Badmovies.org Forum

I have followed with some interest the controversy surrounding the building of a large mosque in New York City within about two blocks of the place the World Trade Center once stood.  I understand that the Imam behind this is no radical, despite the efforts of some to paint him as such, and that he has been a promoter of peace and understanding between Islam and the West.
  At the same time, I understand the outrage that many feel.  Even if they do not represent the modern mainstream of Islamic thought, the 9/11 hijackers were radical Muslims seeking to promote the overthrow, not just of the U.S., but of all Western civilization.  For many 9/11 families, this must feel like a slap in the face.
  I am of two minds.  I believe greatly in freedom of religion - although I wish the Islamic countries would practice it - but at the same time, there is something so impolitic about this that it rankles me.  Would it be appropriate to build a German cultural center in the shadow of Auschwitz?  Should the U.S. government - or anyone for that matter - build a monument to the U.S. Army Air Corps within the city limits of Hiroshima?  Surely there are some Muslims who realize that this is just bad P.R. for their faith!
  Anyway, what do you guys think?  I am especially interested in the opinions of New Yorkers.

The mosque has been there for over 25 years, they are just expanding. I say, leave them be. They aren't hurting anyone.

I am of multiple feelings but only of one mind. The Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the 1st amendment must prevail, despite how my deistic views of religion may make me feel.

It's 2 blocks away. they're not hurting anyone, let it be.

Considering there's already a Mosque even CLOSER to Ground Zero, eh.  I did find it interesting that by opinion poll, virtually the only place where a majority either didn't care or supported it is Manhattan itself.

Most people here know that my birthday falls on the 11th September and 9/11/2001 was the most horrible day in my life, next to 16 May 2008 when my Dad passed. I have never had a proper birthday since and do not expect to have one in a month's time.  :bluesad: That said, I have always been treated well by members of the Muslim community and when I was in a church youth group, my friends and I were invited to the mosque here in Pretoria, which was quite an experience. The Imam of the mosque even invited the ladies in our group in, welcoming them with the words "Women are our sisters."

I just feel that a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero is defaming the memories of those who died in the Twin Towers and in the planes on that horrible day.

That reminds me of this article! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ground-zero-mosque-defies-logic/story-e6frg6so-1225903138096 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ground-zero-mosque-defies-logic/story-e6frg6so-1225903138096)

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with your point Indy, I should point out your comparison is slightly exaggerated.  Whilst fanatics of a particular faith did cause those horrible acts, it wasn't the religion itself: just hateful people hiding behind an extreme religious ideology.  That is decidedly different to your examples above, in which a specific, and accountable, country brought those horrible acts upon their victims. 


In any case both the US and Germany have repeatedly helped in the reconciliation between the victims of their atrocities, such as helping in the funding of both the Hiroshima Peace Memorial and the Auschwitz Memorial.  Should they stop funding to these important projects because they were the ones who caused it in the first place?

I certainly think that building a mosque on the site of the world trade center would be a completely silly, albeit bold, exercise, but having one nearby is hardly a horror that should be shunned by all.  It is quite a way away and its not like they'll be selling burning Twin Tower t-shirts...  :lookingup:  How far away would they need to be for this to be within acceptable bounds?

Considering that New York has the highest percentage islamic population next to California, [a quick search tells me it is sitting at around 16%] it seems likely that there will be more than just a few Mosques in Manhattan.  I do understand some people will have their reservations, but if anything we should be promoting peace and education between western and Islamic cultures rather than the fear and hate that seems to be coming from facets on both sides.  There's sure to be a few bumps along the way, but I am hopeful that if approved it could prove to be a minor starting point in repairing relations between people who have seen almost a decade of hate and conflict.  We are much more likely to beat the hate together than apart.



Can we really say that this is such a horrible thing?

From: http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-one-last-big-hurdle-20100804-11a8p.html
 (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-one-last-big-hurdle-20100804-11a8p.html)

There's two people on the board who've said that there's ALREADY a mosque near the 9-11 site.  I'm not disputing that, I'm just asking though, where did you get that information?  I tried doing a Google search and couldn't find anything backing that up.

Personally, I don't know, I just think it seems a little tasteless, and common sense would seem to tell you that maybe, just maybe it might not be a good idea.  Just seems like they'd be a bit more respectful of the feelings of those who died and say, "Okay, we'll put this up in another spot." 

A bit off topic, but what I want to know is the HELL is it that it's been nearly TEN years and not a damn thing has been built on that site?  What the hell is taking so long with all the damn red tape and government bureaucracy. 

As for what we should be on the site, I personally like Penn and Teller's idea.

(warning clip NSFW)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SgbWkeHxq0

I think that's a great idea.  They should build a nice big synagogue in downtown Kabul as long as they're at it.

Yes it might be tasteless to build a mosque so close to ground zero, but there is something in this country called freedom of religion and despite how many people might feel about islam, we have to still accept and allow the followers of the religion to practice it in peace. I personally do not like that they are building this so close to where the towers fell, but its un-constitutional to stop them from building a mosque there. Everyone knows that not all practitioners of islam are fanatics and those that are, are in the minority. There has been nothing to show that building this mosque will pose a danger to the citizens of new york and will likely be heavily watched by homeland security.

 Call me a cynic, but I think that some muslims want to build a mosque near the site just hoping and praying to their god it gets burned/bombed/vandalized so they can whine and snivel and have an excuse to go on al jazira with a call to jihad against the infidels who destroyed their temple.

I think Nick and Trevor echo my feelings most closely.  I do not think it should be forbidden, but I do not really think it is a wise idea to build it that close by.

http://www.masjidmanhattan.com/    This mosque has been in its location for over 25 years, four blocks from ground zero.  The new mosque is one block away from this one.  Big deal. I thought they were the same but they aren't. The point is the same .. A mosque has been in the area for years so why the outrage now?

http://wonkette.com/417009/attention-bigots-there-is-already-a-mosque-near-the-wtc-site





http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/21/2010-05-21_untitled__2mosque21m.html

I'm going to have to echo the thoughts of most people on this thread.  Yes, we have freedom of religion.  Its what this country was built on.  I'm not a religious person.  I was raised as a southern baptist, but I've formed my own views of religion over the years.  I have my own beliefs, my own views and so do the people who follow Islam......

Now that being said....this does feel like a slap in the face.  I understand that there is a mosque close by already and they are hoping to expand with this new proposed mosque.  Just imagine being someone who lives there though.  Imagine driving by the 9/11 site and then just moments later, passing by a mosque.  

If they want to expand, then good for them.  It doesn't change the fact that the persons who caused the 9/11 tragedy did it in the name of Islam.  I know that not all Islamic followers want to blow us up.  I fully realize that.  They need to realize that this is something that still hurts us.  The attack we suffered will be burned into the minds of every single one of us who watched it happen.  They need to understand why we're angry, hurt and why quite a few people disapprove of it.  

If I was someone who had to vote on it, I'd have to vote against it.  Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice what you believe.  They can do that just as well at a location 5 miles from Ground Zero as they can 2 blocks away.

well first of all, I love red staters like newt gingrich and pat buchanan weighing in on what is morally acceptable to have in MANHATTAN.  

My dad is not only a New Yokrker but was right outside the towers on 9/11. His wife was in the freaking stairwell of tower two when the second plane hit. I'll ask him what he thinks but my guess is he won't care. New Yorkers are very busy and this will likely just be another building they walk by and don't think one bit about.

further as some guy I follow on twitter put it "why not put a gmosque at gruond zero, haven't we put alot of ground zeros next to mosques?"

My wife is from Belfast, Northern Ireland. Her parents moved here when she was a child to get away from a city that was, at least in the 1970's, full of violence and bigotry and oppression (It's a much nicer place now). Even though that time known as The Troubles has simmered down quite a bit, that separation between the catholic Irish and the protestant loyalists is still on everybody's mind, and while things have been calm and peaceful for some years, it is a watchful peace that could erupt if just the wrong event happened. All of this is founded in a religious struggle. This is America. We're not supposed to have that here. If we're going to be a nation that is above what the terrorists did, and if we're supposedly a Christian nation, as I keep hearing we are, shouldn't we be turning the other cheek? Isn't that something that Jesus was trying to teach? I'm not a Christian, but there are many here that think we are a Christian nation. As such, I find it odd that we are a far cry from several doctrines that I always thought were Christian, such as "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and the aforementioned "do not resist an evil person; but whoever stikes you on the cheek, turn the other to him also."

For somebody who isn't a Christian, this the second time in as many days that I have quoted from the Bible. I don't want to exacerbate a war of words and ideologies like I did with the drug issue recently. I have since felt bad about that. I don't want to offend anybody of faith and I'm not trying to quote out of context or pick and choose verses, as I think I've heard is an inappropriate thing to do. The reason I brought up the biblical quotes I did was because I had a conversation with my Irish father-in-law, and although he grew up in the midst of the troubles in Northern Ireland and made the decision to leave because it was getting too dangerous for his family, he has a very astute view on religious tolerance. He pointed out to me that, in the midst of the potato famine in Ireland, the catholics and the protestants, despite famine and starvation and people in grave need, continued to fight each other, and in many cases would turn people away who were in dire need and on the verge of death, because they weren't of the proper faith. The Quakers who were in Ireland at the time, who were largely very gnostic in their beliefs and accepted all people as being of God, were the only ones who were routinely helping anyone who came to them, catholic or protestant, because it was a time of great peril and that's what you did in such times. His main point was that, despite them holding laregly gnostic principles, they were behaving more Christian than those who were supposed to be Christians.

If we are Americans, and we value the doctrines of freedom, and if we truly are greater than other nations, then shouldn't we be above that kind of thing? I believe we should.

Oh, when I said that there are many here who think we are a Christian nation, I wasn't meaning this site, just the U.S. in general. I just wanted to clarify the wording.

I'm fine with these anti mosque ads if thats what they want to do but this woman is really annoying and not an assett to her cause

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ufsXUHfMY

wow that sucks...

At this point I'd move my birthday.


I do have mixed feeling about this issue... I do know terrorist did this but I'm not sure about blaiming the whole religion although the terrorist has made this into a religious war.

This isn't happening just in New York, check out this Jon Stewart video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/stewart-takes-on-ground-z_n_678224.html

Flick, that was a brilliant observation!

I guess what I think is that, while there should be no legal prohibition, most Americans would think more highly of Islam as a whole if they exercised a little tact and built it further away.

Manhattan is not like most places.

I would agree with that observation. A bit more tact may be in order.

New Yorkers have bigger fish to fry

I think its because it is a mosque that people are upset.  If they had been Baptist terrorists, people wouldn't object to a church being built nearby.   

There are millions upon millions of Muslims who just want to get on with their lives and condemn terrorists and terrorism.  Abortion clinic bombers do not reflect Christians at large, and the 911 bombers do not reflect all Muslims.

-Ed

True that!  But there are far many more Islamic terrorists in the world than there are Baptist ones!  I mean, in the last decade, how many abortionists have been murdered by fanatical Christians in America - or in the whole world, for that matter?  Probably no more than two or three in this country. I know it is less than 10 for the last decade.  I don't know about elsewhere.

Now, how many have been killed by Islamic terrorists and extremists in the same decade?  Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.  Even though the vast majority of the world's Muslims are not violent people, there are so many Muslims worldwide (over a billion) that if only 10% are radicalized enough to actively practice jihad against the West, you are talking over a hundred million potential terrorists!  That is more men than Hitler ever commanded, even at the height of World War II!  It is a good thing they are such primitive barbarians - if they were as technically advanced as the West, we would be in deep trouble!

What Islam needs is an internal Reformation that will completely and finally reject the "sword passages" of the Quran, just as the Catholic church renounced religious warfare in the 1960's.  Let each faith lay its Scriptures and ideals out there, without force or the threat of force, and may the True God win!

Gee they have to be primitive barbarians to believe such a silly reward. A smart person wouldnt kill themselves for 32 virgins. Actually what is that? The first 32 days in heaven you are training a virgins to sexually please you (talk about work) then afterwords you got 32 annoying woman for the rest of your life... Gee that sounds like Hell to me.


I dont think its the sword passages is the problem. Actually I even doubt the terrorist leaders really believe the Quran, they are using the passages to mind control uneducated and the insane to do the deeds.

The terrorist leaders motive is power and its not based on the Quran or even Mohammed's teachings, althought they are hiding behind it to insite additional support from other uneducated people.

I really think the FBI/CIA should treat these "Terrorist Leaders" like Charles Manson, because Charles Manson used a simular method to get his family to murder, actually Charles Manson told the police his motive was to start a race war (which is quite simular to the terrorist starting a "holy war").  :buggedout:


Oddly I thought their all the same God with different names.

Hmm.. interesting, I love how the author of this article puts the word "Bigots" in the title, because, of course, anyone who has concerns about a new mosque being built near ground zero is automatically a bigot.  (Never mind that there are MUSLIMS who think a new Mosque being built is a bad idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VwL8IqnZ2o).  This is also the same logic that anyone who opposes the war is obviously anti-military and anti-American.

I guess my question though would be, if there's ALREADY a Mosque nearby, why the sudden interest in building another one? 

I don't know, just seem like certain just insist on stirring things up just to see what happens...

It's primarily a large Islamic community/education center.  It just will also have a mosque in it.  

According to some of the people responsible for building it, they wanted to use it (in part, anyway) as a place for outreach and understanding to the non-Islamic community in Manhattan.  

I think your wife and I could talk about a lot, as regards the ugly violence that reared its' head in Ireland when she was a young girl and the bloody civil war that erupted in Rhodesia when I was a young boy. I still believe that growing up in a war zone messed me up a little inside, but still made me tough too.

As regards my previous comments, I have to say that I am all for religious freedom ~ those people that piloted the aeroplanes were fanatics, hiding behind the words of the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), just like those idiots in the Inquisition and the Crusades were hding behing the Bible and the teaching of Jesus Christ ~ but I feel that anything like having a mosque near Ground Zero would be like me erecting a hotel or resort on the site of one of the Anglo-Boer War concentration camps in South Africa. It is just wrong.

From everything I have read, these guys are purely religious in their motivations, with few exceptions.  The way they conduct themselves in private generally accords itself with the doctrines they spew in public.  There are some, I am sure, who simply use jihad to further their political and financial ambitions, but for the most part these guys actually seem to believe their own rhetoric, which  makes them even more dangerous, because, many in the West insist on trying to deal with them as if they are rationally motivated when they are not.  Ahmedinijad in Iran is a prime example.  The West tries to negotiate with him as if he were  a rational human being, when in fact he is a religious zealout who truly believes his role in history is to trigger the great war that will bring about the appearance of the Twelfth Imam.

As far as this "one God many Names",  Muslims insist that Allah is the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians, and that the other "peoples of the Book" either corrupted or lost His message somewhere along the way, until Muhammad gave us His final revelation.  Most Christians rightly reject this, because our belief system is centered on the idea that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who sacrificed Himself in atonement for our sins, was literally crucified and rose again the third day.  Muhammad, in his "visions" from Allah, explicitly denied all these concepts, claiming that Jesus was NOT the Son of God, and was NEVER crucified.  If Jesus was the Son of God, then Muhammad was no prophet.  If Muhammad was a prophet, then Jesus had to be the Son of God.  Looking at the incredible preponderance of historical evidence supporting the Resurrection of Christ, Muhammad had to be wrong.

Ironically, I think he did glimpse the truth oh so briefly.  After his first visitation from Allah,  Muhammad went home to his wife Kadijah and said he feared a demon may have been trying to deceive him.  She reassured him that his visions must come from God and urged him to go back for more.  I think his first instinct was probably correct.

I have nothing agaist faith or spiritual belief. What's more I am not an atheist as some think I am. Spiritual belief is a very important thing that must not be restricted, yet kept personal. I think the combination of the free exercise and establishment clauses in the 1st amendment were extremely well conceptualized on the part of the founding fathers and perhaps one of the more succinct areas of the constitution, which amazes me that so many people misinterpret it. Actually, it doesn't amaze me, really. Religion, faith, any belief system that is based on a set of "revealed" doctrines written down (and this includes Scientology) and widely distributed is inherently prone to hypocrisy and corruption. It may be argued that it goes beyond the hypocrisy and corruption of politics. Anyone who holds the attention of an audience who fears the afterlife holds power that often supercedes political power.

You see corruption amongst religious leaders withing Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. In some parts of the middle east, for example, the rich and powerful don't follow the Qu'ran, at least not in any strictness and not like the common people whom they control. Many in power there live lives of such hedonism and depravity, yet the people who are actually living the life set down for them by the Qu'ran believe these people in power have divine authority. It's not any different in any other religion. You have sex scandals and profit scandals that pop up periodically amongst the Christian right as well. I'm not judging spiritual faith, I'm just commenting on the corruption and hypocrisy that is inherent in absolute power. That was what the founding fathers knew, and why they knew that the powers of government should be limited, and shouldn't be acting on God's behalf.

I'm going on a tangent here, but I do have a point, however flawed anyone may think it is. I have sympathy for the survivors of those who dies on 9/11/2001, and understand why they would feel emotional and slapped in the face by a mosque so close to the site. But, as a nation, we need to see past that and be above letting our emotions open the door to changing the consititution, like they're talking about right now with immigration. Emotions are getting stirred, people aren't thinking rationally, and now we're getting very close to changing the constitution, and once that happens, ladies and gentlemen, this nation is officially f**ked. 

Oh I agree 110%…

The reason why I choose Charles Manson in comparison with the terrorist because his motivations seemed similar; ok somewhat religious at least it was based upon playing the Beatles backwards, although I don’t think Manson actually believed in this rhetoric or the intention to start a race war. It’s purely about his control over his members (kind of like James Earl Jones in Conan telling his followers to make a leap of faith without question.)


Faith is part of the territory with all religions.

But I don’t think it’s their motivation for violence against Americans. I think it’s the symbol of freedom that makes it harder for them to control their own people or they can foreseen this… Woman Rights and Freedom of Religion.


The Bible also warns us about false prophets.

I could only assume that deep down they were afraid that their message was taken at the wrong direction and it wasn’t the intent of the religion but demons or false prophets twisting the message. Although I’m only guessing. :)

The terrorists committed a crime against humanity.

Any and all decent human beings were affected to some degree.

'Moderate' Muslims (for lack of a better term), in addition to being aghast at the events of 9/11 have been largely 'tarred with the same brush' and continue to suffer backlash for the actions of fanatics.

Surely the fanatics must regard Moderates as the worst kind of infidels?

I will admit at first I fell prey to the headlines (just as the writers intended) and my first reaction was shocked disapproval.

There already is a mosque there.

It seems that these people are trying to reach out for the purpose of healing their community - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.  They are already neighbours in the area; part of the community; and they are just as much victims of what was done as any other bystanders.

If any other label was attached to any group hoping to reach out and heal shared wounds, their efforts would be lauded.

For my return to Badmovies, I'd like to say hi to you all and hope all is well with all!  :cheers:

Going with both of these replies...noone is saying Muslims can't practice their faith, it's just a matter of respect, and a reasonable request to keep some distance.  

The rule of law in stuff like this is apparent: You will have troublemakers on both sides of the aisle looking to start their own little wars.  You just don't camp outside your enemy's stronghold and not expect trouble.

Keep some distance, that's all that's being asked. Accuse Christianity of it's own atrocities all they want to, but Muslims should remember that it was people epotomizing the worst of their own faith that caused 9\11 to happen as well.

Im curious, how far would be far enough? 10 blocks? 20? Never mind the fact the a mosque has been in the area for years.   :lookingup:   Personally I think the world would be a better place without religion but its here and its here to stay. If you believe in freedom of religion you should believe in freedom for all religions. Not just the one you practice.

Muslims having a community center, because that's what it is, near ground zero isn't a slap in the face to anyone. If Al qaeda wanted to set up shop I would agree that statement. There were Muslims who died at ground zero you know, and im not talking about the terrorist.

It's an understood that people of all races-religions died on 9-11.

However, regardless of the motive for this venture, a natural fear exists that the Mosque could be used as a front for radical teachings and possibly a front for sending funds to extremist groups.  You can't have something like 9-11 take place and expect fear to not exist.

It dosen't help that the Left-Wing media is calling those who oppose the measure "racists and bigots."  But there again, that's their war cry for everyone who disagrees on this issue or any issue as of late.  :lookingup:

And that in itself, is a double standard considering some of the extreme hatred and scapegoating I have heard from Left Wingers over Israel (to the point where some have advocated it's total destruction.)  But that's the media for you...one set of rules for them and their supporters, and another one for the rest of us.

there are lots of mosques / muslims in NYC. There are lots of mosques I'm sure that have abhorrent teachings but they could be located anywhere.  You don't need to have your mosque located at ground zero to train terrorists!


the media and both political parties are pretty well pro israel. that's really a massive understatement.  and much of the criticism of it comes  from the right: pat buchanan, Ron Paul , lester1/2jr

As far as calling people bigots that's wrong. I am all for freedom of speech and eveyone saying what they feel.

I just want to say to all participants that I appreciate this discussion for its variety of opinion and perspectives, and the civility of the exchanges.


I LOVE THIS FORUM!

I honestly don't see what the issue is, unless the group that wants to erect the mosque is a radical group that supported the attacks.  Why would anyone in America object to a house of worship being built anywhere?  If the people that want to build the mosque are in no way associated with the people that committed the atrocities, why should they need to exercise "tact"?

put up a plaque somewhere where ground zero happened and make sure it's shiny and lets move on.  It's enough with all this plans for ground zero and massive monuments.

True, you don't have to be AT Ground Zero to train terrorists, but for Al Qaeda, that would be a very sweet victory, IF it were the case and I'm not saying it is, but at the same time, there are tose who fear such a thing, and neither I (nor anyone) can speak for everyone's feelings on thier trust of Muslims in this matter.

As far as Israel, I still stand by the claim that I have heard serious Left-Wing hatred at places like Youtube and a few other places. Again it's not the view of the entire Left, and that should be a given.

As to both parties and their support of Israel, I think it's because of their importance as an ally.  If they had been just another country with nothing to offer, I wonder if The hill would feel the same about them..

Maybe you should find out some facts about the place, before you make a judgment.

Looks pretty plain vanilla to me, so take the tour.  This is just something blown out of proportion by the media.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_a_sea_of_filth_near_ground_zer0_mosque_gets_all_the_press_but_porns_around_corne.html

I didn't know the zoning rules for that part of Manhattan.  I can no longer support the idea of a mosque at Ground Zero if it's taking up space that could be used for a strip club. 

As far as the religious part of this entire thing goes:   

Funny how the Left and the Liberal media in Hollywood always ridicule Christians (and extreme Christians) day in and day out with no red light to stop them.

But do they do this to Muslims (or extreme Muslims?) No they don't. And it's simple..they're scared sh*tless of them, that's why.   If they killed Theo Van Gogh in Holland, and called for the annihilation of Denmark, would Hollywood stars or talk show hosts be any different? Hell no.

Christians don't fight back for their religion, Muslims do (extremsists, I mean.)

So while liberals in Hollywood and the Media claim to "respect" Islam, I think they should admit that it's more like they're scared of the consequences ridicule would bring given the examples I cited 2 paragraphs up.

I understand there was a Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed when the towers fell.  They have been trying to rebuild it but the City of New York has it all tied up in red tape.  I think THAT should be rebuilt before work on this mosque is allowed.

Werd. All internal and infrastructural damage first, including any damage to any other religious buildings and their assets.  Muslims don't like it? Tough. They're getting their way with this (if things go right) so they can wait a little longer before they decide to built their religious middle finger that they apparently have paved the way for..

Some interesting points. I have no problem with liberals. I recognize a need for liberals, at least until the right acknowledges that peoples' personal freedoms don't need to be curtailed, and who knows if that will ever happen.

Depsite, this, however, I have a certain amount of disgust for the Hollywood left. They are such an elitist, exclusionary group that it's amazing they actually call themselves liberal. If you want success in Hollywood, you act in a certain way, you have to support certain causes, you have to respond in certain ways to political events, and if you don't, it can negatively impact your career.

It's part of the reason why I appreciate Trey Parker and Matt Stone so much. Granted they have become a bit unbalanced, and make more fun of the left than the right, but I understand why they do it. They are in the entertainment industry and have been applauded when they have poked fun at the right but had the cold shoulder turned to them when they have the same fun with the left. Perhaps they've overreacted a bit, but they're basically raising the bulls**t flag on that.

If you had a competition between the Hollywood left and all your high-level career politicians (the Democrats AND the Republicans) on which group was the most out of touch with the people and just with realitiy in general, you'd have a good fight on your hands.  

Is someone stopping the Greek Orthodox Church from being rebuilt?  If they want to build a church and have all the funding and permits they need I'm fairly certain the Manhattan zoning board isn't holding them up so a politically unpopular mosque can be built first.  I would be dismayed if that were true.  People are allowed to build houses of worship in this country pretty much wherever they want; more popular religions don't get to cut in line to build their churches before unpopular ones. 

That's the deal...for all of Hollywood and the Left and their notions that wealth is evil, and materialism is too, these are people who have so much of BOTH that they seem to forget their own dirty laundry.  And they seem to think that it's OK as long as people see it their way. So as we can see, hyposcrisy is not necessarily a sole providence of the right, but it will be used against them by the masters of the craft when it comes time to score political points.


WERD! About time someone stood up to and refused to back down from Hollywood's A-List (or is that A-Hole list?)  I have long admired Parker and Stone for the same reasons.  At least someone in Hollywood has some ballz..


Flick, my friend, there are nt enough karma points for me to give you for this statement.  But I will raise my glass to you. Cheers! :cheers:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5699214/rebuilding_of_st_nicholas_greek_orthodox.html




From what I have read this church doesn't like the deal the port authority offered them. Why does this have anything to do with the mosque? Why should this church be built first? A church is a church.

They're also practically the only conservative-leaning people who are actually funny (at one point, I also thought Dennis Miller was very funny, but not lately).  What's the deal with that?  Almost all the comedic stuff with a conservative bent is pretty bad.  An American Carol springs to mind.  Or Mallard Fillmore, one of the least funny comedic comic strips I've ever seen.  I think liberals and democrats DESERVE to be made fun of by someone who's actually funny - so how come the obviously left leaning Daily Show does a way better job of it than practically anyone else?

Well, they ridicule the left more than the right, but they've made it very clear that they're not trying to make political statements, nor trying to demonstrate a political leaning on their part. People may believe that or not, it's up to them. Personally I believe it. I just think they like to make fun of what they think is bulls**t, and pointing out that the left is just as capable of double-standards as the right. Good for them.

Actually, Penn & Teller's show "Bulls**t" on Showtime is very similar. They have no problem making fun of everything, and they do an excellent job of jabbing at the left. In their case, however, you can definately see that they are in favor of free-market capitalism.

As you say, there are plenty of talented, funny people making fun of the right. I like your angle that the left DESERVES someone funny to make fun of them. I like that, because, they do. If someone were making fun of me, I would certainly want them to be funny.

About fu*kin' time too...liberals do more instigation and deliberate antagonizing than anyone else.  They can do it to you, but you can't do it back. And when you do, they start with the usual "victim" bullsh*t and say that you hit them....

And they always get away with it..it's also funny how they constantly misquote, talk over, and take their opponents out of context and accuse the Right of hypocrisy, and always mange to cover up their own misdeeds.  It's so one-sided.