|
Monday, 23 August 2010 00:00 |
|
Hi - this is the candid conservative with today's candid minute...
Once again sensing a leadership void, President BHO has stepped forward in the nick of time to defend the legality of an Islamist religious complex near ground zero. He's technically correct that it's legal, but as usual, he's missing the point. This issue is one of sensitivity - not legality. Lest we forget, it was Islamists who flew two planes into the World Trade Center and vowed to do more. Seen those pictures of the cut off noses of young Afghan girls? Yep that's our Muslim buddies practicing something called Sharia law - which, if you're a guy, licenses you to do about anything but draw a cartoon of Mohammad. Can you imagine an inspired Christian trying to build a Baptist church in downtown Baghdad? The waiting line of suicide bombers would necessitate crowd control and refreshments. What you can do and should do are not always the same thing. We encourage our Muslim brothers to start confronting their extremists with the same enthusiasm with which they are confronting ours. Our guys protest and share emails - your guys cut people's heads off with a dull knife...
I'm Dr. Carl Mumpower and you've just spent a minute with a candid conservative...
Trackback(0)
 |
I am afraid your information on this facility is incorrect. It will contain a Mosque and it is very much a religions complex.
If you double check the Koran, as written by one man - Mohammad, the peaceful content rests in the early passages. The violent and political part comes later. When faced with conflicting passages, Mohammad encouraged his followers to pick the newest.
Adam, this site was close enough to ground zero to receive debris damage from one of the planes. I am fascinated with how the left can ignore the insensitivity (no arguments about the legality) of placing an Islamic religious site in proximity to ground zero.
Still, it is reassuring to see the left defend our peace loving Muslim brother's private property rights. Too bad you guys couldn't muster those same principles in defense of Wal-Mart's efforts to build in NY.
I am afraid that you are taking the same short-cuts that you are accusing others of taking. In my view your analogies, information, and conclusions miss the mark.
It is always my pleasure to entertain or inform others as best serves their interests and capacities.
Regards,
Carl M.