Muhammad owned slaves - Should we remove mosques from U.S.?

What are you trying to say, Jake?

A secular government should convey a message of religious intolerance in its highest hall of Justice?

Perhaps you should take a little time to familiarize yourself with the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - it is the document that formed the basis of the religious freedom enshrined in our First Amendment:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/virginia-statute-for-religious-liberty/

 

Yeah, why stop with statues?

 

Why don't you try to present an argument? All I saw was straw-man fallacy and hyperbole.

 

Your post is the last resort of people who are so stubborn they must respond but have rational response to a factual argument.

 

I'm still waiting for you to present a factual argument....

 

Victims they lost a war against the united state dozens of them in fact

 

Go read post #72. Of course, it does take a certain level of knowledge to comprehend a factual argument, perhaps you should come up to speed before participating in the forum.

 

Thank you for falling into the prepared breech of logic.

It does not matter if Mohammed owned slaves. It does not matter if Abraham owned slaves. I does not matter if Jesus did not own slaves.

Now read slowly and carefully.

America is secular state not religious.

Now you can step off.

 

OK let's go through it sentence by sentence.

This is a straw-man. You haven't established any evidence for this to be true and it's really just a bunch of hyperbole. No facts or argument here. All "progressives" are not the same and don't have the same beliefs. I would be surprised if there was even one that would fit that ridiculous description who is a member of the Democratic party or votes Democrat. You are describing some sort of Anarcho-Communist.

Continuing the straw-man. All "progressives" don't want this. Maybe the made up one in your mind.

Again, no evidence, just a straw-man.

More of the same.

This is a question. It's a ridiculous one too. You are continuing to argue against your straw-man "progressives" that want all these things.

I already answered this question, but I will again. A statue on government land celebrating a General of a rebel army is, in my opinion, inappropriate for State or Local government to keep. A mosque on private land owned and operated by a private organization, does not fall under that same rules as defined by the constitution. In fact it is specifically protected in the first amendment. A statue owned and maintained by the government can be torn down for just about any reason, certainly due to public opinion.

Here is where you really get creative. You have no evidence that all mosques contain those kinds of people. The vast majority of Muslims in the US are not terrorists and don't support terrorists. So now you have your straw-man "progressive" supporting your "terrorist" mosque straw-man. Pretty loony.

And the last sentence. Now your straw-man "progressives" are intending to destroy America. Again no evidence. No logic. Just hyperbole.

Nowhere in your rant are there any facts or any argument of any kind. If you have one let's hear it. Otherwise this discussion is clearly over.

 

I woudl hardly compare the two situations

that said, no reason for a Indian flag to be on the state house lawn or a statue on a pedestal in the town square either

the fact is, the confederate statues represent those supporting slavery as does it's flag and should not be endorsed by our government

 

Indians also made extensive use of slaves in fact it is only about five years ago that one of the five civilized tribes was forced to recognized those of mixed indian and African ancestors as tribal members.

 

they did not start a war with America for the God given right to own slaves and racist did not erect their statues years later due to the civil rights

your defense of confederate statues and flags on government land is a fail

if there is a Indian flag on your state house lawn, feel free to complain

 

Do you have to prove the sun came up yesterday? No because some facts are so obvious they need not be proven every single time.

In the same manner, obvious facts need not be proven in every post, forum members are expected to have a minimum level of competence. If you don't have that level, then go do your homework.

 

Personal attacks are petty and useless. If you can't tell me what your argument is and present any facts to support it that's not my problem.

 

First, they were not Indians, they were Native Americans.

Second, they were losers...the vanquished...the conquered nations by other more advanced nations, in a war for land.

Third, Native Americans owned slaves also, both of their own people as well as blacks and whites.

 

The Choctaws and Chickasaws did.

 

Not exactly. It is a place in which the government is not to pick and choose among religious views. This, however, does not in and of itself make it secular. Even atheism is a religious viewpoint.

 

Muhammad was also a pedophile - Should we remove mosques from U.S.?

 

no they did not

 

the government should not be saying there "is" or "is not" a god....

the Muslims and Christians God are one and the same, should the Muslim God be on our money

 

They fought for the confederacy during the civil war that is a historic fact. The Cherokees fought on both sides, I don't remember about the Seminole and Creek.

 

That was exactly my point.

 

that makes our government a secular government

 

southern Conservatives fought in the confederacy