issue between the rednecks and the Muslims in Murfreesboro has been going on for a couple of years. This is not the first friendly judge or the first obstable thrown out there by this group of "concerned citizens" with financial backing from Pat Robertson and the 700 Club which regularly solicits money for them. You better believe that the city authorities well aware of this and were very careful to dot all the i's and cross all the t's on this one.

2) The builders of the mosque did get a valid building permit with all applicable public notices and then some. Retroactive application of law is not valid. You cannot observe someone doing something you don't like, make a law and then arrest them for breaking the law. What the judge did is to void all the acts of the planning commission saying that, though no notice was required, they did not give enough notice because publication took place in "unacceptable" venues. This is entirely contrary to English Common Law which says simply that blanket voids of this nature are not permitted because of the strong probability of unintended consequences.

3) An unlawful ruling by a judge, especially in a highly charged situation like this one, have no weight in law. While he says that the acts of the planning commission are void, it is still the planning commission that issues and revokes building permits. My guess is that before the judge even ruloed that the City Attorney had already told the mosque builders to go ahead and continue construcion under the knowledge that their permit is still valid. The judge simply has no way to enforce anything to do with this one building permit, properly obtained, and already substantially executed since the mosque is nearly completed.

4) This is exactly the situation that the up-tighty righties campaign against so loudly --- an activist judge responding to a pressure group, makes new law from the bench. But now comes the civis lesson --- that judge cannot prevail and cannot make new law. The only flexibility judges really have is when they can boraden the interpretation of a law to make it apply to more people or situations. The rest is almost always overturned. That's why I never worry about activist judges anywhere but the Supreme Court.

So what will happen is that the planning commission will ignore both the judge and the acta on the advice of the City Attorney. The construction will continue as planned since the project has a valid building permit according to the planning commission. At some point a certificate of occupancy will be issued by the planning commission and the whole thing is a done deal. The completion of the mosque and its initial dedication will end the acta since it will be moot. Any legal maneuvers by Robertson's bunch will drag on until they can't get any more publicity, but once the mosque is commissioned, it is a lost battle.

But for the anonymous, this is such a happy opportunity to spout some racist hate speech that would get you grounded for weeks if your mother heard you.

Actually, once the judge ruled, they did NOT have a permit, and as construction is continuing, the property owners AND construction company are violating the law.

Actually, there is a time period in which the county can file an appeal and until that time period expires the construction company is not violating the law.

Edward R. Murrow would be ashamed if he saw this. On more than one occasion, he made comments about Senator McCarthy that would've run afoul of your little Code of Censorship. One wonders how many more lives of "subversives" would've been destroyed by those hearings if people like you had your way and Murrow had been silenced.

So be proud, "Sally." You can sleep well knowing that you're doing your part to undermine the integrity and respect of journalism in this country. Thank you for protecting us from ourselves. The last thing we need, after all, is a forum where people are free to express their views (including their contempt for other people's views) without fear of reprisal. Good day.

A lot of Sharia law is from the Old Testament (Yes, the same one Christians use). They simply haven't ditched as much over 1000 years as WE Christians have over 2000 years. Many of their still-in-place religious laws were once used by Christians in the 1900's in America to argue against women rights, minority rights, voting rights, property rights, citizenship rights, legal rights (that one is STILL hot [Gay Marriage]), racial intermarriage (my Mom still spouts Bible verses against interracial marriage as is her "religious" right). As a native of the Appalachian region of NC, what you have a little west of here is a bunch of uptight, "I know best so shut your face" idiots decrying that they aren't a "Boss Hogg" kind of idiot. I can't wait to see if EVERY house of worship has to meet this new standard. I'll go protest Evangelicals trying to build their temples to themselves.

Thank you Chris-749391. Love reading comments that have some beef behind them.

chris is smarter than a judge , hahaha

Jeff are you serious?....there is a reason we separate church and state!!! Please explain how you "bring" sharia law to america? and HOW that means anything? Are they going to re-write the Constitution? Convert your kids to Islam? WHAT???

You make a silly argument, Faux News started this BS to scare old people, why are you perpetuating such obvious BS?

@Jeff-whatever I think you need to loosen the aluminum foil you've got wrapped around your head. It's cutting off the circulation to your brain (such as it is).

I'll break down why your post is utterly ridiculous:

1. CAIR opposes Sharia Law. They also oppose laws that single it out. There's ZERO threat of Sharia Law actually being imposed anywhere in the U.S. These laws that "ban" it are intended to demonize Muslims, and that's why CAIR opposes them. They don't actually support Sharia Law.
2. CAIR is an American organization founded and run by American citizens. Hell, the word "American" is in the friggin' name!
3. CAIR actually consists of many non-Muslims as well. One of their stated goals as an organization, in fact, is to foster better relations and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. In other words, to bring both communities together as one. To unite, whereas your goal seems to be to divide.

Personally, I'm Agnostic so I think all your religions are nutty, each in its own way. Islam is no more or less crazy than Christianity, Buddhism, or Scientology. Unless you follow the Scientific Method and actually maintain objectivity, you're in no position to mock other religions.

Considering only 1% of America is Muslim, Sharia law isn't coming to America any time soon. This is just another fear tactic from the GOP.

I think instituting Christian Law is the scarier issue, since it seems to be the more likely possibility these days. IE intelligent design, church version of marriage, etc. Yikes - lets all strive to return to the 1700s.

@WreckedinWA Don't forget imposing the death penalty for anyone who has sex with a woman during her menstral cycle.

gpotts-1106111:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/federal-appeals-court-considers-sharia-law/

A federal appeals court in Denver is poised to hear arguments regarding the use of Sharia law in state court, a day after the somber ceremonies commemorating the 10th anniversary of 9-11.

A panel of judges from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will eventually decide whether a lower court judge was correct in blocking a 2010 ballot initiative forbidding Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic laws in the their decisions.

Sharia law is broadly defined as a body of law based on Islam and its central religious text, the Quran.

The ballot measure passed by a 70 percent margin but was immediately challenged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The group argued the measure violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution forbidding the government from favoring one religion over another.

U.S District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange blocked the measure in November 2010, ruling that any harm that would result from a delay in certifying the election results is “minimized” because the defendants were “not aware of any situation where Sharia Law has been applied in an Oklahoma court.” Judge Miles-LaGrange said that the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits of their case going forward.

In court documents defending the constitutionality of the measure, lawyers for the Oklahoma Attorney General said its “principle purpose” was to ban the Oklahoma courts from looking at the “precepts of other nations or cultures.”

They argue in court papers that the measure does not single out Sharia law. “The measure bans, equally, all laws from other nations or cultures, including, but not limited to international law and Sharia law,” according to the court papers.

But opponents of the measure say it “stigmatizes Islam.” In court briefs, lawyers for CAIR, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), write, “The State of Oklahoma makes no attempt to defend the practice of singling out one religious faith for official condemnation and disability.

“The measure tramples the free exercise rights of a disfavored minority faith and constrains the ability” of Muslims in Oklahoma to “execute valid wills, assert religious liberty claims under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, and enjoy equal access to the state judicial system,” they argue.

They point out that Sharia Law is not outlined in any single document but is subject to “individual and communal” interpretations that differ across denominations among Muslims.

thanks for making my point!!

Sharia Law, my foot. This country couldn't even get all 50 states together on English Common Law. Louisiana still uses Napoleonic Code as the basis for its laws. And who is complaining about Louisiana even though property law operates completely differently there?

Sharia Law differs not a whit from Talmudic Law that was the basis for Christian (Canon) Law up until English Common Law came along. The Muslims could just as easily mock Canon Law with the same lame arguments. Sharia and Talmudic, and to a great extent, Canon Law are all relics of the past which have influenced our current laws. But it is the influence of a body of law that time has passed by. It failed to stay relevant and now you have religion --- Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc are all in decline with every major religion shedding members in record numbers. The only religoinbs that are thriving are cults --- Mormonism, Scientology, Jehova's Witness --- that preach exclusivity for all buyt themselves.

First off, there IS no Sharia law in the US that is NOT BASED FIRST from the Bible. (Gasp *shock* Yes, Islam does use the Old and New Testament along with the Q'ran.) Any laws that are passed MUST be passed by a legislature. There's not much of a chance that ISLAMIC SHARIA laws will be passed, but there IS a good chance that the people who are being alarmists pushing the idea that there could be will try to pass CHRISTIAN SHARIA laws to counter those imagined Muslim ones. What it will end up doing is to HURT the rest of us who do not follow FUNDAMENTALIST Christian beliefs. Secondly, American Muslims do not have to follow Sharia Laws period. They follow similar beliefs, but they are not allowed to have more than one wife, they can't stone someone for something, there are no honor killings and they report radical talk between mosque attendees. (They aren't required to report that, but they do because this is their country too.) And third, I don't see them complaining about any CHURCH, or Christian law attempt.

Leatherneck: That law being considered is as alarmist as this thread. The only way they use Sharia law in a courtroom is to try to show why someone might do something, not as a reason why it should be allowed or anything else. It will not show that someone should not be convicted for a murder, but it might show that an honor killing wasn't premeditated. It wouldn't get them off scott free. You can't have ANY LAW that has not been enacted by the legislature, and no Sharia law ever has been unless it is also a Christian law.

Amen! Religion itself is silly. It's inherently hypocritical for people of one religion to declare that some other religion is invalid.

Agreed! However, until they are thrown out, we need to treat them equally.

Kris Craig:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/federal-appeals-court-considers-sharia-law/

A federal appeals court in Denver is poised to hear arguments regarding the use of Sharia law in state court, a day after the somber ceremonies commemorating the 10th anniversary of 9-11.

A panel of judges from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will eventually decide whether a lower court judge was correct in blocking a 2010 ballot initiative forbidding Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic laws in the their decisions.

Sharia law is broadly defined as a body of law based on Islam and its central religious text, the Quran.

The ballot measure passed by a 70 percent margin but was immediately challenged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The group argued the measure violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution forbidding the government from favoring one religion over another.

U.S District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange blocked the measure in November 2010, ruling that any harm that would result from a delay in certifying the election results is “minimized” because the defendants were “not aware of any situation where Sharia Law has been applied in an Oklahoma court.” Judge Miles-LaGrange said that the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits of their case going forward.

In court documents defending the constitutionality of the measure, lawyers for the Oklahoma Attorney General said its “principle purpose” was to ban the Oklahoma courts from looking at the “precepts of other nations or cultures.”

They argue in court papers that the measure does not single out Sharia law. “The measure bans, equally, all laws from other nations or cultures, including, but not limited to international law and Sharia law,” according to the court papers.

But opponents of the measure say it “stigmatizes Islam.” In court briefs, lawyers for CAIR, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), write, “The State of Oklahoma makes no attempt to defend the practice of singling out one religious faith for official condemnation and disability.

“The measure tramples the free exercise rights of a disfavored minority faith and constrains the ability” of Muslims in Oklahoma to “execute valid wills, assert religious liberty claims under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, and enjoy equal access to the state judicial system,” they argue.

They point out that Sharia Law is not outlined in any single document but is subject to “individual and communal” interpretations that differ across denominations among Muslims.

You're lying. Elvis is not dead. I saw him last week when I was in Vegas. Apparently he's "Rev. Elvis" now and in the marrying business.

Leatherneck918: That article isn't about establishing Sharia law, it's about treating all religions equally under the law. What is your point?

Hint: You will need to state your point in your own words. Copy and paste won't accomplish your goal.

Baja5B: That article isn't about establishing Sharia law

Reading Comprehension hard for you. VERY FIRST SENTANCE

A federal appeals court in Denver is poised to hear arguments regarding the use of Sharia law in state court.

Apparently that was the only sentence you read. Because the very next paragraph explain why the writer used a little thing known as "literary license".

"A panel of judges from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will eventually decide whether a lower court judge was correct in blocking a 2010 ballot initiative forbidding Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic laws in the their decisions."

The case being decided was over a ballot initiative not whether the court should instate Sharia. But saying "A federal appeals court in Denver is point to hear arguments over a ballot initiative" doesn't grab the attention of scared little people.

Apparently Leatherneck lacks basic reading comprehension skills, or is a FOX viewer.

Leland from Detroit What you and Baja5B dont seem to understand is that they are trying and this is not the first or last time they will try to establish Sharia law in the USA.

That article isn't about establishing Sharia law: Yes it is they are trying to over and over again. All it will take is one jury or judge to go the way of Europe and let it happen.

Kris, you pointed out that Orthodox Jews cannot eat pork. Muslims can't either.

Leatherneck: "All it will take is one jury or judge to go the way of Europe and let it happen."

OK. School us. Explain how this would work.

Baja5B

Leatherneck: "All it will take is one jury or judge to go the way of Europe and let it happen."

OK. School us. Explain how this would work.

....and then there was silence.

Sorry Kris had to go to work.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece

A judge in Tampa, Florida is creating a buzz with a ruling some say shows that shariah law is creeping into the U.S. One look at the alleged ruling shows it is suspicious. But is it really an example of shariah “comin’ to America?”

Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” Below is a copy of the relevant section:

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

Here’s the kicker.

The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”

London: Brutal punishments like whipping and stoning could become widespread in Britain if Islamic Sharia law is allowed to thrive, a member of the House of Lords has warned.

Baroness Cox said a growing number of British Muslims are shunning the official court system in favour of Sharia councils to settle legal disputes.

She told a House of Lords conference this could even lead to the destruction of democracy and fuel support for far-right groups like the British National Party, the Daily Mail reported on Wednesday.

Baroness Cox has been one of the most outspoken campaigners against the growth of Islamic law in Britain.

British Muslims have been able to turn to Sharia courts since 1982.

A study estimated that at least 85 Islamic sharia courts were operating in Britain.

The figure surprised many as it was 17 times higher than previously accepted.

Sharia law courts are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

Kris,

You are correct, CAIR is not a front for al-Qaeda. It is and always has been a front for Hamas. Please identify your terrorist organizations correctly. Thanks.

"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" Thanasides asked.

"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."

Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.”

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”

It's controversial because this breed of Christians think that religious freedom only applies to them.

You are making it sound like Tennessee is 100% Republican or Conservative. Considering its a very close split between R and D, I don't understand your point.

Sarah's comments validity were voided, in my opinion, when she jumped to the conclusion that this is a GOP driven action.

Is it that great an assumption to make to say that there may have been registered Democrats that were against the mosque as well?

Political affiliation doesn't always dictate how one reacts to an issue like a Mosque. That may be one thing that registered voters in TN agree with.

Its silly to paint this as a GOP driven issue. I doubt any of you commenting have ever set foot in TN.

I prefer to refer to people such as you're describing as "Christianists." Since they obviously are only using their view of religion as a political or business label.

"Christofascist" works well.

That's right, Patriot...I remember our horror when extremist Christians blew up three buildings on one day. And please don't bother bringing up the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades. They happened more than 500 years ago, while the extremist Muslim attacks are going on right now.

Cassandra-whatever,

I guess you'd also contend that the Oklahoma City bombing was too long ago to matter as well?

Kris Craig *** The # 1 perpetrator of the Oklahoma bombing was arrested hours after the explosion. He was charged, tried, found guilty and has been dead for a number of years since his execution for the crime. The # 2 perpetrator is still alive, but he has been in jail/prison since shortly after the arrest of # 1. In all likelihood, he will die in prison, even though the Lockerbie bomber did not.

Kris,

Is there a point to any of your posts, misinformation notwithstanding?

Fact: ***** Islam is so, too, as well, also a real religion and under our constitution should be treated as such. However, if there is CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of terrorist ties there should be an investigation of any such possible ties. That is also allowed under our constitution.

So I guess that our poor little weak constitution is too outdated and simplistic to be of value today? When confronted with the big scary modern world, it will just crumple over and lead us into doom. We'll be a territory of Mexico?

If that's what you believe - then you are basically being unpatriotic and disrespectful of our country and its founders. IHateLiberals, you are in not as many words promoting a mutiny against our form of governement and rule of law because it's convinient and you are scared it won't function. Stand up and have some courage, pride and faith in the document that has prevailed for 200+ years. Geez.

@ihateliberals - Sorry to pee on your bigot parade, but there were lots of Jews & synagogues in America at the time of the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers (including the athiests) were all too aware of religious bigots like y'all. Sincerely, ihatemorons-666

Is it hard to type when you wear your white gown and hood?

@rightwingidiot You're absolutely right! Throw the bums out! How DARE they approve construction of a building?! Who do they think they are, some sort of county planning commission?!.... Oh, right. Nevermind.

The founding fathers never foresaw this?

Clearly you have not actually read what the founding fathers said about protections for minority religions in the constitution. I suggest you read the federalist papers as well as many letters by the founding fathers.

They were in fact extremely cognizant of the issue of a minority religion taking "advantage" of freedom of religion. It was a big topic of discussion, specifically because THERE WAS A RELIGIOUS WAR on. No not a war between Islam and Christianity, but a war between Christian sects that was playing out all across Europe. Read up about how may protestants and jews were murdered by catholics.

And yet, the founding fathers thought that every religion should get protection (or no religion). You must be smarter than them.

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".'"

Thomas Jefferson's personal English translation of the Koran is in the library of Congress. This country was made up of many races and religions when we fought for our freedom from tyranny. Why would anyone vote for our modern lords and ladies to take over our present Government escapes me.

The crazy right-winged Christians?

I don't trust you!

What else are the voices telling you?

Steveo: "The crazy right-winged Christians?"

Yes, and unfortunately it is already too late. They are freakin' everywhere.

That's what Protestant/Baptist Americans have been saying about Jews and Catholics in the end of 1800s and most of 1900s.

Remember that JFK being a Catholic has been a big issue in the election back then?

steveo

no , the ignorant , entitlement minded , socialist , left wing non-believers

There are thousands of restraining orders issued in America each month for violence against women by men, and some vice versa. There are thousands of hand gun deaths in America each year, more people in prisons per capita than anyplace else, and privatization is making it more attractive to send more. Because of the illegality of drugs, and because of the insatiable appetite for same here, thousands of people are killed per year supplying same. There are thousands of deaths and injuries from drunk driving, etc., here per year.

2 million people were killed in Vietnam, based largely on a lie, forests were destroyed, agent orange and "carpet bombing" and "fire bombing" were used. 100,000 people to hundreds of thousands of people were killed, maimed, tortured in Iraq, a Crime Against Peace, based on lies or "policy". 1,000,000 people were killed in a Crime Against Peace to "balance the Middle East" supported by the U.S. "government", and supporting S. Hussein and the use of wmd's. 100,000,000 people plus were killed in a conflict among the "civilzed" European countries.

"Drones" indescriminately have killed whole wedding parties and other innocent Muslims. "Drones" those terrorist weapons that if everybody gets, you won't be able to walk down the street in good cheer.

The "government" here spends on weapons more than most, if not all, of the other countries on earth combined. People are searched at their own courthouses, because of weapons from the people here. There is indescriminate selling of weapons all over the world. Favorites are played here and fear is a mass marketing technique. It's good to live in a "civilized" society of "Godly" people.

Mark: While I generally go along with you in what you said, I feel the incident of the SCHOOL GIRLS in Saudi Arabia need further discussion. I agree that forcing those teenage girls to remain in a burning buildng was terribly wrong. However, either you did not know, or chose to ignore the follow up in the Saudi Street. There was such an enormous outcry from the populace of Saudi Arabia that the law now spells out that NO ONE may interfere with firemen doing their job FOR ANY REASON.

Tennesee?

So you're saying we should send them back to America?

Where should the American citizens be sent back to?

A few issues:

1. Does your religion ban the use of capitalizing the first letter of a sentence?
2. Honor killings are not a part of Islam. They're derived from Arab culture.
3. Most Muslims frequently condemn terrorists and work with law enforcement to help capture them. They don't turn a "blind eye".
4. Christianity has just as much violence as Islam. But like most Muslims, most Christians choose to ignore that aspect of their religion. For example, most Christians won't stone someone to death for having sex with a woman during her menstral cycle, even though the Bible specifically mandates that.
5. Muslims haven't integrated into our culture any less than any other group. I hate to break it to ya, but being a Christian is NOT a prerequisite for being an American.

Being a christian should disqualify you from voting. If I can convince you there are talking snakes and pregnant virgins, well, I can make you believe that Obama is a kenyan born, socialist, muslim.....Wait, you idiots already believe that, my point exactly.

If you fall for religious BS, you can't be trusted to make informed, reasonable decisions....

Thanks gpotts, that is a brilliant, informed, and reasonable idea.

Your idiotic opinion should disqualify you from most things, I would say. Please do stay away from the voting booth.

Enjoy your dying religion, it is doomed. Lack of priests, kids are too smart today. Congregation drying up, except in the 3rd world dumps that the Vatican exploits. The Cult of the Pope will end, because it is nothing but a cult, and is too conceited to change.

Nice sentiment Steve, ignore Walkwithmeinhell, he obviously has a bone to pick with Catholics.

I think the catholics are the ones "picking bones" as it were! If you take your child and drop them at church, CPS should come take them away for abuse.

Another intelligent observation from gpotts!

Your posts are outstanding. Very thoughtful, educated and tolerant. How do you manage to come up with such intriguing material?

Its been around longer than most christian religions,

Islam is not a religion. It is a cult. Only cults commit suicides, mass killings, mass suicides such as suicide bombings included. That is a fact known the world around that cults are often suicidal and almost all terrorists are suicide bombers who are also Muslims so therefore by logic Islam is a cult and NOT a religion so i should have no protections under the law.

Your logic is... uhmm..interesting.

Only cults commit suicides, mass killings, mass suicides such as suicide bombings included

Sounds like Christianity until 60 years ago (or today in sub Sahara Africa).... just saying.

Christianity is also a cult

To quote Mel Brooks: "The Inquisition...what a show...the Inquisition...here we go..."

Of course that wasn't really mass killing...because they were killing those "other" people. Right?

"beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre" - I consider the beliefs and practices of every religion on Earth as abnormal, bizarre, ridiculous and nonsensical. People have just as much a right to worship their make-believe god in a mosque as in a church or temple. And fortunately people also have the right to not worship at all.

No, no - he's right. It's those sneaky arabists and all the temples they keep building. Ever notice how all the big temples have this big missle thingy pointed at the sky? And, as Jesus said: "What goeth up, must cometh down."

@Larson LOL you definitely should've gotten more upvotes for that!

In the Quran (the holy book of Muslims), it says:

O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. God is Merciful towards you. Anyone who commits these transgressions, maliciously and deliberately, we will condemn him to Hell. This is easy for God to do.

-Quran 4:29-30

Through ignorance you spread lies and evil. God will ask you about this on the day of judgement so pray for forgiveness:

"Repentance is acceptable by God from those who fall in sin out of ignorance, then repent immediately thereafter. God redeems them. God is Omniscient, Most Wise."

Quran 4:17

Damn right... If this were a Scientology or Mormon temple... it would have already been built and housing aliens by now...

For some reason if this were a Scientology or Mormon temple you'd have the same issues as the judge.

Why is it that a mosque can disobey the law in your eyes? There is a process which apparently all permits must abide by, but you want to give them a pass?

I honestly don't care if it's a mosque a church or a McDonalds that goes up there as long as they obey the states laws and general practices.

Is it to much for you that we should expect our laws to be followed, or do you just give a blanket pass to all Muslims because MSNBC says you're racist if you don't?

If they did not submit the paperwork in ample time, they need to deal with that, period. I would be hard money if this were a church or a Mormon temple going up, you'd be singing a different tune, which makes your entire opinion invalid.

I hope they watch your church too. You scare me.

I'm worried about people who meet the profile of terrorism in the US: White, americans with names like McVeigh.

I sure hope your church is watched 24/7

I'm sure you have no problem with that, it's only logical

Judsi: Muslims do not worship Mohammed. That's like saying Christians worship Moses. I would prefer the government keep watch on people like you.

@Judsi Seriously, loosen the aluminum foil you've got wrapped around your head before you pass-out! Islam is no more or less crazy than your religion. If you think that you can tell whether a person is a threat based solely on his/her religion, then you're just plain dumb and, for that, you have my pity.

I don't belong to a particular religion. If you read about the training grounds for the fanatics, you will see that many mosques may be for their religion but they also were used as an excuse for hiding these nuts. Yes, there are other religions that might do the same. Jeremiah Wright would be another sorry state and he is Christian. However, these two religions are the ones we read and hear about most that keep using their churches and beliefs to create violence. True, there are many who don't use religion as a basis for violence. They have other agendas and then those are just plain mentally ill. But the issue here is the Islamic church and what they stand for. So don't condemn me for stating what is happening around you.

Judsi,

What the hell are you talking about? I've worked in Saudia Arabia as well as Utah. Found them both religious nuts and very much alike in thier beliefe systems, in my opinion. But that is their rigth. My judgement of both has only value to me.

Fr. Luke

So it is your and your Christian brothers' right to take their words and writing and interpret them in the most hateful and bigoted way possible so that you can judge others who believe in a different fairy tale than you? So if you brought to their attention that people in this country who are treated differently would want equal right 250 years later, they would have changed the constitution?

Stupid Moslems...always invading stuff...

You are wrong. Read the federalist papers. The founding fathers discussed a lot of the concerns of minority religions, separation of church and state and such in multiple volumes.

you choose to be ignorant if you want to keep telling us what the founding fathers whould think without actually reading what they said on the subject

Saintoofcircumstance.....you are truly and ignorant fool.....you speak of "always invading"....what the hell do you think the US did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now more then likely...Iran.....INVADE THEM!!....dum-ass....try reading a book or something..

The people opposing this building are not fans of the U.S. Constitution. Or religious freedom. Sickening that this exists in the 21st century.

Can I put a totem pole on the town hall lawn? My totem pole is magic. I have just as much evidence that my totem pole is magic as you do that Jesus is the son of god.

In other words, none.

The founders wrote a clear and concise document. They left Jesus out of the Constitution on purpose.

The phrase, "We hold these truths to be sacred" was changed to "We hold these truths to be self evident" because "sacred" had religious connotations.

The founding fathers were infuenced more by The Age of Enlightenment than the Bible. You know what that is? Thats what happend AFTER the Dark Ages that some Christians AND Muslims want to return to.

Sam its, a proven fact that Jesus lived. if he is the son of god, well i guess you will find that out when Satan greets you and tells you all about it.

Never said he didn't live. I said there is no evidence he was the son of god.

I don't believe in Satan either, but that's not your problem, is it? OR your business.

jesus is the son of our god you know such fools like you are under satans rules.