No, you did in the quote I commented on.  You do indeed have ADD.  For I was not beefing with muslim folks anywhere on this blog.  I am "beefing" with Sharia law.  But then I do not expect you to understand the difference.

You start out demanding to know the new Yorkers that are in opposition, then use a non-New Yorker?  Please, stop waffling so bad!  We were (based upon YOUR demand) talking about new Yorkers, not Virginians.

I can see you are a poster child for Obama and liberals.  Of course no one can have an honest disagreement, they have to be parodied and spat upon by the Illiterate Literati such as yourself.

You have explained yourself very well.  Unfortunately the ugliness of the picture does tend to cloud the worthlessness of the words.

Ah, the sensitivity and tolerance.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/20/mosque-spokesman-defends-twitter-tactics-but-cuts-down-on-the-snark/

Excellent point Basmas. However, it reminds me of the illegal immigrant issue. We didn't hear about that much until the late 70's early 80's. Now the illegals are a large enough group that laws are ignored and some politicians bend over backward to accommodate them. Hindsight is 20/20, but we have plenty of examples of how "change" is brought about in history. I'm sure folks scoffed at the need to protect the boarder at one time, and thought any supporters were paranoid, intolerant, or racist. Different issues sure, but something to think about.

I'm persuaded (absent evidence to the contrary) that a sufficiently vocal and committed minority of western Muslims, particularly those sympathetic to the Cordoba crowd, have no desire or intent to live long-term in, or subject to the rule of, any secular state, US or otherwise.  And that they will wrest control of the narrative concerning the role of sharia in the west.

The problem is the western concept of the secular state with freedom of religion is fundamentally incompatible with the Muslim concept of the state: the faith/sharia is the state, a theocracy.  There is no provision in sharia for equitable treatment of infidels and I've seen nothing to suggest how sharia could be permitted alongside secular law and within our Constitutional republic.  It explicitly requires doing harm to other human beings for no reason other than non-belief (what dan_l falsely implies of Christians) and prescribes what most in western cultures consider irrational and disproportionately cruel and unusual punishment of transgressing believers (e.g., stoning a rape victim to death & other 'honor' killings).  (I'm open to enlightenment if my understanding of sharia is incorrect.)

To be sure, there are Muslims in this country who are practicing their religion in a manner compatible with mutually respectful co-existence and who are truly pursuing ecumenical accommodation with other religions, perhaps, if we're lucky, a majority.  A curiously silent majority, if that's the case, however.  A few have spoken up publicly in opposition to the mosque's location.  They appear to be an unfortunately small minority and certainly do not include the Cordoba crowd, which appears, by its actions, to be tone deaf to, and paying pure lip service to, ecumenicism.  They (the Cordoba backers) do not wish to honor the innocents (Muslims among them) who perished on 9/11 at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists - there are lots of ways they could do that short of building a mosque two blocks away, especially given the Muslim history of building mosques as statements, as monuments to the defeat of Islam's enemies, of which they are quite well aware.

If a fundamentalist Mormon sect which practiced polygamy were to attempt to do what the Cordoba project is attempting, how far do you think they'd get?  For that matter, remember Waco?  Despite dan_l's strawmen, there is no Christian sect attempting to impose religious doctrine on non-believers, or subject non-believers to punishment of any kind, lethal or otherwise.  Western religions (and most Eastern religions) have no equivalent to the Muslim (sharia) notion of infidel.  So there is no equivalence argument here.  We've come down hard on peaceful leave-us-alone-let-us-do-our-thing religious groups while bending over backward to accommodate Islam.

The fact that Rauf and his backers are so hell-bent on using this particular location as a mosque speaks volumes about their understanding of the concept of mutual respect, as in they have none, and their true feelings about promoting a healthy freedom of religion for all.

If you're just beefing with Sharia law, then why beef with the Cordoba mosque? 

And incidentally, what is the real difference between the crazy Sharia law types and the crazy family values types?  Really?  I mean both are trying to enforce religious values on people who couldn't care any less.  Why hold one so dear and throw aside the other? 

Now you're just being silly.  I asked off the cuff whether there actually was enough political give-a-shit to actually do anything about this, or whether most New Yorkers really have a strong opinion on the issue one way or the other.  Barring, of course the dancing bears.  But that would actually require you to read into what a dancing bear is which would require you to have actual command of the news cycle and not just be a wanton consumer of massive quantities of bullshit made easier to swallow by the fact that you're totally incredible partisan. 

I know I have.  Like always, you're stage 5 Obama Derangement Syndrome precludes you from having even a momentary critical thought. 

Well, she's crazy and she's a clarion, tangible example of exactly the kind of whacko I'm talking about.  Sometimes the best examples are the most local.  Or loco!

Heh. 

The texas gop considers criminalizing homosexuality as well as banning porn a part of their platform. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/texas-gop-platform-advoca_n_619601.html

501C3 hate orgs such as Americans For Truth, American Family Institute, [insert state] family institute, and others advocate for 'marriage protection laws' or laws designed to preclude queer folks from being married.  Why?  To protect 'christian family values'. 

Naturally, partisans such as DG and Daiwa wouldn't dare make the mental connection between Religious Group A and their ancient silly ideas and Religious Group B and their ancient silly ideas. I mean didn't a federal judge just have to step in and tell the california taliban types to stick their jeebus? 

So to be clear on your philosophy: 

Enforcing Sharia values here in the US would be ok so long as it's not violent? 

And what about the rather long history of anti-abortion violence?  Why doesn't that count? 

See above.

So when they say this: 

"Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have beenordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans."

They're not actually talking about Christian values that they're trying to make into law right?  How do you explain that then? 

Nop!  It's their religious need.  Porn, much like the out and open exists of gay folks, is an affront to their jeebus.  It tears at the fabric of the family!  There's statistics!  Statistics that prove that porn ruins the family, is responsible for Brett Favre cheating on his wife and killing JFK.  STATISTICS!!!! From priests!  And Pastors! 

Right.  but when we're talking about violence in modern society, no degree is acceptable.  When we're talking about trying to force feed all of Americans inane mythology, no degree is acceptable.  When we're talking about asking Americans to live by any ancient, assbackwards laws - no degree is acceptable. 

Again.  No degree is acceptable. 

Ooooo lookee here: 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36995_Fundamentalist_Indoctrination-_Mandatory_in_the_US_Army

On May 13, 2010, about eighty soldiers, stationed at Fort Eustis while attending a training course, were punished for opting out of attending one of these Christian concerts. The headliner at this concert was a Christian rock band called BarlowGirl, a band that describes itself as taking “an aggressive, almost warrior-like stance when it comes to spreading the gospel and serving God.”

Hmmm. 

n May 13, 2010, about eighty soldiers, stationed at Fort Eustis while attending
a training course, were punished for opting out of attending one of these
Muslim concerts. The headliner at this concert was a Muslim rock band
called BarlowGirl, a band that describes itself as taking “an aggressive, almost
warrior-like stance when it comes to spreading the Koran and serving Allah.”

Hmmmmmmmm

And I agree--in fact, I said almost exactly that myself.  But where is murder more prevalent? And by "more," I mean "way, way, way more."

And Tiller's murderer had to break the law in order to kill him.  With Sharia, people get stoned according to the law.  That's a big difference.

You'd think that distinction would be obvious.  Isn't to many, unfortunately.  (And, just to be clear, we know flying planes into the WTC was not 'legal' - but it was under sharia).

Hard to believe that could happen under our current CIC, isn't it?

Among many things, it's balls-to-the-wall stupid.  If what is alleged actually happened (no reason to doubt it so far) there's something seriously wrong in the Army.

But that still has nothing to do with the topic.  Not even the Army is a religious sect.