Obama's Mosque Remarks Reverberate

[bytor2112]

Huh...

The developer of an Islamic cultural center that would include a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero appear to have rejected Gov. David Paterson's offer to help them find a different site but a meeting may still be in the works.

[bytor2112]

Just to lighten things up and bring a smile to some and not so much to some others. Here's to hope and change! :) :) :)

[bytor2112]

And isn't Iran designated a state sponsor of terror?

[bytor2112]

[bytor2112]

Just to lighten things up and bring a smile to some and not so much to some others. Here's to hope and change! :) :) :)

Seriously Bytor....this one warms my heart!

[UrbanFool]

I guess if these people own that land, they can put whatever they want there.

[Traveler]

There are a few things that many “Christians” do not understand about Islam. Although there are many sects of Islam every mosque is open for use by every Muslims. There is no way to differentiate what sect will use or dominate a particular mosque. There is no way in Islam to honestly indicate that a Mosque will not be used by Terrorist. In Christianity a church belongs completely to a particular sect. There may be a Baptist meeting house on one corner and a Mormon chapel on another and a Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall on another. Each structure tied directly to a particular sect. Not so in Islam. Also in Islam there is no such thing as excommunication. In Islamic law if a known terrorist wants to use a Mosque not only must the mosque be made available but any such Muslim must be “protected” form non-believers of Islam.

There are some interesting facts concerning Islam in New York City. There already are several Mosques in New York City. In fact there is no need for an additional Mosque. There is no overcrowding or a large number of Muslims having to travel difficult distances to worship. The size of the proposed Mosque along with the location and the number of Muslims that will live in proximity makes no sense what-so-ever. The Mosque is not serving any need within New York City.

The next thing of importance is the understanding that the Imam is as sympathizer of the Islamic Terrorist organization – Hamas. Since only a Muslim under Islamic Law can speak out in a Mosque against another Muslim and since the Imam supports Hamas – there can be no doubt that the Mosque will of necessity be use to support and encourage Hamas activity within New York City. The Imam also has publically stated that the USA foreign policy is the single most important cause of 9/11. The Mosque is far more political than it is religious and already directly tied to terrorist activity and opposed to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

What is Home Land Security thinking?

The Traveler

[UrbanFool]

Isn't there something like 300 mosques in New York?

Geez. I'm going to sleep well tonight! Not!

[Hemidakota]

The land developer is actually replacing two of the local Mosques in the vinicity due to size is not big enough to contain the amount of people for the daily rictuals. But, owning land and doing what is right (sensativity), is not always go together.

If I was a Muslim and lived in the area, I would asked to not build it.

[Sean1427]

Wow, what a minefield to weigh in on! I almost hate to share my two cents worth given how polarizing things seem to be. While I will share more later when I have more time to think through what I'd like to say, I would like to share a few thoughts first with what Traveler shared in his post #82. And while I hate to disagree, Traveler, I do on a number of points you made.

But first let me say that Feisel Abdul Rauf, the radical imam of the proposed Ground Zero "Muslim mosque" project has just arrived in neighboring Bahrain, whose lights I can see at night as I look out my window in lovely eastern Saudi Arabia. This is actually his fourth US-government sponsored trip to the area as a representative of US State Department. (In 2007 he was here twice with Karen Hughes during the Bush adminstration.) His involvement actually begun under the Bush adminstration when he was asked to be part of the administraton to be part of the administration's efforts to promote interfaith tolerance. (Evidently, we were worried more about tolerance abroad than in the US!) Beginning in 2006, he worked with Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush, and they were worked together to show Muslims abroad that the so-called war on terrorism was not a war on Islam. He's been working with the US government ever since, including with the FBI. While he's not here in the ME to raise money for the proposed "mosque," he is making money, lots of money from the poor US taxpayers. Just think of it--the estimated cost of the entire trip is $16,000 US. And he gets a whopping $200/day honorarium plus! (Of course, tha't's below standard federal government per diems for expenses and lodging wherein the maximum per diem for US government employees is $396 for Bahrain, $341 for Qatar, and $496 for Abu Dhabi in the UAE.) Of course, on top of this $200 per diem he gets his airfare paid for. It's an outright shame that he's making such good money at taxpayer expense while here on an effort by the US government to discuss Muslim life in America and to promote religious tolerance as well. Of course, when Muslims here read and hear about all the flak over the 'mosque' that Muslims in the States are receiving, they might think twice about the truth of what he's saying. But heh, what can he expect. After all, he is a Muslim, and he would like to see a "mosque" built near our holy ground. What could he possibly be thinking when he'd like to see a "mosque" that would be built right next to bars, escort services and massage parlors that are also near that sacred spot? I'll tell you, Muslims are truly insane and insensitive to our sense of sacredness.

But now back to Traveler's points. Again, my apologies, Traveler, for doing this, but I'm not really writing to you specifically. Rather, I'm directing my thoughts to others. It's just that your thoughts triggered mine. First, I don't know where you're gettng your information about Shari'a's (Islamic Law) mandating that Muslims must protect a known terrorist from unbelievers if he's in a mosque. First of law, Shari'a outlaws such things as terrorism. Islam itself forbids the killing of the innocent. Secondly, given there are four schools of Islamic Law, which school are you saying legalizes such behavior, i.e., protecting a known terrorist as long as he's in a mosque? Lastly, Islam teaches something akin to what the LDS Church teaches in that Muslims are supposed to obey the laws of the the land in which they live. Hence, if a known terrorist were in a mosque in the US and law enforcement arrived with a warrent to detain that individual (which by the way, law enforcement does not now need), Muslims within the mosque would be duly bound by Islam to let law enforcement arrest the individual.

You also mention that Rauf is a sympathizer, in the first instance, and a supporter, in the second, of the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. First, it perhaps needs to be pointed out that Rauf is a Sufi Muslim. While Sufis can be either Sunni or Shi'a, Sufis emphasize the spiritual nature of Islam's teachings rather than strict rituals. And of all the strains of Islam, Sufis are the most peaceful and non-jihadist Muslims you can find. Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, is a member of an advisory team for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for the memorial, said, "The idea of a cultural center that strengthens ties between Muslims and people of all faiths and backgrounds is positive." (By the way, there were Muslim Americans who were also victims of 9/11.) In any event, Rauf has dedicated his career to interfaith understanding.

While this forum is too complicated to get into Hamas and its two wings, it's a terrorist organization because Israel and the US currently lisit as such. Of course, we refuse to actually define terrorism, which makes things complicated politically and legally. And the US is well known for defining anyone who it doesn't like as terrorist. We use being listed as a terrorist organization or state as one of the many weapons in our arsenal. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason as to how we brand different groups as terrorist. And even when we do list them, some we ignore and others we go after. But let's say that Hamas are ipso facto or universally self-evident a terrorist organization, what threat do they pose for the US? None. Their beef is, and always has been, with Israel, who created them. Now, of course, when we choose to give Israel a blank check, condone all Israel does, and arm Israel to the teeth, then one could say that Hamas might be viewed as a concern of the US. But their focus is Israel, not the US, just as the Basque independence groups' focus is Spain and the IRA's was the UK. But if Rauf is guilty of sympathizing and supporting (they are not the same), then all of Ireland, my ancestral land, is guilty of the same because almost all Irish are sympathetic to the mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Isreali government. The Irish didn't like what the Brits were doing to them in Ireland anymore than the Palestinians, including Hamas, like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, many of whom, ironcally, are Christian. And given that Ireland is predominantly Catholic, maybe we use that to prevent Catholics in America from buildng too close to Ground Zero as well.

Of course, this creates a problem for me because as an Irish American I could have been labeled a terrorist sympathizer up into the 1990s given that I wanted the British out of Northern Ireland as well. But so did most other Irish Americans, none of whom were Muslim. Of course, the Reagan and Clinton adminstrations infuriated the British government because our government refused to crack down on all the support the IRA was receiving from American Catholic charities. In fact, most of the world's support for the IRA came from NYC and Boston. While the UK and the US State Dept listed the IRA as a terrorist organization, the US federal governement just turned a blind eye to all the support we Americans were giving to the IRA. (It's a good thing the Irish weren't Muslim--otherwise, many would have considered it a war between Irish Muslims and English Christians.) And I'd bet my botton dollar that if the UK had been the lone superpower then as the US is now, the UK would have put the US on their list of of state sponsors of terrorism.

Lastly, I agree with Rauf's view that US foreign policy is the single most important cause of 9/11. And yes, I know very well that this is considered heresy in my home country where most prefer to believe in feel-good fables that are constantly spoon fed to us. The reality is that the US enjoys telling everyone else what to do and we thrive on meddling in other nations' internal affairs. Lord Acton was right that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And of all the nations on earth todya, none comes closer to having absolute power than the US. We take pride in our Constitution, yet its principles stop at our borders (assuming we even live them in the US anymore), and other nations are faced with a raw power that's unchecked by the Constitution of which we boast. Take our hatred for Iran. This hatred has been going on since 1979, which is where our history of the struggle begins. But Iranian history goes back much earlier, to 1953, when we helped organize a coup which overthrough a democratically elected prime minister and our CIA helped create SAVAK which was more brutal for the Iranians than the KGB was for those under the Soviets. Or take the Taliban themselves, who we in part created to get rid of the Soviets. We, along with the Saudis, scoured the ME for he most radical Muslims we could find to train and use against the Soviets. Then when we left, they essentially took over the chaos we left behind. The point is that we could have done so much better if we had just listened to Washington and Jefferson--entangling alliances with none and neutral relations with all. I'm afraid, however, that we've become like the Jews who boasted to Christ that they were the sons of Abraham. Christ's reply was simple, if they were the sons of Abraham, they'd be doing the works of Abraham, but that God could raise up the true sons of Abraham from stones. Which again reminds me of the Irish stake president's wife telling me that most Irish view Americans as they view the Pharisiees. Rauf sees how complicated things are with Hamas and the Palestinians; it's certianly not as simplistic as we like to make it. Does that make him a supporter of terrorism? Evidently the Bush adminstration didn't think so. And they knew of his views from 9/11 on. It doesn't make him a supporter of terrorism anymore than I'm a supporter of terrorism.

Ironically, it was Rauf who said that building an Islamic center there in NYC would send "the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11" and that he wanted "to push back against the extremists." Good thoughts, regardless of ones religion.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Sean1427

[Just_A_Guy]

It's only as complicated as people want it to be.

The "why" does not overshadow the "what", no matter how many et-tu arguments one tries to deploy.

And there is a difference between innocently advocating an agenda, versus deliberately capitalizing on the fear and publicity associated with an act of terrorism in order to advance the same ideology that motivated the terrorists.

[Yatiri]

I am an LDS sympathizer Christian. I love LDS people and their fruits from the Spirit have always been abundant in my experience. I am horrified by the vast majority of christians and their pastors who deny that LDS are Christian. LDS folks have faced misunderstanding and bigotry throughout their history.

So I google [LDS position mosque] and end up here. The first posts dismayed me because of the obvious lack of facts and character assassination of a moderate Sufi Imam who has been nothing but a helpful friend and citizen at the service of our country. Basically the repetition of right wing propaganda in the flawed reasoning.

Sean's post finally redeemed with facts and truth. Sean is the LDS that attracts me to mormonism. A lover of truth. A peacemaker. His post is moderate and measured, well thought out, and not a simple repetition of venomous propaganda emanating from political operatives.

The dishonesty from both the left and the right in our political discourse is disconcerting to me. Michael Moore and his farsical presentations with distorted fact on one side, Sarah Palin with her truthiness on the other. Their own followers go along repeating the same falsehoods. The news reporting is not journalism anymore. It takes alot of digging and time to get to the Truth.

How can any LDS not be totally in favor of religious freedom and tolerance given their own history,and the bigotry mormons continue to suffer from the religious christian right? I mean the mormon bashing and saying that mormons aren't Christians doesn't bother you all?

Does the LDS Church have an official position on the Park 51 Islamic Center project?

Edited August 23, 2010 by Yatiri

[UrbanFool]

I think it's a matter of good/bad taste. Just because a thing CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.

I hate it when people burn the American flag, but I still support their right to do it.

[Yatiri]

I thought maybe someone would be interested in the LDS Church official position on religious freedom and tolerance so here is the link: Religious Freedom - LDS Newsroom

[Yatiri]

I disagree. This is about religious intolerance and the rights of citizens to practice their religion unhindered in their own country.

This is about unscrupulous politicians whipping up fear and bigotry just to win their next election.

This is about truth telling versus bearing false witness.

[bytor2112]

I disagree. This is about religious intolerance and the rights of citizens to practice their religion unhindered in their own country.

This is about unscrupulous politicians whipping up fear and bigotry just to win their next election.

This is about truth telling versus bearing false witness.

Who's whipping up the fear? (and it's not fear, it's anger) Is it the politicians or the one's that gave them the opportunity by going forward with the project in the first place? I think the latter.

[MarginOfError]

I disagree. This is about religious intolerance and the rights of citizens to practice their religion unhindered in their own country.

This is about unscrupulous politicians whipping up fear and bigotry just to win their next election.

This is about truth telling versus bearing false witness.

Who's whipping up the fear? (and it's not fear, it's anger) Is it the politicians or the one's that gave them the opportunity by going forward with the project in the first place? I think the latter.

ooo..this should be fun

[bytor2112]

The dishonesty from both the left and the right in our political discourse is disconcerting to me. Michael Moore and his farsical presentations with distorted fact on one side, Sarah Palin with her truthiness on the other. Their own followers go along repeating the same falsehoods. The news reporting is not journalism anymore. It takes alot of digging and time to get to the Truth.

Not a very good comparison since Michael Moore makes ridiculous films that likely only appeal to a very small percentage of the left and Sarah Palin's views do represent a lot of main stream conservatism....not fanatics. While I wouldn't want Sarah Palin as the President it is funny to watch the left go bonkers over someone that they allege is an idiot. Of course, they have probably realized that if Barrack Obama..the King of no experience and ineptitude can be elected on a platform of meaningless rhetoric...ala...change and hope and yes we can....Sarah just might be able to as well. If you want to use Michale Moore in your comaprison as a radically lefy....then maybe you could use Michael Savage as the counter...he is pretty extreme and just as irrelevant.

How can any LDS not be totally in favor of religious freedom and tolerance given their own history,and the bigotry mormons continue to suffer from the religious christian right? I mean the mormon bashing and saying that mormons aren't Christians doesn't bother you all?

Perhaps some Mormons view this as being in bad taste and a slap in the face....no matter how much Sean1427 attempts to spin it other wise. I am not saying he is wrong, but, I am saying that many view this and particularly those in New York as an afront. Edited August 23, 2010 by bytor2112

[Wingnut]

Does the LDS Church have an official position on the Park 51 Islamic Center project?

As we frequently repeat on this board, no. The Church does not have an official position on every issue out there. It doesn't have an official position on a lot of things, like waffles, for instance.

[UrbanFool]

I call troll.

[FunkyTown]

As we frequently repeat on this board, no. The Church does not have an official position on every issue out there. It doesn't have an official position on a lot of things, like waffles, for instance.

While the church doesn't have an official position on this, and I applaud that, I call shenanigans on the Waffle stance.

I was in the chat room talking with Wingers when she posted this. Immediately, I found the statement suspect and searched for Waffles on lds.org.

The church has numerous lessons including Waffles and they're all pro-waffle. There are no anti-waffle lessons and numerous lessons discuss them as a positive.

The LDS church is pro-waffle, Wingers!

[Wingnut]

Funky, you epitomize John Doe's avatar:

Nevertheless, I stand corrected.

[Sean1427]

Yes, I'm back. Sorry for the length, but complex issues cannot be easily addressed in a few lines. At least by me. For this, my apologies. Let me say upfront that while I some of the first posts troubling, I’m actually impressed by what some have said here. Please don’t think that the thoughts I now share are directed at you. While I could name those I’ve been impressed with, I wish to say that I particularly appreciated your comments, Yatiri, especially those concerning Imam Rauf.

The Cordoba House project, which everyone is inaccurately referring to as the mosque at ground zero in Manhattan, is actually a proposed $100 million dollar interfaith community center that would be located two blocks from ground zero. But these are two NYC blocks. If you’ve ever been to Manhattan, you know full well that we’re not talking about Nephi, Provo, or SLC blocks. The site is about 500 feet from ground zero, almost the length of two football fields. It cannot be seen from ground zero, and even if it could be seen, no one would recognize it as a mosque given its design and what it contains.

The term mosque is being used heavily by right-wing conservatives and others for political gain in a midterm election year and prior to the presidential election. And the rank-and-file just go right along. The use of the word conjures up an image of a traditional free-standing, domed mosque with a tall minaret, which is completely unlike what Cordoba House has proposed. Using the term mosque is done for different reasons by different people. First, we use it because of our ignorance. I use the term ignorance as it should be used, to define a lack of knowledge. I am not trying to put anyone done. Yet our lack of knowledge derives from a lack of effort to search out the facts of what’s really been proposed and why. We either don’t have the time or we lack the desire to do the homework. Secondly, people are forced to use the term as way of communicating with others who wouldn’t know what you’re referring to if you used a different word. However, this still results in an inaccurate and inappropriate use of a word that contributes to the ignorance that already exists in the minds of many. Lastly, we intentionally use the term mosque to conjure up the traditional image of a mosque because in doing so the issue then becomes a combustible mix in the minds of those who think Islam is inherently evil and in the minds of the average American who, for whatever reason, see Islam as a whole as an enemy and that on 9/11 a over a billion Muslims attacked us, not 19 men who just so happened to be Muslim.

Yes, it’s a 12- to 13-story structure, depending on who you read. But that’s nothing in Manhattan, where the streets are dwarfed by all the structures that rise side-by-side to pierce the sky, thus turning each street into a veritable man-made canyon where the rising and setting sun is almost never seen over a natural horizon. When you think of it in this in this way, you realize that the proposed center is essentially two canyons from ground zero. It is neither on top of ground zero or next door overshadowing the “holy ground.” Muslims are already praying on the site where this community center is projected to be built. This part of Manhattan is full of Muslims. Formerly, police cordoned off a section of the street to for the main Friday prayer. Now Muslims pray in a narrow, crowded basement below a night club.

The proposed center would look nothing like a mosque, as previously noted. It would be a multiple-story glass and steel tower with straight lines, 90 degree angles, and no crescent moon and star anywhere on the façade. It’s modeled after a typical YMCA and would include a swimming pool, a fitness center, basketball court, a performing arts center, meeting rooms, a food court and restaurants, a bookstore, art exhibits, and a 500-seat movie theater. (Sorry, but this is nothing like any of the mosques I’ve seen in the ME!) And yes, it would have a quiet place for Muslims to pray. But even the place for them to pray is not even close to what we think of as a mosque. Rather, it’s a prayer room similar to what you find at some of our airports.

And yes the site was chosen intentionally. First, it was located there as an interfaith center for the community with the hopes it would help bridge the chasm between faiths. Secondly, it provides the numerous Muslims who work in this area a quiet place to pray in a busy city. Downtown Manhattan was chosen because it “suits their needs because it is well-connected by transportation and has a large concentration of jobs there.” (It’s near Wall Street.) According to Professor Peter Awn, a professor of Islamic studies at Columbia, “The downtown place is perfect because it would be a hub for the people of Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and if you work downtown it’s a great place to pop in for noon prayers . . . ”

No insult was meant, no slap in the face intended. When a man does evil, we hold him accountable for the evil he’s done. But we should not impute evil to a man who does good. We do not condemn him, his family, his neighbors, his nation, or his religion. A man is to be held accountable for his own sins. Blaming the innocent for the acts of a few is un-Christian and should be un-American. If we want this privilege for ourselves, we must accord it to others. Moreover, we have a duty to defend others when they are falsely accused and misjudged, if for no other reason than perhaps someday we might want others to come to our aid when we are treated in like manner. If we do not treat others in the way in which we wish and expect to be treated, then it’s hypocritical for us to complain about how others are mistreating us.

Muslims pray in the Pentagon chapel, about 80 feet from where Pentagon employees were killed in 9/11. No one has complained. And the truth is that far more Muslims have lost their lives because of the terrorist acts of a small minority of Muslims than Americans have. Yet in this present exercise in self-absorption by many Americans we think and act as though we are the only victims. In truth, most of those (not all) who oppose this mosque by claiming Muslims need to be sensitive to the families of the victims are not doing so because of their sensitivity for the victims’ families. They’re simply dressing up their hate for Muslims in the respectable garb of sensitivity. For those of us who are sincere, we need to remember that the victims of 9/11 were not all Christian and American. There were Muslim victims of 9/11 just as Muslims numbered among the police, paramedics, firefighters and others trying to save people that day. And while I understand why some sincerely believe that Muslims should be more senstive to "our feelings," we should also be sensitve to theirs. After all, when we say "our" feelings, who does "our" refer to? Many, perhaps most, of these Muslims in NYC who would like a place to pray in Manhattan are American citizens. (There were actually Muslims America at the time of the Revolution.) Do we really wish to say that if you're Christian American you're truly one of us, but if you're Muslim American you're somehow not one of us? Then there are those who fear that any mosque near ground zero is dangerous. Yet we need to think of logical conclusion of this line of thought, which has now begun to sweep the country. For if a mosque is too dangerous there then what makes it safe in my neighborhood? Maybe we could herd them onto reservations like we did the Indians, where we can force them to dress like us, give them names like us, force them to cut their hair like us, and convert them to Christianity. Perhaps we could treat them like the Japanese during WW II and put them holding pens where we can watch them. Or maybe we can simply force them to leave the country as we did to the about 350,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans, who were citizens, during the Great Depression. No mosques, no Muslims (American or otherwise), no problem. This will make America a safer nation, a purer people. (Of course, this then means that we’re more like many of those in Germany in the 1930s than we care to admit.) Most on this site would agree that any of these steps would be wrong, and rightly so. Yet using the fear-of-mosques card naturally leads to such a conclusion. This fear, however, is rooted in ignorance, which can be overcome if people are willing to study and do their homework and not listen to all the different voices in the world with all the hidden agendas those voices have.

For 9 years many fellow members of my faith have told me that we need to invade Muslim lands to spread the gospel, the Good News, or as it was called in the Greek NT, "The Way." (Sounds like a “forced conversion” to me!) Many Americans believe that Muslim lands need democracy such as we have. But as a Mormon and an American who lives and works in the Middle East I would ask this--how can we honestly tell Muslim countries that we want a democracy for them when we won’t allow them to experience it here in any form other than what amounts to mob rule based on people’s ignorance, raw-emotions, and runaway passions? How can we expect them to eagerly fight alongside our troops in a war on terrorism when they know how much we despise them and their religion? While it’s not politically correct to lynch blacks anymore, Muslims seem to be the new blacks on the block. Yet Muslims across the world are watching us and are very much attuned to what we’re saying and doing about the proposed Cordoba House project. Yet they have problems hearing what we say about all the good America has to offer the Muslim world when what we do rings so loudly in their ears. For my fellow Mormons, this current debate reminds me of Alma’s words to his son Corianton. While doing missionary work among the Zoramites, Corianton committed acts that undermined the missionary effort. Alma tells his son, “Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain and foolish thing . . . how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe my words.” This “mosque” issue is trivial and should have never become a national controversy. It’s been blown completely out of proportion by politicians, the media, the internet, and fear and ignorance masquerading as informed opposition. Such conduct as I’ve seen by many Americans, many Mormons included, are not helping us in the ME—these attitudes and this conduct are not helping move the gospel or positive American values/principles forward among the Muslim people. I would have thought that given our history as a church that we Mormons, of all people, would realize that what has happened to us has also happened, and continues to happen, to Muslims, and it’s all done for the same reasons. Evidently, however, some of us have not learned this lesson since our attitudes toward Muslims are hauntingly similar to those of critics and detractors of Mormonism. And were America’s founding fathers alive today, I suspect that they would say the same thing to us that Alma said to his son. In essence, as a nation we need to stop whining, quit dressing our hatred or ignorance up in the respectable garb of sensitivity, stop being offended when no offense was intended, live what Christianity teaches, diligently apply those decent and wise values/principles our nation was founded on, and get on with life.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Sean1427

[Moksha]

I found the statement suspect and searched for Waffles on lds.org.

The church has numerous lessons including Waffles and they're all pro-waffle. There are no anti-waffle lessons and numerous lessons discuss them as a positive.

The LDS church is pro-waffle, Wingers!

Funky, I've been curious as to the position of the Church leadership regarding sausage. My guess is that they side with links rather than patties as being most correct. I am also guessing that they might help mount a campaign on the Pure Pork initiative, as a matter of preserving the sanctity of sausage.

Could you find the scoop on this?

[UrbanFool]

I still want a definitive answer on coffee and tea. Is it the caffeine or not?

(Sorry Sean. I'll read your post but needed to slip this in.)