bluejeangirl76 wrote:No I wouldn't. What for? That's going to fix something?
Didn't many people complain about Muslims wanting to build a mosque a few blocks from ground zero, saying they're only doing it for spite, to prove they "can", or prove their rights? Isn't this the same thing? Doing something like this... they know it will cause all kinds of public mayhem just to basically give another group the finger... and it's the same thing "we" accused "them" of with the mosque thing.
I agree with you 10000%. This is the most ridiculous thing ever, and it will only bring more trouble to us, especially our loved ones in harm's way in the middle east who already have a bullseye on their backs. The preacher is an idiot and should be stripped of any ministerial rights he has. He does not deserve to lead a congregation of loving christian people (and I hope he's the only nut in that church). And before anyone says it, please keep in mind that this guy does not represent the entire christian population, just as the fundamentalist extremist wackjobs that strap bombs to their chests don't represent all muslims.
Now... that being said, where are the politicians to publicly claim that he has a 'constitutional right' to do this? He has the same rights under the constitution as those that want to build the mosque. I'm not, repeat NOT advocating this guy's actions. I'm just trying to compare and contrast the situation with regard to what is right and proper vs what is constitutionally 'legal'. One doesn't always equate to the other... it's what many of us have been saying for a while. Unfortunately that message has gotten lost in the politics of it all.
