It's the Iman, Stupid!



The mosque near ground zero controversy is a tough one for me because I realize that if public sentiment guides the law then this nation that is already balkenized can cancel out a religious domination, all practicing Catholics and Baptists need to realize what a bad precedent it would be to allow pressure from a local comminity to prevent the building of a house of worship or mosque. The problem in not with the mosque itself but the iman who has made comments saying,"it was United States policy that created Osama Bin Laden". To make matters worse to recognize that Hammas is a terrorist organisazion. I believe his these comments underly a basis extremism and contempt for the this Republic. If he really wants to bring faiths together then he should tour the United States explaining how Al Queada is incompatable with the true meaning of Islam. For goodness sake why not build the Mosque somewhere else in deference to those directly efeected by 9/11. To build the Mosque near ground zero seems like spite. There are no shinto shrines in close proximity to Pearl Harbour. Unless of course the Mosque is being built as a sign of cultural dominence over the west?!!?

I thought that by the calling off of the buring of the Koran that perhaps a repectfull dialog could ensue that would lead to the Mosque not being built. This however remains to be seen. The right to build the Mosque is not in question. The only quarrel is its location and hurtful memories it may cause. That combined with the Extremist views of this Iman make the building of this Mosque incredibly unwise.

responce to the comment

First of all some clean up from last column I will try to keep it as factually based as possible, I am all for having a national debate on Civil Unions that would probably lead to my side losing. If one ones to strengthen civil unions in the Entire country then let a Presidential candidate discuss that By the way the Majority of states that do have civil union laws do make them similar to marriage in an effort to please the Gay Lesbian transgender lobby In many states especially liberal ones these votes are called basically every benefit other then actually calling the union marriage. Again national standards are set at the ballot box except for outright bigotry are up to the people and there Representatives in congress. Gay marriage/ relationships don't meet that standard unless they are being denied a public right. If you feel they are that's fine but do it though the public process not through the courts. If Civil Unions can fix the few benefits that Gays don't get then address it there without trying to force it upon the American public. The only time the courts should social engineer is when they have an interest to do so. If Gays were being put in jail up or stigmatized by government and the law then the court would have a point but leading society is not something the court should do. Society will see when it's wrong eventually if homosexuality is on par with society then let the consensus of the people catch up. Race can not be helped sexuality can and therefore is a behavior and so there is not a compelling state interest for the Court to declare it unconstituntal gay Sodomy will never reach that standerd unless they actually do find the so-called gay gene. Marriage is a state issue that's why we have different ages for marriage in different states right now are those also un-constitutional as well, are all laws based on morality up for debate. Is that a debate you won't to have, or is it better to fix the civil union law and make it more beneficial, or scrap the law and disregard 5000 years of society!

Twisted justice is no justice for anyone

The promblem with the Gay marrige Ruling inside from my roigloous is it was based on te Equal Protection Clause which arrises from the Civil war and civil rights era. There was somthing back then that I could do as a white man if I was born then that tha a black men coukd not marry a white women, as a white man now I have the same rights as a homosexual he can marry one women I can marry one women therefore strickly speaking there is a no specal treatment being given to me that he does not have I have the option of marrying one women so does he.
That was not the case wih sslavery and racscim.
The secound and best reason that the judge is wroung is in reality there is no benift that gays and lesibans will be denied in Californa that straight people do not have. I recognize that even though I disagree with sodimy and yes that's what it is the goverment can not police or disqualify too people's acts so there is no reason why they can't be given the benifits of reguluar married couples and there's not reason to think that they would be denied that in California. If they are given all the finanal benifits of marrige then what exactly do they get from so called marrige, the acceptctance of the church perhaps. Can you name for me one right that is not currently being given to someone with a civil union that is not given to a stright couple, besises the word marrige and the morility that denotes. If you can then fix it sranthen the civil unions.
Back in the day the reason why people got married is to have children that is the reason why gay marrige will always be inferior to straght marrige, and that is the reason why goverment should favor it otherwise it should remain neutral yes there are people that choise not to have children after all the exception. Familys and procreattion are conerstone of cilivation and that's not religion speaking that's fact we gave tax credits to couples couples that have children we recognize the roll that men and women have in procreation. That's the same reason that most single people should not adopt because children do best when they have the male persptictive and the female persptictive. The very idea that homosexuals are akin to black there are thousands of former homosexuals that have beaten the condition which makes it for some a choice. Marrige is a decision that is left up to the states unless a class is singled out because of somthing they can not change. Homosexuality is a sickness that God can change, I know because I've met a person that uesd to be gay that is no longer. Gays derserve to live there lives free of dervision and they should live how they want but to forse socity to sanction reletionships based soly on the lustful sex is wroung. I say again there's nothing a gay couple can get though marrige that they can't get though civil unions besides acceptace from soxicty. That takes cultural change not from a judge but from people's hearts. Untill the gay community realises that sex is not a civil right unless you are being deniyed somthing tangeble like a job or houseing, because they will never have a majority in this country let alone universal exceptance in this country if all laws are subject to poblic judical review then we really do live in somthing like a judical tyranny. Christ wanted us to sacrifice for others satisfing sexual needs very rarely a sacrifisal act. If Cgristain conservatives were treating people without God's love you would have a point but two people making love without the possibilty of children and too ofen because of frustration because of socity is not somthing Jeusus would endorce. We are not saying that gays are going to hell we are not saying that gays should be persucuted but doun't say that our marriges are a Godly as ours not now not ever anyone who wants recognition because of there sex life is wroung both from a religous perspctive and a secular one