Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

There are very few Christian politicians I think, even when they claim to be. His son Rand Paul, fyi, disagrees on the mosque. Ron Paul also claims to be a Christian, and he prOBably is.

However, I've followed Ron Paul for a long time, and there are too many of his supporters who are not Christian. I'm not saying they are bad people, just unsaved. In fact, I suspect they are ideal waters for fishing in, because they really haven't heard the real gospel, and although they have a love for limited government and some truth from which that would follow, they've also been taught a lot of wrong ideas about history, and in philosophy.

I had an opportunity to witness on their forums for awhile. My tact was to point out the founders were Christians, and to quote the bible or pieces of history. I believe it did some good, and would prOBably continue to do good if others continued to follow it. I ended up after awhile with more information on our founders then wall builders has, and one of them said I was writing a book - lol.

I also, fyi, found out that Ron Paul's press secrertary was a gnostic (ie witch), from arguing with her, and found a few others of that ilk after much discussion (another witch, and a person who was an occult bookstore wholesaler). This type of discovery I find is common everywhere. If I went to a Newt Gingrich forum (who claimed to be a baptist and then become a Roman Catholic), or Arnold Scherznigger (who is pushing gay marriages in California over the will of the people), I would find the same thing. I often find the worst of the people I am contending with in any group has these type of backgrounds.

Neverless, people who support Ron Paul may be a good place to witness. They can't help it if some people involved in the occult are hovering over them. And the occult people can't help it if the devil has them under their sway. Submit to God, resist the devil, and he will flee.

Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Constitution grants them the right to have a Mosque on their private property. Being the champion of the Constitution that he is, it's no surprise that Ron Paul would defend it. I support him.


In this case, eminent domain should be used to buy the property. Its exactly true that it is being used for the Holy War, and is just sedition at the moment. Buying the property is entirely reasonable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



In this case, eminent domain should be used to buy the property. Its exactly true that it is being used for the Holy War, and is just sedition at the moment. Buying the property is entirely reasonable.



Our Constitution does NOT support foreign governments (Saudi Arabia) and new stations (CNN) putting up the money for this mega mosque. That is exactly what is happening. Ron Paul and his Libertarians ought to look closely at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ron Paul is correct in that what goes on in downtown NY should be determined by the State of New York, the city of New York and the people of New York, not by the federal government.

It should be remembered that as originally founded, the central (federal) government was established in what could be considered a libertarian manner. The federal government was given very limited and specific duties and powers. EVERYTHING else was left for each State to establish for themselves as they thought best.

Of course the Constitution has been shredded and the Bill of Rights inverted, but Ron Paul is rather consistent upon staking his positions based upon original intent as the Founders set it forth.

None of this is to say Ron Paul is right on everything or that he articulates everything well or anything of the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never liked Ron Paul.

Freedom of religion does NOT MEAN freedom to build stuff wherever you want. I can't build a house for my family near Ground Zero, but I have a right to build a house, right? Just not THERE. Same with any church, even a Muslim one. And in this particular case, ESPECIALLY a Muslim one.

Um...not letting them build a mosque in that ONE place is NOT messing up their constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



In this case, eminent domain should be used to buy the property. Its exactly true that it is being used for the Holy War, and is just sedition at the moment. Buying the property is entirely reasonable.


Umm, eminent domain can't be exercised willy-nilly like that in this country for any reason. By that logic the government could seize your house or your church any day now because they decided they didn't like you. Regardless of how a few nutcases want us to start treating Muslims, we don't do things like that in this country.

Holy War? Oookay.


I never liked Ron Paul.

Freedom of religion does NOT MEAN freedom to build stuff wherever you want. I can't build a house for my family near Ground Zero, but I have a right to build a house, right? Just not THERE. Same with any church, even a Muslim one. And in this particular case, ESPECIALLY a Muslim one.

Um...not letting them build a mosque in that ONE place is NOT messing up their constitutional rights.



Actually, you can live near ground zero with your family, many families do. Granted, your structure would have to follow zoning laws, but say you bought the old Burlington Coat Factory building and wanted to modify it for living space for your family, you could.

And there is a church even closer to ground zero than the proposed mosque/community center.

So if you say not there, where? How far is far enough? I'm seriously asking here because at some point that will have to be determined. So how far? Lower Manhattan? NYC? The United States? Because right now people don't want a mosque to be built in Tennessee and that's pretty far from ground zero.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Umm, eminent domain can't be exercised willy-nilly like that in this country for any reason. By that logic the government could seize your house or your church any day now because they decided they didn't like you. Regardless of how a few nutcases want us to start treating Muslims, we don't do things like that in this country.

Holy War? Oookay.




Actually, you can live near ground zero with your family, many families do. Granted, your structure would have to follow zoning laws, but say you bought the old Burlington Coat Factory building and wanted to modify it for living space for your family, you could.

And there is a church even closer to ground zero than the proposed mosque/community center.

So if you say not there, where? How far is far enough? I'm seriously asking here because at some point that will have to be determined. So how far? Lower Manhattan? NYC? The United States? Because right now people don't want a mosque to be built in Tennessee and that's pretty far from ground zero.


Basically good points, but over the past decade or so the courts have ruled that eminent domain is no longer restricted to common good uses as was the case for over 200 years; such as for the purposes of building roads, bridges, canals and the like. Now the courts have ruled eminent domain may be used in order for city planners to delve into aspects of community development.

I believe in the Constitution as set forth so I don't believe the federal government should have anything to do with what's done in downtown NY. This should actually be a matter for the city of NY to deal with. One of the prOBlems with this issue is not only are there folks voicing their opinions against the mosque being built there, but there are groups and politicians working to actively ensure the mosque is built there by trying to procure funds for the mosque and working deals to ensure the mosque can be built on that site.

If the city of NY were to determine the mosque can't be built there, I believe as you say there needs to be something specific about just where such can and can't be built in NY and why.

I'm personally against the mosque being built there because I know Islam and I know history. The building of a mosque in that location is a symbol of Islamic victory and the laying of claim to the land.

That said, I'm not a citizen of NY (State or city), thankfully, so my view shouldn't carry any more weight than any other non-New Yorker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually it seems our government can do as they please, using eminent domain anyway they please. Seems to me that Washington goal is to take all rights away from every state, them have each state and its politician's eating from the hand of the Washington establishment. No doubt, with each year we are getting closer to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Eminent Domain is being used for all types of things that it was never intended to in this country.

However, in this case, there is every reason to use it to keep the peace. The site is part of the 911 disaster, and buying historical sites has alwasy been used with that. It is being used to incite muslim's to futher acts of terror, so it a matter of keeping the peace. And the muslim's can't possibly claim that they can't be bought out and have their worship center some place else - any place should do, unless there is a special significance to the 911 site, and if there is a special significance to the 911 site to them, then what is being said about them is true - they are trying to incite a riot while we are at war.

When things like this are argued about, and we are at war, and at the same time land is seized for >>shopping malls<< for >>prive profit<< using eminent domain, it makes me worried how decadent the country is. Constitutionally, the State of New York can do what it likes with the eminent domain issue - its their state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Basically good points, but over the past decade or so the courts have ruled that eminent domain is no longer restricted to common good uses as was the case for over 200 years; such as for the purposes of building roads, bridges, canals and the like. Now the courts have ruled eminent domain may be used in order for city planners to delve into aspects of community development.

I believe in the Constitution as set forth so I don't believe the federal government should have anything to do with what's done in downtown NY. This should actually be a matter for the city of NY to deal with. One of the prOBlems with this issue is not only are there folks voicing their opinions against the mosque being built there, but there are groups and politicians working to actively ensure the mosque is built there by trying to procure funds for the mosque and working deals to ensure the mosque can be built on that site.

If the city of NY were to determine the mosque can't be built there, I believe as you say there needs to be something specific about just where such can and can't be built in NY and why.

I'm personally against the mosque being built there because I know Islam and I know history. The building of a mosque in that location is a symbol of Islamic victory and the laying of claim to the land.

That said, I'm not a citizen of NY (State or city), thankfully, so my view shouldn't carry any more weight than any other non-New Yorker.


Well, regardless, everyone has a right to their opinion, New Yorker or not! However, I do think that it's important and something opponents of the issue haven't addressed; if the proposed site is too close, where isn't too close?


Eminent Domain is being used for all types of things that it was never intended to in this country.

However, in this case, there is every reason to use it to keep the peace. The site is part of the 911 disaster, and buying historical sites has alwasy been used with that. It is being used to incite muslim's to futher acts of terror, so it a matter of keeping the peace. And the muslim's can't possibly claim that they can't be bought out and have their worship center some place else - any place should do, unless there is a special significance to the 911 site, and if there is a special significance to the 911 site to them, then what is being said about them is true - they are trying to incite a riot while we are at war.

When things like this are argued about, and we are at war, and at the same time land is seized for >>shopping malls<< for >>prive profit<< using eminent domain, it makes me worried how decadent the country is. Constitutionally, the State of New York can do what it likes with the eminent domain issue - its their state.


Many court cases have further defined eminent domain, we could prOBably argue what was originally intended forever. What it was most certainly never intended to do was "keep the peace." Public benefit is the overarching principle. Let me assure you, if eminent domain is used in an attempt to put an end to this issue people will will not be happy for all kinds of reasons. Muslims, Constitutional scholars, Americans who know their country is better than that, New Yorkers, you name it they will be outraged. And rightfully so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...