<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18939">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>I support the right of the religious to believe
and to act within the law on their beliefs as a basic constitutional
right.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>However, the major religions of the world are
unverifiable fantasies. I do not think government should spend any money
on any of their activities save for the kind of law enforcement support
they give to public meetings and rallies or the support we give to some
other secular activities. I think it horrible/criminal that religious
activities and properties are exempt from taxes which means that all the rest of
are forced to pay for these religious activities by making for the taxes
they do not pay (which is considerable).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=lfalen@turbonet.com href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:51
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Not all
conservaives are anti-mosque</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I am in basic agreement with Parker, however I do not thank
that Rauf is all that moderate. He has supported palestinian terrorists and
thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. Sharia law downgrades
women. Any religion should be free to practice their beliefs as long ad they
do not interfere with individual rights. Individual rights trumps religious
practice in the US. Also the State department is funding his trip abroad
to raise funds. Under separation of church and state the government should not
be funding a trip for any religious purpose.<BR>Roger<BR><BR>-----Original
message-----<BR>From: "Art Deco" <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010
09:14:44 -0700<BR>To: "Vision 2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject:
[Vision2020] Not all conservaives are anti-mosque<BR><BR>> The Ground Zero
mosque must be built<BR>> <BR>> By Kathleen Parker<BR>> Wednesday,
August 18, 2010; A15 Washington Post<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It is
hard to imagine that anything has gone unsaid about the so-called Ground Zero
mosque, but an important point seems to be missing. <BR>> <BR>> The
mosque should be built precisely because we don't like the idea very much. We
don't need constitutional protections to be agreeable, after all. <BR>>
<BR>> This point surpasses even all the obvious reasons for allowing the
mosque, principally that there's no law against it. Precluding any such law,
we let people worship when and where they please. That it hurts some people's
feelings is, well, irrelevant in a nation of laws. And, really, don't we want
to keep it that way? <BR>> <BR>> Confession: I would prefer that the
mosque not be built so close to the ground where nearly 3,000 innocent souls
perished. That's my personal feeling, especially as I imagine the suffering of
so many families whose loved ones died in the conflagration. <BR>> <BR>>
But why do so many Americans feel this way? The answer is inherent in the
question. Feeling is emotion, which isn't necessarily bad, but it bears
watching. <BR>> <BR>> Reason tells us something else: The Muslims who
want to build this mosque didn't fly airplanes into skyscrapers. They don't
support terrorism. By what understanding do we assign guilt to all for the
actions of a relative few? <BR>> <BR>> Even so, as others have noted,
civilized people and nations are careful to avoid trespassing on the sorrow,
suffering and sacrifice we associate with hallowed grounds. As Charles
Krauthammer pointed out, Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns to abandon a
convent they had established at Auschwitz, among other examples. <BR>>
<BR>> We would like to think that others would be as respectful of our own
horrors. And yet, we should beware what we demand lest others demand the same
of us. Count the number of times we've heard "sensitivity" invoked the past
several days. Muslims should be more sensitive to the families of those who
perished, we've heard repeatedly. Even the Anti-Defamation League, defender of
religious freedom, urged the mosque's leaders to situate the building farther
from Ground Zero -- out of sensitivity. <BR>> <BR>> Many couldn't agree
more, and yet it goes without saying -- even if President Obama felt it
necessary to state -- that American Muslims have the same right as any other
citizens to practice their religion and to build on private property. <BR>>
<BR>> Some might wish that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is behind the
proposal, were more sensitive, though opinions are mixed. Others have argued
that a moderate Muslim such as Rauf is just the sort of person we hope will
help influence a more-moderate Islam. Might an Islamic center near the spot
where the religion's worst adherents slaughtered thousands, fellow Muslims
among them, be useful to that end? <BR>> <BR>> These are all reasonable
arguments. But the more compelling point is that mosque opponents may lose by
winning. Radical Muslims have set cities afire because their feelings were
hurt. When a Muslim murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, it was
because his feelings were hurt. Ditto the Muslims who rioted about cartoons
depicting the image of Muhammad and sent frightened doodlers into hiding.
<BR>> <BR>> The idea that one should never have one's feelings hurt --
and the violent means to which some will resort in the protection of their own
self-regard -- has done harm rivaling evil. It isn't a stretch to say that the
greatest threat to free speech is, in fact, "sensitivity." <BR>> <BR>>
This is why plans for the mosque near Ground Zero should be allowed to
proceed, if that's what these Muslims want. We teach tolerance by being
tolerant. We can't insist that our freedom of speech allows us to draw
cartoons or produce plays that Muslims find offensive and then demand that
they be more sensitive to our feelings. <BR>> <BR>> More to the point,
the tolerance we urge the Muslim world to embrace as we exercise our right to
free expression, and revel in the glory and the gift of irreverence, is the
same we must embrace when Muslims seek to express themselves peacefully.
<BR>> <BR>> Nobody ever said freedom would be easy. We are challenged
every day to reconcile what is allowable and what is acceptable. Compromise,
though sometimes maddening, is part of the bargain. We let the Ku Klux Klan
march, not because we agree with them but because they have a right to display
their hideous ignorance. <BR>> <BR>> Ultimately, when sensitivity
becomes a cudgel against lawful expressions of speech or religious belief --
or disbelief -- we all lose. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
______________________________________<BR>> <BR>> Wayne A. Fox<BR>>
1009 Karen Lane<BR>> PO Box 9421<BR>> Moscow, ID 83843<BR>>
<BR>> <A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>> 208
882-7975<BR>> <BR>> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>