Build a mosque...

[pickup]

Atleast he has chosen Germany, a very religious catholic country (and they still don't eat meat fridays, there).
(hence, the pope is from Germany) !!!!

he didn't choose a muslim country !
That's a small step forwards.


and o95, I agree : I'm not sure either if we have the proper system in place.
Esspecially, when CEO's made more money by 10:30 am , the first day of work in 2011, then the average North American will earn in a year !

Hmm That is odd, i chose to quote klein's post and i got a little more than I see in his post on the screen.

Very religious catholic country??, klein.

Despite recent losses in adherents, Christianity is still by far the largest religion in Germany,[5] with the Protestant Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) comprising 29.9% [10] as of 31 December 2008 (down 0.3% compared to the 30.2%[12] in the year before) of the population and Roman Catholicism comprising 30.7% as of Dec. 2008[13] (also down 0.3% compared to the year before).[14] Consequently a majority of the German people belong to a Christian community although many of them take no active part in church life with Sunday church attendance considerably less than 10 percent of which 4.1% Catholics (in 2008)[15] and 1.2% Protestants (in 2007) belonging to the EKD.[16] 1.7% of the population are Orthodox Christians.[5]
Independent and congregational churches exist in all larger towns and many smaller ones, but most such churches are small. One of these is the confessional Lutheran Church called Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Germany.
Until the Reformation of the 16th Century, Roman Catholicism was the sole established Church in Germany.

the above taken from wikipedia

As you can see the protestants are running neck and neck with the catholics in terms of numbers.

 

[bbsam]

Oh, if one wanted to they could read the Bible cover to cover one time after another and come up with different interpretations each time. That was hardly my point and you know it as well as K knows it.

And if one were to read the Koran from cover to cover one time after another would they come up with the same interpretation each time?

 

[trplnkl]

Was it? Can we even see the big picture? I'm not always sure. I'm not agreeing with Klein, but we always must remember: History is written by the victor.

Re-read what I said.
At least the USA's stated goal was to help bring democracy and freedom.

 

[Babagounj]

Politics - Latest News | Breitbart
Judicial Watch just obtained a new batch of documents from New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s office that show his office was instrumental in helping radical anti-American Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, his wife Daisy Khan and their partner Sharif el-Gamal obtain approval for a 13-story massive mosque and “community center” to be built in the shadow of Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
These documents, which we obtained through open records requests and a related lawsuit, earned widespread press coverage in New York and around the country. (Here’s the New York Observer’s take to give just one example.) They included email correspondence between top officials inside the Mayor’s office and supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque, a project spearheaded by the Rauf-led Cordoba Initiative. The documents were made available to us on December 23. This unseemly Christmas dump is a well-known ploy by politicians to use the holidays to release bad news in the hopes that it will go unnoticed. (It didn’t work this time.)

 

[wkmac]

Was it? Can we even see the big picture? I'm not always sure. I'm not agreeing with Klein, but we always must remember: History is written by the victor.

Good point Over. I wonder how many people who champion our country as the "global enabler of democracy" know anything about the Agency of International Development or the National Endowment of Democracy, have ever heard of Philip Agee or John Stockwell or have even dared read any of the late Chalmers Johnson's books? What about Gary Webb and his "Dark Alliance" expose or even remotely familar with the mid-70's Church Committee findings? Or have even dared read William Blum's "Killing Hope, US Military and CIA Interventions Since WW2" or Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" oddly enough told from the viewpoint of history's losers, not it's winners? And even from a POV from the military itself, why are the writtings and spoken words of retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich Phd. or retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowshi Phd. (she was at her duty desk in the Pentagon on 9/11) who both have spoken/written at length on our foreign policy ignored or just never read and considered?

Nay, just wave the flag, sing the national anthem and......

[video=youtube;zDAmPIq29ro]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro[/video]

 

[trplnkl]

Good point Over. I wonder how many people who champion our country as the "global enabler of democracy" know anything about the Agency of International Development or the National Endowment of Democracy, have ever heard of Philip Agee or John Stockwell or have even dared read any of the late Chalmers Johnson's books? What about Gary Webb and his "Dark Alliance" expose or even remotely familar with the mid-70's Church Committee findings? Or have even dared read William Blum's "Killing Hope, US Military and CIA Interventions Since WW2" or Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" oddly enough told from the viewpoint of history's losers, not it's winners? And even from a POV from the military itself, why are the writtings and spoken words of retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich Phd. or retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowshi Phd. (she was at her duty desk in the Pentagon on 9/11) who both have spoken/written at length on our foreign policy ignored or just never read and considered?

Nay, just wave the flag, sing the national anthem and......

[video=youtube;zDAmPIq29ro]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro[/video]

It seems that you have a very jaded view of history written by the "winners" and discount it basically as propaganda. Yet, at the same time, you seem to cling to the views of anyone that opposes the "winners" view point. What do you use to base your opinions?

 

[wkmac]

It seems that you have a very jaded view of history written by the "winners" and discount it basically as propaganda. Yet, at the same time, you seem to cling to the views of anyone that opposes the "winners" view point. What do you use to base your opinions?

Why is my view of history jaded and thus your's is not? Because you adhere to a majority view? Because you adhere to the view of those who won? Why does that make the views or opinions of those that lost any least valuable or worthwhile? What for example would your POV be worth had the british won the American Revolution or had the south won the civil war? What if Germany had won WW1 or even WW2? At the time Anne Frank was considered a party of the losers and yet today she is regarded and held in high honor. How about Rosa Parks?

Did you ever hear of Edward Bernays? You should google and study up a bit and then you'd understand the importance and need of looking at bothsides before you reach conclusion on a topic. And even then you may not have all the facts but at least you're trying to get what you can.

[video=youtube;V0OrT-8gXMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs[/video]

As I was responding to Over's post and his comment, "History is written by the victor" which is true but I also commented back to this very point that Over had made, Howard Zinn wrote his book on history not from the victor's POV but rather looking at it from the one's who lost. When one does "due dilegence" on any matter or subject, it's best to also consider from all angles, not just one.

Dutch philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard once said:

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."

I'll leave it there!

 

[trplnkl]

Why is my view of history jaded and thus your's is not? Because you adhere to a majority view? Because you adhere to the view of those who won? Why does that make the views or opinions of those that lost any least valuable or worthwhile? What for example would your POV be worth had the british won the American Revolution or had the south won the civil war? What if Germany had won WW1 or even WW2? At the time Anne Frank was considered a party of the losers and yet today she is regarded and held in high honor. How about Rosa Parks?

Did you ever hear of Edward Bernays? You should google and study up a bit and then you'd understand the importance and need of looking at bothsides before you reach conclusion on a topic. And even then you may not have all the facts but at least you're trying to get what you can.

[video=youtube;V0OrT-8gXMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs[/video]

As I was responding to Over's post and his comment, "History is written by the victor" which is true but I also commented back to this very point that Over had made, Howard Zinn wrote his book on history not from the victor's POV but rather looking at it from the one's who lost. When one does "due dilegence" on any matter or subject, it's best to also consider from all angles, not just one.

Dutch philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard once said:



I'll leave it there!

Actually I'm not jaded against the "losers" view point, I just don't hold it to always be anymore true than I do the view point of the "winner" which it seems you do. Now granted that is just an observation of mine that may be way off track, if so...I'm sorry. I sure did not mean that in a demeaning way.

 

[wkmac]

In America today, one of the lines of fringe political argument holds that the country is imperiled by the steady encroachment of Sharia law. The recent decision by a Canadian subsidiary of Campbell’s to introduce a line of halal soups was recently cited as evidence of Sharia’s growing influence. More accurately, however, it points to the growing market demand for halal products in the parts of Canada where the soups are being offered to consumers. Against this background, it’s interesting to note that the father of Anglo-American conservatism, Edmund Burke, had a broadly positive assessment of Sharia law.
Burke’s long focus in examining the law was a simple one: to what extent did law offer justice by holding all who came before it to the same standard; and conversely, to what extent was law a tool that unjustifiably placed arbitrary power in the hands of an elite governing class. Applying this test, he found Sharia noble and worthy of support by British colonizers because it held ruler and ruled to the same standard of lawful conduct, and indeed it contained a focus on what a ruler owed his subjects. Burke was also impressed with the concept of mercy built into the law; he found it moderate and restrained, especially considering the high evidence standards that limited the imposition of harsh sentences. Burke contrasted this with contemporary European law, in which horrible physical punishments were routine, death was decreed for even petty crimes, and the elites were held above the law by doctrines of immunity and divine right. Which legal regime better represented a wholesome view of justice?

Burke on Sharia Law