Maybe a thinly veiled guise to allow payback on opening day

To oppose the building of a mosque on private land, a decision which he would have no control over anyway, would only pander to those trying to turn the attack on 9/11 into some sort of a religious attack which it was not.  Not surprising though that the Republican circus has got on board, Sarah Palin is thicker than a double brick wall.  Trying to turn 9/11 into a "battle of religions" is just what America needs......In the economic climate that they've got over there now with hoards of unemployed people needing to be pissed off at someone, stay tuned for the new American style religious war.

It's surprising that Christianity wasn't an issue for the Oaklahoma city bombing which resulted as a revenge attack for the Christian religeous wackos from Waco?

You can bet on it that every single muslim country that has a beef with the US will be dumping a load of money into that project, just to say F*!K you.

 

While on one hand you can say Obama is sticking up for the princple of US freedom rights, he has lit the fuse to a powder keg

 

This project won't go through without bloodshed

I don't see what the issue is.... the US has got to be the fourth most religious state that I have visited (behind Vatican City; Iran; Saudi)... mainly because of the evangelists’ TV channels... fcuk me more that 50% of cable has some sort of religious crap on it.. and there were more religious 'structures' per block than I saw mosques in Abu Dhabi

What’s next... stopping a Muslim from having an office in the buildings that replace the twin towers?

Oh... and I agree with KC

 

 

 A recent survey in the US of people's religious knowledge showed the best informed were atheists and agnostics who scored about 23 right out of 32 questions. Second last were Protestants (many of whom didn't know that Martin Luther was the founder) and last with 14 answers were Catholics, many of whom didn't know the purpose of the Mass. The conclusion is that many non-religious people were raised with faith but abandoned it after investigating all the issues. This suggests that blind faith, not logic is what keeps people religious. Maybe not such a bad things since the whole point of religion is faith - if you need evidence then automatically you don't have faith. 

I was blabbing on a while ago in a restaurant that atheists are generating such fervour for the cause that it's getting hard to distinguish them from a religion and that the Pope of atheists is Richard Dawkins. One of my mates pointed out that Dawkins was listening at the next table and not looking real enthusiastic

SO: if you want to have a religion good on you, however when it comes to which is right, it's generally an accident of birth. If you are born in Ireland you'll go with Catholicism, if Saudi Arabia Islam, so what's the point of bagging all the others.

 

Fellas, Buddha is a deity and not a god.

 

Interesting ramble,

 

 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html

 So right Hilly. We often go on about how much suffering religion has caused the world but any old excuse will do. The biggest pricks were atheists - Mao, Hitler and Stalin were blokes who really got things done.

Ahh, yes, just to clarify that little point. The Buddha was actually a man who first found enlightenment and passed his learning on to others, and Buddhism is not really a religion if the true principles are followed.

Bullshit - he could have a say in anything he'd want to - lean on this person etc etc ,

"Let freedom ring with the shotgun blast" .............Davidian.