Right-wing media blast President Obama's support for freedom of religion
Right-wing media are attacking President Obama's statement that he "believe[s] that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country" and are entitled to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
President Obama supports Muslims' constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion
President Obama: "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country." While continuing the White House tradition of hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan, President Obama said of the planned Islamic community center in Manhattan:
Now, that's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.
Right-wing media
outlets immediately blasted Obama
Geller: President Obama "has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists." In an August 13 post to her Atlas Shrugs blog, Pamela Geller said:
Obama came out for the Islamic supremacist mosque at the hallowed ground of 911 attack. He has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists and told the ummah (at an Iftar dinner on the third night of Ramadan, of course) that he believes in and supports a triumphal mosque on the cherished site of Islamic conquest.
If you had any doubt who Obama stood with on 911, there can be no doubt in our minds now.
I believe he planned it all along. He waited until Ramadan. Symbolic. He has now turned our Ground Zero protest on 911 into a mega-event. The very idea of a 15-story mega-mosque on hallowed ground in indecent, offensive and outrageous. If Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy really wanted to "reach out" and "heal," they would give the $120 million to the first responders suffering from exposure to the toxic environment at Ground Zero after Muslim terrorists brought down the World Trade Center and slaughtered 3,000 Americans.
Is the president incapable of common decency?
Obama knows this is not about religious liberty. No one has suggested abridging the first amendment to stop the mosque. There are hundreds of mosques in New York, thousands in America. This is not a religious issue. This is a national security issue.
Once again, Obama puts himself directly at odds with the majority of the American people, as is his way and the hallmark of his presidency. This is all explained in detail in my book.
Big Peace: Obama "stands with shariah." In an August 14 post on the website Big Peace, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney wrote:
The most prominent American public figure to directly challenge such pap is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, in remarks before the American Enterprise Institute last month, declared, "Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they're both engaged in jihad and they're both seeking to impose the same end state which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of shariah."
In a brilliant appreciation of Mr. Gingrich's address, Andrew McCarthy, an accomplished former federal prosecutor (he put away the ringleader of the first effort to destroy the World Trade Center, "the Blind Sheikh," OmarAbdel-Rahman) and author of the superb New York Times bestseller, The Grand Jihad , wrote in National Review Online: "Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on shariah?"
For Barack Obama, the answer is now pretty clear: He stands with shariah.
New York Post headline: "Allah Right By Me." The cover of today's edition of the New York Post displayed the following headline:
Drudge headline: "As-Salamu Alaykum." On August 14, the Drudge Report displayed the following main headline on its webpage:
What's even worse is that these people will claim to their dying breath that they're not being racist and that to go against what they're saying is to be unpatriotic.
Horrifying.
These posters at lucianne.com are pretty startling by the sheer depth of their idiocy. They mindlessly bleat away in complete lockstep about the President taking away our Constitutional rights even as they themselves vehemently denounce both the language and the content of the 1st Amendment. They haven't the first clue as to what the Constitution says. They apparently see it as some sort of mystical talisman that protects them from the evil forces of liberalism and and the assumed threat of The Others. They simply warm themselves before the grease-fire blaze of their shared ignorance and hatred.
Lord of the Flies was less disturbing.
Whenever a progressive dares to post a liberal thought or point on a right wing site, their comment is almost always certain to be removed and for the poster to be banned. Here, however, you're allowed to post away your logic-impaired right wing talking points to your tender little heart's content. The only price that is exacted from you for this privilege is that you have to tolerate the responses of others.
As for your bruised feelings over our failure to give you a sufficient number of thumb's up, that's only because we lack the mechanism necessary to extend to you the digit that we would genuinely like to.
Now, wipe your eyes, Floyd, blow your nose, and try posting a remark that makes at least a semblance of sense.
I've been booted from left wing sites-- daily kos, actually, after something like 2 posts.
But to be fair, the right wing sites can be pretty bad, too, when it comes to insults and short leashes for those who disagree. And that's something I have a huge problem with in regards to the national discourse today-- there's no room to talk. Everyone but the side we take is evil and dumb.
Its really quite sickening, if you ask me, that people do this. There is room to talk, if people are willing to listen. Are you willing to listen? I'm here, so I am willing to listen.
But, slap in the face or not, let them build on whatever they can get their hands on. If they aren't doing anything criminal, it's their money, let them buy what they please, let it fail or succeed by itself.
Then you're delusional. Bye.
How is building a Mosque near Ground Zero offensive, or as you put it, a "slap in the face"? The religion of Islam did not cause 9/11 and cause grief to a nation. The only reason one would be "concerned" is if they saw a meaningful connection between the two.
And if they aren't religious bigots, they would clearly see there is none.
If most of American accepts Islam, it'd be the same thing.
The rights of a minority are guaranteed by the Constitution in order to give the individual the right to choose their own form of religion... or even their own form of non-religion. One of the main reasons that we protect minority rights is that that is the only way that we can protect INDIVIDUAL rights. The snarling opposition to the New York community center/mosque just don't get that.
He's not delusional, or only partly so. Conservatives, on the whole, are bigots, but Islam isn't really a concern - it's an excuse. If the 9/11 hijackers had been Jamaican, they'd be drumming up hysteria about Rastafarians.
<sarcasm off>
Yes folks, read that quote again. Muslim Americans are supposed to worry about appearances. They should self limit their rights so as to be sensitive to the feelings of all these soft, fragile conservatives who obviously have so little faith in our national values and our strengths.
Of course some of these same conservatives are outraged that progressives and liberals participate in this country's political process instead of self limited their rights. They use hysterically dishonest rhetoric to describe our country as being subverted and nearing civil war. Well that is a slap in the face as well, but when critics point this out, we hear the sob sob story about how people like Glen Beck and Rush L. have free speech rights, which somehow extend to having hours of national media time. Appearances are of no concern to Fox news/Rush as long as its conservative base of real Americans follows the party line.
As this web site so amply points out, unless you are a libertarian conservative, hours and hours of right wing media slap you in the face every day. Why Beck says he wants to hunt people like me for the rest of his life.
Funny how some Americans are supposed to worry about appearances and limit their rights while the real Americans shamelessly appear hostile to so many of their fellow citizens. When they are asked to be responsible for their lies, as well as appearances, they cry about how so misunderstood they are.
Earth to Right wing: The mosque symbolizes our resilience and our strength because it demonstrates the superiority of our values and our faith in them. It shows the world that we are serious about our ideals and that are ideals are big enough for all law abiding people. You guys make us look weak, petty, hypocritical and immature. You make us look like the people are enemies describe us as...
You're exactly right, except for:Trinity Church, at 79 Broadway, across the street from Ground Zero, where George Washington attended thanksgiving services after being sworn in as President; St. Peter's, a block or two north at Broadway and Barclay, the oldest Catholic parish in New York State; St. Joseph's mission chapel, just southwest of the WTC. There is also the Irish Famine Memorial, just nortwest. Many of the businesses here are retail, including Century 21 , just across Broadway from the WTC site. It is an internationally known shopping destination. It is always full of people, speaking every language known to this earth.
Thanks for that - I immediately thought of Trinity Church,and St. Peter's. Also, St Paul's Chapel (Episcopal) is right across the street from the WTC sight.
Further, you don't have to go to Manhattan to hear every language known on earth. I went to my local Costco this afternoon, and I felt like I was outside the U. N. It wasn't only languages. It was color, and dress.
My, my what is this country coming too. ;0
If, as you liberals say, conservatives are "on the whole" bigots, you liberals are on the whole hypocritical racists. You fear God only to the point that He gives people hope and helps people understand they don't need the government to provide everything for them. That just drives you liberals insane, doesn't it? But, of course, liberalism is known as a mental disorder.
Among conservatives. Not sure what you think you've proven with that, Socrates.
Please, it's not ignorance ... I'm convinced that he's only a troll out to PROVE just how bad we libs are at name-calling, etc.
It's been asked time and time again that we not engage him (I know that I'm guilty from time-to-time of doing so as well) to keep the thread from being hijacked.
Healthy discussions are great and can be entertaining.
Please, it's not ignorance ... I'm convinced that he's only a troll out to PROVE just how bad we libs are at name-calling, etc.
It's been asked time and time again that we not engage him (I know that I'm guilty from time-to-time of doing so as well) to keep the thread from being hijacked.
Healthy discussions are great and can be entertaining.
The residential population soared as obsolete office buildings were converted into luxury apartments.
RenewNYC talks about changing office buildings to residential. The idea that there aren't enough people/Muslims living in that area to benefit from this new community center is ridiculous and ignorant.
At One York Street, a brick warehouse dating back to before the Civil War is being transformed into a modern 136,000-square-foot condominium complex. The building occupies a full city block.
Five Nine John Lofts is a conversion of an office building to luxury lofts that began last summer.
19 Rector Street, is a few blocks north of Battery Park and a few blocks south of the former World Trade Center site. Worldwide had converted it to a rental from an office building several years ago.
Berman and Bruckner are converting the 800,000 square feet of space for residential usage. The Singer and Bassuk Organization announced last fall that it secured $210 million in residential Liberty Bond financing for the Berman and Bruckner conversion of the top 41 floors of the 57-story office building into 369 luxury rental units.
The Setai Group and Zamir Equities, New York-based development firms, are converting a 25-year-old office building located at 40 Broad Street into The Setai New York, a luxury condominium.
Beekman Tower, whose address will be 8 Spruce Street (between William and Nassau Streets), will rise 75 stories (850 feet) and reshape the downtown skyline by the time it is completed in early 2010. Architect Frank Gehry is designing the glass- and titanium-skinned tower. It will be primarily residential.
Developer Ann Nassau Realty LLC is currently overseeing construction of a multi-use office and residential building at 21 Ann Street. The 170,000-square-foot development will feature retail and office space through the fourth floor and studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom condominiums on floors five through 28. The previous office buildings and retail spaces have already been torn down.
75 Wall Street is the modern-day gateway to New York's famed financial district. When the transformation of this rose-colored brick tower from office building to condominium residences.
Built in 1907, the former home of the Trust Company of America at 37 Wall Street has been undergoing transformation in recent months into a residential rental building. At 25 stories tall, this Beaux Arts-style high-rise was one of the first truly tall buildings in the city, and it is one of the oldest remaining high-rises on Wall Street.
Previously serving as offices for Chase Bank, 37 Wall Street has remained vacant for the past few years. Last year, the building was purchased by developer W Associates, an affiliate of Garden Homes. Mike Thompson, project manager, reports that what's needed to convert this commercial building into residential space is mostly interior construction work.
In the heart of the Financial District, 15 William Street is being redeveloped as a 47-story condominium tower.
Work on one of several new high rises south of the World Trade Center is underway at 50 West Street. Located between West and Washington Streets at J.P. Ward Street (just north of the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel entrance), the new development will replace three existing buildings on that block with a new 63-story (725-foot) residential tower and hotel.
The next incarnation of 123 Washington Street began in August 2005 with the purchase of the property by the Moinian Group. The developer, with the help of architects Gwathmey Siegel and contractor Tishman Construction, plans to erect a mixed-use hotel and condominium that will stand 52 stories tall and offer 400,000 square feet. It is slated to open in March 2008. The original 10-story building was irreparably damaged on September 11, 2001, and was deconstructed in 2005.
Construction of a 50-story high-rise multi-use building is planned to begin at 111 Washington Street in late 2007/early 2008. Located near Carlisle Street, the tower will serve as both a condominium and hotel and is scheduled to open in early 2010.
Developer Edward J. Minskoff Equities Inc. was selected by the city to build a tower on a 90,565-square-foot lot bound by Greenwich, Murray, and Warren Streets, on the urban-renewal site known as "Site 5B." Lauded by Mayor Michael Bloomberg for its mixed uses, the Skidmore Owings and Merrill-designed building will fill out close to one million square feet and provide equal parts market-rate housing and low- and middle-income units. The 35-story tower will bring hundreds of residential units.
The John Buck Company of Chicago commissioned SLCE Architects to design a 20-story residential condominium building at 57 Reade Street in TriBeCa that will have a major mid-block frontage on Broadway between Chambers and Reade Streets.
According to a March 6, 2006 easement document on file with the city, the developer, officially known as 281 Broadway Holdings LLC, "intends to demolish the existing buildings and construct, or cause to be constructed on the Development Site a building of between 19 and 21 stories…containing…approximately 11,372 square feet of commercial/retail area on the first and second floors of the building, together with a cellar floor of approximately 5,000 square feet….and…approximately 120,731 square feet of residence space…."
The Rockrose Corporation is currently building a 28-story high-rise residential building at 201 Pearl Street, at the corner of Maiden Lane.
1) Is it not PROOF the US is anti-Islam, as al Qaida has claimed, when so many major politicians talk like this? If your kid was in Afghanistan would this kind of talk make you feel better or worse?
2) Do you actually know any Muslims? I know several who live in my neighborhood, just had a meeting with a prospective business partner this week, will be hiring several who have PhDs (when our funding comes through) and on September 13, 2001 shared heartfelt sadness at the local mosque with my neighbors. And I'm agnostic.
3) If it's not OK to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, why would it be OK to build a Church of Scientology, a for-profit cult masquerading as a church?
Obama has finally broken Osama Bin Ladin's string of little victories.
Every time we make a decision based on Bin Ladin's attack on the U.S.A. he wins another little victory by proving that he can control what America does.
Decided whether to allow the mosque based our own principles. Decide what to build at the site of the Trade Center based on good business practices. Never decide anything because we're upset over anything Bin Ladin has done.
What a great summary of how Bin Ladin has really damaged us. Bin Laden said he wanted to destroy our economy. You can see how our reaction to 9-11 has been so expensive in so many ways and seemed to prove his point that we are monsters in the eyes of his sympathizers. He played us through our conservatives.
THAT is obviously NOT true. EVERY liberal in the nation will blame Bush and only Bush. But, perhaps, that's why Clinton never responded to any of the attacks Bin Laden was responsible for. Well, either that or he had no (rhymes with walls).
So I guess some OTHER guy who was president during the mid-1990s put the people responsible for the first WTC bombing in prison? You really should look into Google. It's fantastic.
As an aside, can you imagine how huge a recruiting tool this issue would have been for Al Qaeda had Obama not done this? If he had stood in the way of, or even spoke out against, the building of the cultural center, terrorists could legitimately point to an open hostility to Muslims in the USA.
Good for you, Mr. President!
President Obama, by stating essentially that religious liberty is one of our core tenets as Americans and supporters of the Constitution, showed his rather large cojones by standing for the Constitution on this issue.
And lo and behold, maqybe the President was speaking to well-respected Americans who happen to be Muslims and he was letting them know that they belong here. Is there anything wrong with that?
Finally, where do you see pain being inflicted on innocent victims by this attempt to build this center? And how much damage is being inflicted on Americans who are of Muslim descent by the blatant racism of the haters?
Remember, as said before, concerning the 2nd. Amendment, the right keeps shouting "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"...Sooooo, "The Koran doesn't kill people, people kill people'.
I guess he should have kept his mouth shut because he was worried about appearances(something hannity, rush, beck, weiner never would do)...
No! He spoke out to defend our principals and our ideals, even when its not popular.
What does the Islam say about punishments for being gay? Let me help you out: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen." Links here and here say the same thing. Perhaps the billions of people who follow 'that' version of the Quran are the evil ones for mis-interpreting that book? Gosh, what do liberals call Christians who mis-interpret the Bible? How do liberals feel about Christian who mis-interpret the Bible? You liberals must have a lot of hate in you. Hating 3/4 of the world's population because of interpretations that don't agree with your own.
Yes, Islamic fundamentalists are probably just as anti-gay as Christian fundamentalists.
Both groups probably have comparable reactions to the building of institutions by other religions than their own.
Liberals don't hate you or your Muslim counterparts, we just know we're the last best defense against the destruction you want to cause.
Again, you're just confused. All of the libruls I know support equally the rights of Christianity and Islam.
You can believe anything you want to, but if you break the laws in following those beliefs, you should suffer the consequences, regardless of which faith you're following.
I never hear liberals "loudly yelling" about people's beliefs, except when they try to impose them on others through legislation or discrimination.
Whoever publishes that wingnut dictionary you all seem to use needs to fix the entry for hypocrisy. That seems to be a real toughy for you right wingers to understand..
I'm opposed to regulating religious ceremonies, only talking about the lega areas.
If the majority of people vote to take a minorities rights away based on their religious beliefs... why the hell am I bothering. You're really this thick ?
I'm opposed to regulating religious ceremonies, only talking about the lega areas.
If the majority of people vote to take a minorities rights away based on their religious beliefs... why the hell am I bothering. You're really this thick ?
Sure it is. The Old Testament has some death penalties, I believe for things like a child disrespecting his parent. Most reasonable "moderate" Christians don't take these literally today.
There have been murders of abortion providers and gays by Christians, but I don't judge the majority by the actions of these extremists.
So, I did have a point, you just weren't able to see it. Unless, of course, you can show evidence that all Muslims kill homosexuals.
But, as I expected, you find NO examples of Christian nations killing gays because they are gay. Which brings me to my point that the Quran does kill people and prince has nothing to stand on for his 'people who hate Muslims are racist' rant.
Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm, golly gee, Floyd, this verse sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Sounds like the Bible and the Koran can/are interpreted equally by those who take either of them literally.
"Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
You bring a very compelling verse, however, you haven't shown where any countries interpret that verse incorrectly and are killing people because they are gay. The verse alone doesn't support your case, you need application of that verse to continue your hatred of Christianity.
Because, in the final analysis, as Americans, the Constitution must win out.
P.S. Not sure what you mean by "innocent victims."
People who are offended by the existence of non-Christians. Remember, if your relatives died at the hands of any group, it becomes okay for you to be a hateful bigot towards that group. (Unless you're Shirley Sherrod, and then you can't even mention that group's race in any context.)
Speaking of gays, how many gays are in ANY military that is predominately Islam? And to think you whine about US law. At least we let them enter the military. Islam will punish (even kill) those they find to be gay. But, you fully support Islam while denouncing America for rules governing gays in the military. Good job, hypocritical liberal.
Do you understand that some of us expect more from our country than we expect from the conservative religious fundamentalist nations of the Middle East ?
You wouldn't pay anyway...you're a liberal. Sure some of us expect that, but there are also some of us who know the difference between whining and wanting. You are simply whining.
- Hearsay (which even if it were true, only points to one liberal) (Nothing about support of anti-gay sentiment)
- An article about european liberals (not the same as american ones) siding with fundamentalist turks (nothing about support of anti-gay sentiment)
- An opinion article (I'm suprpised you took in Christopher Hitchens opinion, him being an atheist and all)(nothing about support of anti-gay sentiment)
And "Blood money"? Not only do you hate liberals, now you are expressing a blood libel against them? wow, the new depths to which you will fall always surprise me.
This is what happens when you insist on being full of sh*t. You get exposed as being full of sh*t, and you miss out on making some extra cash.
Remember this the next time you're whining about people not taking you seriously.
p.s. Not sure if I mentioned this to you, or one of the other right wing imbeciles, but you guys need to get together with a dictionary, and work on the following words;
hypocrite hypocrisy hypocritical
They don't mean what you seem to think they mean.
How far from ground zero does the mosque have to be for the "intent" to be different?
If you own stock, you have a duty to educate yourself about the company you own stock in. If the company is mismanaging coal mines, contributing to hundreds of people's deaths per year, you're not really innocent. (I won't point out the names of companies here).
The vendors, workers, police, and firemen were entirely innocent. The police and firemen who went into the buildings were heroes.
If Churchill hadn't used the asinine term "little Eichemanns" maybe someone would have listened.
Since "they" supposedly "hate us for our freedoms", why would you be against our Freedom of Religion? When you're opposed to that, then The Terrorists have won. When you're scared of a building, then The Terrorists have won. By definition, "they" have achieved their goal. When did our nation turn into a bunch of weaklings, frightened of bricks and mortar?
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
He was doing his Constitutionally dictated JOB!
Only a coward would abandon the principles upon which his/her country is based because of fear, pain, and/or insensitivity.
The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to establish a level playing field. One which would create a sense of inclusiveness instead of divisiveness.
The only Americans who are not following the Constitution and attempting to promote inclusiveness are some on the right.
Many on the right led by Palin have ridiculed the president for having been a Constitutional professor. He demonstrated his mastery of the Constitution in his speech, but the very same people who say their actions are based on the Constitution, and that they want to return to the Constitution are the ones in favor of violating it.
To show her ignorance of the Constitution, Palin released a series of tweets last night that challenged the president to respond to her. This is the same woman who told Mrs. Gustafson in Homer, Alaska last week that she is standing up for the Constitution. She has been thoroughly discredited. One cannot say they support the Constitution and then say that it should be changed because they don't like what a particular group is doing that is protected under the Constitution. No wonder so many who follow people like Palin are so confused. They're following a person who doesn't know $*!t about any subject.
Palin and the rest of you received a lesson on the Constitution from an expert. Too bad he didn't charge you tuition fees.
"The attempt to divide has been the apparent goal of the mosque project in the first place. "
While there is NO evidence that this is the case, it is stated as fact and we are left to put the ACTUAL discussion back on track.
Boulderjerk comes here AGAIN and flings the rhetorical poop to see where it lands while offering nothing in return except false equivalencies, strawmen and flat-out dishonesty. . . . and then he runs away.
You mean like most of your posts here? We have learned not to take them seriously anymore.
What they want is to change the constitution so it will reflect their narrow, black and white viewpoint. They can't even deny this fact any longer because they are outright stating that they want to do it. And they not only want to change the consitution, they want this revised version taught to our children.
Democrats create progressive change by voting and upholding the Constitution. Republicans want to regress society, since they didn't get the vote, by changing the Constitution.
Interesting difference.
That's why I call the republican party "reich-wingers."
A little substance might be nice.
On Fox this morning they are actually discussing Calvin Coolidge, and unlike Obama, would he (Coolidge) even have commmented on the building of the Center.
Hmmm, it used to be: "What would Reagan do?" Now it is: "What would Coolidge do?"
hundreds in NY and thousands in America BUT this one is a national security issue!!!!!! not one in Buffalo or Cleveland but THIS ONE!!!
LOL Who in their right mind believe this garbage?
The reich-wingers believe it with all their heart and soul.
Such behaviour serves no good purpose and fails to recognise the lessons learnt from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post apartheid Sth. Africa. I learnt the power of forgiveness from my step-father and his comrades who served with him as POWs on the Burma Railway. Men who endured years of illtreatment such as we cannot conceive. These men saw humanity at its worst - and at its best. The experience taught them to never underestimate the power for good within humanity and not to be surprised where it comes from. And vice versa.
If those men could see past generalisations about race and religion why can't these people? Without reconciliation there is no hope, only continual strife and conflict. Is that what we should bequeath our children?
Unfortunately that level of maturity and personal development is lacking among many conservatives these days.
We expect all Muslims world wide to express humility over 9-11, yet the many blunders found in our reaction to 9-11 seem to be conveniently overlooked. At the very least, we should have humility over invading Iraq under false pretenses, which thereby led to the slaughter and homelessness of millions of people. Our war on terror continues to kill civilians. Our supposed victimhood over this Mosque shows us to be arrogant, hypocritical and petty. Reconciliation is something grown ups do. It demonstrates leadership, strength and character.
Fox and the other conservatives are all about self indulgent bitterness. Continued strife and conflict seem to serve them well.
You said this: "Reconciliation is something grown ups do. It demonstrates leadership, strength and character."
So why can't the Muslims buildin this right here show some? They are right there in the center of it all, and are not some Muslim congregation in Denmark.
They well could show some willingness to reconcile, but they insist on building this in the most offensives place possible.
It doesn't MATTER what any of us THINK about this thing. In THIS country under OUR Constitution, the Muslims have a Constitutional right to build their community center where ever they want, if zoning laws permit, which in this case, they DO.
I have to wonder why they insist on building it right there. They have other options, but no, they insist on putting up a mosque in the place that they know inflames the most passion against them. They insist on putting it in a place they they know will do the most harm to Islam/American relations now. They know that this will not foster reconcilliation, and that many people see it as giving them the middle finger. Why? Why, if they are concerned with being 'gentle' to those that have been hurt by 9/11, don't they seek out another suitable place?
Call me whatever you wish, but I fail to understand why they cannot do that. And then you add in Muslim tradition of where to put these types of things, and yes, it ticks me off even more. It really does scream that they do have ulterior motives, and I, as an American, object to those motives.
In the empty Burlington Coat Factory building? Because they own it. Why would they need to be gentle to the Burlington Coat Factory? Just a baffling level of ignorance.
"Call me whatever you wish," - RC
Woefully ill-informed. At best. Cowardly and purposefully obtuse at worst. What do you think the ulterior motives are? To take over all of the vacant Burlington Coat Factory buildings and make them into community centers?
That's nice, but they still have different options on where they can put this thing.
I just wonder if they really care about bringing people together or helping people understand that they are being sensitve to others' needs or desires. It seems as though they are not, and this, to them, is about them winning and asserting themselves.
There is a compromise that would work, but they don't want to consider it.
Why not?
http://www.examiner.com/county-conservative-in-milwaukee/the-cordoba-mosque-symbol-of-victory.
A reason why they call it Cordoba house is because of Cordoba's importance in Muslim (and Global) history. During tis height it was the most populated, rich and advanced city in the world.
Right or not, I don't know. I just know they exist.
Here is the deal on this mosque thing. By building one so near a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by Muslims, it is offensive to the Americans that weren't killed. Yes, the Muslims have a right to build it there. But it is offensive. Get it?
And Obama should have kept his mouth out of the issue. Just another goof by an inexperienced president way out of his league.
Buy hey, have fun with all your thumbs up and atta boys and girls to each other. Meanwhile, those of us with a memory and some empathy will read your goofy posts with amazement that there are people as naive as you.
And if THEY think it's offensive, then the PROBLEM is THEM! It's NOT the innocent people who want to build the community center!
As opposed to going on vacation rather than take an opportunity to prevent 9/11?
It's becoming clear to me that the majority of those saying, "this is offensive," are offering that in place of something far more empty; "We want revenge." Since they can't, of course, go after the monsters that flew the planes into the buildings, they've decided others, who are innocent, should pay the price.
That's an all too petty reason for objecting to this center's being built.
All I know is that 3,000 people were innocently killed. They were not soldiers. They were going to work or getting coffee that morning. Going to work to provide for themselves and their family. There was nothing sinister there. No plots to kill the enemy, like at a naval base or on the fields near a PA town. Yet we honor them, don't we? Those lives are something more than "long dead murders."
And I almost forgot about all the atrocities supposedly committed by US soldiers in Viet-Nam. Are those just "long dead murders" that we can forget and move past?
No, it is offensive. Its not about revenge, its about some common sense and and some tact. Its about solid principles, principles that go beyond political correctness and this unabshed freedom that's being espoused.
Our freedom is not complete, you know. Its really not. There are limits to it, and so it is with this entire idea.
And please, lets not make any assumptions about my feelings towards those who died in the Civil War or WWII, or, for that matter, WWI, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf Wars, or, for that matter, the Spanish American War. Even if you could look into my mind and see how I feel about those conflicts, any and all answers would be off the topic and waaaaaay off the points being made.
I've not presented a "forget about it and move on" argument that trivializes the deaths that occurred on 9/11. Throughout this thread I've constantly stated that the people who wish to build this center are not the monsters that attacked this nation and should not be held accountable for those sins.
I respond to clarify my purpose with the earlier post. I take exception to the label "long dead murders." It cheapens them, I think.
Perhaps you meant "long dead murderERS, at which point your position makes more sense and is one I can generally agree with.
They are dead, and we should not focus on them exactly. I differ though in the respect that I see that many threats exist, and we should not forget about that.
Anyway, that's it for this...
Fairly easy to say this since the "monsters that attacked this nation" are all dead, since they were blasted to smithereens along with the 3,000 innocent American men, women, and children on 9/11. Can you also guarantee not a single person will be recruited and developed to be a "home grown" terrorist in this mosque? Wouldn't that be ironic?
Then again, it's hardly worth the effort to even try to dissuade folks like you. You just refuse to see the bigger picture.
Bottom line is, neither of us can prove a negative.
Since no one associated with this community of American Muslims has been shown to have any ties in any way, shape, or form, with radical jihadists, I'm not going to play guilt by religious association with them any more than I would any given group of American Baptists to the Westboro Basptist Church, and/or the KKK and make a rash assumption of potential violent acts where no evidence to support that assumption exists.
Your "bigger picture" omg, depends on an all too narrow viewpoint--the assumption that anyone who follows the Islamic faith has the potential to be a terrorist. And a paranoid assumption is no reason to deny anyone their Constitutionally rights.
You are just a bigot. A disgusting, racist bigot. You have no empathy for those that died. You just hide behind you fake patriotism and you "america #1" in order to excuse your bigotry against those with different beliefs. You only care for you and those that are like you.
Some free advice to liberals: think before you type out messages for all to see how twisted and illogical your brains function. You are welcome.
Irrational-- based on what and according to who? IS simple disagreement with someone constitute as irrational?
Unjustifiable-- how do you determine justifiable? Is there a standard you use? Why do you use that standard? Is not understanding an argument mean that argument is necessarilly unjustifiable?
Hatred-- What exactly is hatred? Does not liking someone's behavior qualify?
Stereotypes-- when does behavior become a stereotype?
Inflamatory language-- does the use of harsh language automatically constitute bigotry?
Harassment-- again, what is it? When does a given behavior towards another become harassment? Is it when someone disagrees with another?
See, what I hope to convey through this exercise is to show that bigotry probably does not and cannot come to the front in these forums, at least conclusively.
You said you knew onementalgiant was a bigot from his posts. But his posts were hardly irrational or unjustifiable, not were they conclusively given through hatred, the use of stereotypes, certainly not inflammatory and I don't think they were too harrassing either.
Another purpose for this is to show my disdain for loosely throwing around labels like that. They do so little that is actually productive, yet you see them all the time. Conservatives are no better in this regard, and it just ain't right.
If people want honest and full discussion, they should throw such labels off to the side and actually discuss. Calling someone a name like "bigot" shuts down debate rather than fosters it.
Now, maybe johaley, you really do not want debate. But I hope you do.
one of his posts:
Which was a reply to this:
Note that the OP had no direct mention of him, his politics or anything of the sort, but he then assumed an offensive tone.
Inflamatory language and steretyopes would be being incapable of talking about even a member of the group, who has different beliefs not in a "i have a black friend" way, positively. Here is an example of him lumping all muslims with the 9/11 highjackers:
His past post here are what makes me sure that he is a bigot. If not a religious bigot, a political one.
You next quote him as saying all Mulsims are to blame. Unless I missed something. He said these two things about Muslims: "You know, the "compassionate" Party who endorses the tolerance of Muslims building an "in your face" mosque on the 9/11 site," and "Obviously they understand what the Muslim agenda is - as opposed to most that post here who don't "get it".
Muslim agenda is a bit vague for me to determine exactly what he means, so I cannot call him a bigot from that, and the prior comment refered to Muslims building the facility, not all Muslims.
I'd also not confuse harsh rhetoric with bigoted rhetoric.
Finally, as to those conservatives who are indeed problematic, and there are many of them, more than I'd like to admit, don't forget to look in your (general, not specific to you johaely) own.
I am not crying victim here, but it is clear that many posters here do have very harsh words for conservatives. Read through some of the threads to see what people have to say about them? Its not very nice, and could rise, under your threshold, to the level of bigotry.
I just have a low tolerance for such mudslinging.
Isn't it ironic how quick the Left is to trot out the race card against conservatives yet allow blatant racist comments from their fellow liberals without condemnation. For example Dan Rather's watermelon comments about Obama were given a liberal free pass.
BYW, I do agree with Jona that I tend to be more aggressive with the way I make my posts. I see it as "fighting fire with fire".
2BTW, have you heard Harry Reid now says Muslims should not build their mosque near the WTC?
Doesn't involve me, because i don't live in nevada nor care what somebody from out of state thinks about local issues that have no effect on them.
I"m was not talking about Dan Rather nor care about him. I was talking about you.
PS: It's not ironic, because that's not the meaning of irony. If you want to call it something, call it a double standard and stop using words like "ironic" and "hypocrit" incorrectly.
This is precisely why I am convinced the liberal brain is wired differently then normal brains. Liberals can have a high IQ, such as Obama, yet not be able to draw obvious conclusions to a given list of facts. This is also why it is pointless to debate a liberal. I can sit and talk to my 7 year old grandson and he will understand that 2 + 2 = 4, but for some reason the typical liberal brain computes the answer to 3 or 5.
The way I see it, it really isn't their fault that their brains are mis-wired. This is why I tend to be compassionate towards them and seldom reciprocate their name-calling.
one of his posts:
Which was a reply to this:
Note that the OP had no direct mention of him, his politics or anything of the sort, but he then assumed an offensive tone.
Inflamatory language and steretyopes would be being incapable of talking about even a member of the group, who has different beliefs not in a "i have a black friend" way, positively. Here is an example of him lumping all muslims with the 9/11 highjackers:
His past post here are what makes me sure that he is a bigot. If not a religious bigot, a political one.
I personally gave up debate with people like proudconservative, Floyd and onementalgiant. I rather have real debate than the pretense of one.
While it may be fair to criticize him for engaging in some wishy washy political speech by making this comment, it should also be noted that it falls in line with the whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," part of the First Amendment.
So, from the full quote, we certainly cannot conclude there's anything bigoted or racist in what the President said.
You, however, have argued that American citizens should be denied their First Amendment rights on the grounds that building this center would be "offensive." And the only substantial "offensive" example you can offer is that the people in this American community follow a religious faith that a group of murderers also followed. While I don't think your stand necessarily shows racism I do think it clearly displays that you've typed out your argument without much thought and have come to a flawed and offensive conclusion.
"You, however, have argued that American citizens should be denied their First Amendment rights on the grounds that building this center would be 'offensive.'"
Which part of "Yes, the Muslims have a right to build it there.", which I said in my first post, are you having trouble understanding?
But this group has other options. They are not completely shut down like blacks were in the south, and in the north. The north just wasn't so blatant about it.
-Staten Island
-Tenessee
-California
They could still build in other locations very near where they are that just are not front and center.
BTW, to answer your question-- Staten Island I believe is a park. Tennessee-- they certainly could build there but their congregation would not be served, and same for CA. But the congregation could still be served if this is built but a few blocks back.
-If they were planning building a mosque in CA or TN that means that there are muslims there who would attend the mosque, otherwise what's the point of wasting so much money.
Two blocks away is not front and center from ground zero. Two blocks in lower manhattan is almost half a mile in distance and it will be clouded by the high rises. It's not a mosque, it's a community center no more different than the Y, which is located in the same area.
What are you talking about with your answer to your questions?
I answered the questions based on the wisdom of this group builing the mosque where they are building it. Ca and Tn are irrelevant, and they can't build it on Staten Islan.
I guess we've heard different things on the nature of the building, as I have understood it to be primarily a mosque.
I'd still call it front and center, but are you surprised:). Look, there's a symbolism here that is hard to deny, at least to a good many Americans, including me. There's certainly enough questions to suggest there is something going on here or something different could be done.
CA and TN and staten Island are relevant. You say they can go on build it not near Gropund Zero, but these places are not near ground zero and yet there is oppostion to them based on nothing but distrust of muslims and cynicism, the justifications ("Sensitivity"; "the site is part of history"; "Would cause traffic"; "noone would go") are just grasping for straws.
CA and TN and staten Island are relevant. You say they can go on build it not near Gropund Zero, but these places are not near ground zero and yet there is oppostion to them based on nothing but distrust of muslims and cynicism, the justifications ("Sensitivity"; "the site is part of history"; "Would cause traffic"; "noone would go") are just grasping for straws.
CA and TN and staten Island are relevant. You say they can go on build it not near Gropund Zero, but these places are not near ground zero and yet there is oppostion to them based on nothing but distrust of muslims and cynicism, the justifications ("Sensitivity"; "the site is part of history"; "Would cause traffic"; "noone would go") are just grasping for straws.
CA and TN and staten Island are relevant. You say they can go on build it not near Gropund Zero, but these places are not near ground zero and yet there is oppostion to them based on nothing but distrust of muslims and cynicism, the justifications ("Sensitivity"; "the site is part of history"; "Would cause traffic"; "noone would go") are just grasping for straws.
I do say they should move it further from Ground Zero. I say that because it seems to me to be the better move for a variety of reasons, most of which have been touched on through this thread.
You also cannot include me in the others who you say oppose the 'mosque.'
Please give me information on where to find the fact that it is to be a community center merely with a prayer room.
I do say they should move it further from Ground Zero. I say that because it seems to me to be the better move for a variety of reasons, most of which have been touched on through this thread.
You also cannot include me in the others who you say oppose the 'mosque.'
Please give me information on where to find the fact that it is to be a community center merely with a prayer room.
From Wikipedia
If it is merely a Y, no problems, but I doubt it is merely a Y in that the Muslim influence will be much greater than the Christian influence at the YMCA. I would be very surpised if it were not strongly influenced by the Muslim faith.
But, throughout this thread you've been one of the voices that have run with the idea that this center is just too "offensive" to be built. And the only "offensive" matter I've seen is that these Americans are Muslims and that the 9/11 monsters were Muslims. Guilt by association--no more than that. The sins of others long dead must be carried upon those who committed no crime.
The First Amendment does not have an asterisk that says, "These absolute rights are null and void if polling data shows your speech and/or religion are unpopular." And so long as the central argument against this center's construction focuses on a religion being "offensive" I'll continue to point out just how ridiculous, petty, and empty those arguments are.
True, but it is also true that people can't plop churches whereever they want either.
He, as a Constitutional Law professor, should know this.
The Constitution is quite clear on this point. Reread the 1st Amendment. You cannot prevent ANY religious group from building a religious institution because you object to their religious beliefs.
You'll also notice the text says nothing about building a place of worship. And actually, those are covered not by the feds but at the local level.
Your first question has been demonstrated because churches have been denied access to buildings out of bias against Christians.
The freedom of religion, just all freedoms in this nation, is not unfettered. There are restraints. This is actually a good thing, as long as the restraints are equally applied.
Anyway, my objection is not out of their right to build whatever they want, but out of the wisdom of it being built. These are two different questions. You do not question its wisdom, and that's fine.
Then again, maybe you and I are just as ignorant as the president, and should take constitutional scholar Rational Conservative's advice and remember the "ya just can't plop it anywhere !" part of the Establishment Clause.
People always forget about the plopping part of that document.
The 1st Amendment is not complicated in either its wording or its meaning. It is beautiful in its simplicity.
It's not mosques or churches that are being plopped in this discussion, but rather some big, old, rancid, right wing horse apples.
I guess the bars set pretty low for making it onto the First String right wing team.
I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people, and there definitely is a shortage of decent conservative voices at this site lately, so I hope RC steps it up a little.
My instincts tell me not to bet on it, though. I've been visiting website forums long enough to recognize different breeds of wingnut, and what I see so far is the " both sides are just as bad", passive-aggressive,smiley-face, bag-o-sh*t wrapped in a ribbon, deliberately obtuse troll.
That type can go either way, depending on how much control they have over their emotions.
Having empathy makes you Hitler, remember?
Why would we allow a huge mosque to go up at a site where Islam, the religion that worships in mosques, where members of the site had a huge 'triumph'? Why would we do so when building a mosque at a place of 'triumph' is a very symbollic gesture of victory in this religion?
Contrary to what Obama would have us believe, in his quotes above, there is not an unfettered right to build a church or other religious building anywhere people want. The government (usually the local government) has the power to approve or deny it, and must make the decision on whether to grant that permission to build. And because they can choose, they can choose to deny it.
I know first hand that churches have been denied zoning to build-- or even not to build but to hold services in already established buildings, in given locations. They were denied by the city council.
Contrary to what Obama says, it is not about freedom of religion.
Is there any doubt that this would meet no opposition whatsoever if this was a Christian or Jewish center being built? That the outrage is there only because the American citizens wishing to build it are Muslim?
That's what makes this a freedom of religion issue.
Christians and Jews did not fly planes into the towers. Muslims did. Its also Muslim tradition to build a 'triumphant' mosque on top of vanquished sites. Ergo, this looks a lot like a symbollic gesture.
There are other places they could build this mosque that are not too far from this site, yet they will not even consider those options. This looks more like a symbollic gesture on their part.
No, it is still not a freedom of religion issue. There is much, much more to it than that. It is part of the war, and it is simply a mistake to say they have an unfettered right to put the mosque where they want it.
No, Christians and Jews did not fly the planes into the Twin Towers. Muslims did. Muslims who were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Not the group of American Muslims who wish to build this center.
It's these Americans that many would deny. Americans who certainly do not wish to celebrate a "triumph" in any way symbolic or otherwise.
Nevertheless, other Americans wish to deny them this center for purely symbolic reasons. This site is not located on Ground Zero. Arguments that it's somehow just too close ring as shallow and petty--as I said earlier, an attempt to extract an all too empty revenge, not on the monsters who committed the murders, but on innocents who have absolutely no link to that crime--other than they pray the same way.
If you wish to frame this as a matter of a zoning issue you have to bring a zoning issue argument to the table.
Muslims from America, huh, are entirely distinct from Muslims from Saudi Arabia? So, there have been no Mulsim jihadists from the US? How about Nigeria? Or Jordan? How about Palestine? France? Britain? Iraq? Somalia?
Do you also remember seeign Muslims dancing in their streets on 9/11? Not all from Saudi Arabia, were they?
That's one of the fallacies of your argument-- jihadists don't come from simply one branch of Islam or from one nation. They are not united by patriotism, but by religion-- Islam.
I well understand that not all Muslims are into Jihad, but all Jihadists are Muslim. They are not Christian, or Jewish, or Mormon, or Catholic, or Buddhist, or Hindu. No, they are all Muslim.
You also minmize the fact that Jihadists do have many sympathizers here in this nation. They may not be overt, but nonetheless they exist. This reality is front and center in my mind when I look to why they want this thing built where they want it built, and won't even consider other options.
Surely, they have to know the inflammatory nature of the dispute, and if they were into reconcilliation, they would consider other sites. But they haven't. How much, then, can they really be concerned about reconcilliation? How much of it really is about the symbollic gesture of triumph?
At some point, you have to see this argument is much more than just about granting them the freedom of religion. Its much, much more.
I talk about zoning to demonstrate how there is not an unfettered freedom to plop any kind of building anywhere someone wants. To be fair, with zoning, the city certainly can approve the building wherever they want to approve it for.
But to say it is an unfettered right is simply wrong. Many, like yourself, appear to say it is an unfettered right to put this thing up. Churches have been denied placement for a variety of reasons, including bias against Christians.
The purpose of the zoning argument is simply to suggest that there is not complete freedom to build religious buildings, even under the 1st amendment. If that's the case, then there are indeed myriad other factors that go into such a decision to allow it to be built, or not to be built.
Yes, there are doubtlessly people in this country who sympathize with the jihadists--what of them? Can you offer something substantial that shows they are the ones trying to build this center? Or will you offer another example of deeds committed by others who are not Americans to somehow justify an argument to deny American citizens their Constitutionally protected rights?
Either way, these things do not fall under the zoning argument you offered. And given that the construction of this center has been approved without any zoning violation issues or concerns, I doubt that you'll be able to offer anything other than hypotheticals that are moot.
I pause because I see the workings of the jihadists as being very different than what you and I expect in society. They seem to have a very intricate and sophisticated way to infiltrate our society. Every single domestic Islamic terrorist has been able to live successfully and under the radar in this nation for some time. It is thus an absurd thought to me that we should excuse all American Muslims simply because they are American rather than Saudi Muslims.
I cannot mention enough that this group has other options on where to put this thing! It really raises a lot of questions as to why they insist on this specific site, doesn't it? If you do not acknowledge the questions, you are intentionally closing your eyes.
You just don't understand the zoning point, do you? Or are you purposefully arguing past it so as to not have to address the simple point that there is not an unfettered religious freedom to plop a house of worship anywhere you want? Many factors go into these decisions, and you're argument that it is fully a relikgious freedom issue is just wrong.
Show a violation, or drop the argument.
But, to your opening sentence, "They have given me no reason to think they are immune from the jihadists." Come on, dude. You've just admitted to allowing your personal feelings to rule out over reason. They might maybe, sorta, kinda, be guilty of something I can't quite put my finger on is not a valid reason to deny anyone their rights. That's the rational that was used to place people in internment camps. It has no purpose, no place in this matter.
Nor does the "they have other options" argument. How far away would be far enough away? Where would be the ideal spot where they'd receive little or no objections?
This spot they've purchased, a former Burlington Coat Factory, is not Ground Zero and is not hallowed ground. If it is available for any organization of any other faith to build a community center, then it should be available to this community of Americans as well.
We have discussed some, but you simply come back to the idea that they have a right to build it here, no questions asked.
I say that is incomplete, because there are other concerns, as there should be for any such building.
Actually, my first sentance is completely reasonable and rational. I explained why the concern. I explained that there is a unitedness based only on religion, and not on any other sort of barrier. These people have not shown any separation from the jihadists. Words and statements have meaning, do they not? Thus, their failure to call out the jihadists is important. They easily could, but have not done so. The question that remains unanswered is why? Why haven't they, or why can't they, simply call them out?
Other options is important, because this location is pretty much front and center. You ask how far would be far enough away? Not front and center, which would infer at least a few blocks back.
Now, concluding this post, I KNOW that you will continue to call out my genuine concern and label it something akin to 'bigot'. But I also know that you will not address the reasons for the concern.
You'll dismiss the simple truth that there are many more reasons to consider on whether or not to put up this, or any other religious site, anywhere, not just here. You'll ignore the nature of Islam's loyalties to faith rather than boundaries. You'll dismiss the fact that these people have not condemned the jihadists. You'll ignore the possibility that if they were concerned with reconcilliation they would seriously consider other options on where to put the mosque (it is a mosque, too, not just a center).
In short, you won't address the hard questions that this puts forth. Freedom of religion is but a small part of it, and that is dismissed by saying there is not an unfettered freedom of religion in this case. You'll also ignore the potential reasons they want to put this mosque where they want to put it. You'll instead say, you don't care because it is there freedom of religion to put it wherever they want.
I have, however, pointed out that in the myriad factors you've expressed concern about, you keep circling back to religion. And the views you've expressed concerning this particular religion suggest you're taking the broad brush approach. While you certainly haven't suggested that all followers of Islam are jihadists, you certainly have expressed that you'll hold all of them under suspicion unless they can prove themselves in some way that will meet your satisfaction. It's the proverbial slippery slope, RC.
And again I'll say--I have not made the argument that houses of worship can be put anywhere anyone wants. I recognize there are zoning laws that prohibit certain structures from being built at certain locations. Nevertheless, there is no such restriction at this former Burlington Coat Factory spot. Dude, you can't say, "Other places wouldn't allow it," to support an argument against a location that certainly does allow it anymore than you could argue against receiving a speeding ticket for driving at 55 MPH in a 35 MPH zone just because you would be allowed to drive at a faster speed if you'd been driving at a different spot on the road.
I understand the emotions, but I'll side with the First Amendment.
Something akin to bigotry is inferred here.
And no, I do not keep circling back to religion. Islam is a religion, yes, but all of the issues surrounding it are not all religious. That would be like blaming the KKK on Christianity. Of course that's not the case, as Christianity is completely separate. That some used Christianity, even in churches, does not make all the issues surrounding the KKK about Christianity or religion. It was not a religious matter. It was political.
People can hide behind a religion, but that does not make the issue religious.
I actually understand your concern about the slippery slope. However, I am OK with such a position when it comes to a major mosque being constructed in a place where its symbollic value is pretty darn clear. In other words, this group wants to build a major mosque near what many Muslims see as a major victory for their warlike version of their faith; and because they want to do so without clearly and definately separating themselves from those who view that site as a victorious site raises serious questions in my mind about the people who want to build this mosque.
Stated in the alternative, if this group would build in another location further from the site and/or expressly condemn any connection to the jihadists, I would not object. At that point, there would be less reason to question their motivations.
So, I actually do have a fairly specific objection that is not subject to the slippery slope to the extent that you seem to infer. If my arguments above suggest otherwise, that is my fault for arguing in that manner. However, the objection is to the site where planned and without the separation from the jihadists.
And you still don't seem to understand the zoning argument. I'll say it one more time, and then that is it: I use it as an example to suggest that putting up a mosque is not all about religion. That the city has apparently allowed it does not mean that the existing questions go away, or that I have to agree, nor does it change the fact that I used zoning as an example of how there is indeed much more to consider than religion.
The first amendment does not apply in the manner that you say it does, so siding with it is irrelvant. By the way, do you then suppor the decision of a DC neighborhood to disallow a church being built, when the church satisfied all the zoning requirements?
The sample you took from my post was intended to show the weakness of your suspicions. The reference to the internment camps was to show the extremes to which those kind of suspicions can be taken to if they run unchecked.
Just so we're clear, as we've traded these comments, I've never thought of you as anything other than "rational." But I've also made it clear that I believe your allowing your emotions to cloud your reasoning.
Back to the subject. In a sense you've kind of supported my position with your mention of the KKK. They, much like Muslim extremists, will tell you that their beliefs come from God, and the Klan has a long history of deadly acts of terror.
So, using that as a base, if the situation was different, if it was a white, fundamentalist Christian center being opened two blocks away from the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, if the zoning laws in that area permitted such a center to be built, and if the members of this Christian center had no clear ties to KKK members who were guilty of the bombing in 1963, would you offer the same objection to them as you're offering to the Muslims wishing to build the center in NYC?
I'm not familiar with the DC church you've mentioned, so I can't comment on it with any real substance. Not that it really matters--it's an entirely separate matter. I will, however, say this--it the arguments against this DC church are on the same or similar grounds as the arguments against the NYC center, I'd offer them the same support without hesitation.
The bottom line for me is something I've said a couple of times before during these exchanges; I believe too much of the objections against this center are rooted in an empty, impossible to satisfy, purely symbolic desire for revenge. I've yet to see a substantial, objective, unemotional reason to deny these American citizens their rights.
As to the remaining points. I has the thought when I was writing the KKK example that it could be used in the same manner. However, I still view them as distinct issues. Just as the KKK was motivated by the political threat of blacks, and pure unabashed racism, there was little true religion involved. Hiding behind faith in these mattters does not mean that the real issue in fact religious. It had nothing to do with God or his worship and was in fact radically against God's commands.
So it is with this mosque, which is being excused as them having a right to build it so they can worship Allah there. But they can do that at another location. They can build this mosque at another location, just as they can build it here. Their religion is not affected, and it is thus not a religious issue.
Now, if any mosque was not allowed, then that would be a religious issue. They do have the right to worship, and to build a mosque.
It is the location of the mosque that is in issue, and the reason the location is in issue has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with politics. It has to do with giving an olive branch to those who wish to move beyond 9/11. It has to do with statements of power. It has to do with things apart of religion.
I am glad to hear you say that any bias is bad bias, and as long as you apply this idea consistently, then all is good.
You call my opposition a position of revenge. I don't see it that way. I see it as questioning the wisdom of putting this mosque where they plan on putting it. I see no wisdom in putting it so near the 9/11 destruction which was perpetrated by a faith that seems to have a custom of putting up large mosques over such sites as a sign of victory.
In the end, the opposition is about the message that the mosque will send to the world and those within its own faith that are bent on destruction. Revenge? No, if it were revenge I would not accept any such mosque and would wish them out of the country, or dead. That's not what I want. I simply want a relocation.
Thanks.
Hey, we both feel strongly about the sides we've taken. We both disagree with the other's conclusion. That's fine. And very American.
If and when we find ourselves butting heads again, I hope we'll address our sides with equal passion and respect.
Best to you, RC.
Have a great one!
Not sure who "they" are in your post but you can find the "refudiations" you are looking for on the intertubes here...and here...
Well first off - they own that building. As for other options, I'm not sure about that, however, I doubt any site would be accpetable.
I understand zoning was not an issue and they've received all necessary approval to this point.
So what is your opposition all about?
"In part because of this conviction, the scholars — educated intellectuals who teach in Western institutions — remain unconvinced that Muslims, even radical militants, were behind the attacks.
Some of them even said that with the release of the letters by the Justice Department on Friday, it appeared that Muslims were being framed."
This is dubious to me. Beliving they were framed is not accepting responsibility. And besides, I want such a staement strongky denoucing terrorism from Rauf himself. Maybe its there and I did not see it, but general statements from political groups do not satisfy my desire to hear him call out terrorism.
Owning the building, or even the is one thing, putting up a controversial building is quite another. Mosques across the nation are irrelevant to this one, and more imnportantly to my objection. I wish people were not so afraid of mosques, but that's nothing to do with this one. This one is entirely different.
Reread my posts re zoning, and my opposition.
So you pick one out of a huge list and you find it dubious. That proves to me your opposition to this is not based on anything rational.
It's completely relevent to this because you keep insisting they should just build the centre further away. Given the list of opposed mosques around the country, I can't see how they can locate it far enough away to not upset bigots.
You have to go in there and use the word "bigot." Do you even know what the word means? I actually discussed my thoughts on the use of the term here in a post above this one in some depth.
And you also put me in with everyone else. I am not everyone else, and cannot speak for them or defend them. My opinions on opposing a mosque simply because it is a mosque is simple minded and makes little sense. Such an attitude goes against what this nation stands for, I would not tolerate such an attitude in my locale. We, by the way, have one, and it is fine by me. So, please do not lump me in with all the others out there who don't like them-- that is a form of prejudice, friend.
I'll stick to my stance.
Well where would I get that idea?
You first state...
I give you a huge list (plus a more recent link to Imams in Canada denouncing violence in the name of Islam) but they aren't forceful enough or numerous enough for you.
That's not what I was trying to illustrate. My point is, if the mosque were to acquiesce and move far enough to please you, there will be another person that still thinks the mosque is too close to "hallowed ground".
So, yes, I do need more. Sorry, fella, but that does not make me a bigot. You need much more for me to be a bigot, like for instance that I need to actually hate Muslims as a starting point, but even that's not enough.
But you do put me in with everyone else, but since that is not what you are trying to bring out, I'll address what you are trying to bring out:
I'd say at some point you can't please everyone. But where it is is very close to Ground Zero, and since there are sites available slightly further away, it is very possible to simple choose one of those places. Reason has to be a factor here. Those that put unreasonable expectations are well, unreasonable.
I am of the opinion, and could care less what others think, that there is indeed a suitable compromise here that does not involve abdication of this site.
So, please, Benjamin, address what I write, and if you'd like me to comment on what others think, I can do so, but do not lump me in with what others think. I am not them.
Then look it up yourself. I've seen plenty of info. regarding muslims around the world condemning violence in the name of Islam. If you haven't I'd suggest you haven't looked very hard. And again, your own words lead me to believe no amount of condemnation would be sufficient for you.
Oh please stop - I told you I'm not lumping you in with everyone else. I said once you are satisified as to it's location - there will be others who are not, so what is the point of trying to placate the ever so reasonable RC?
I insist on you addressing my points and not assuming I am a part of this group who, truth be told, probably complain even if it were elsewhere. But that group is minimal, and most people with a brain would think that there is room to compromise. Call me crazy for wanting to be sure you address my points, and not what you think everyone else might think.
Oh I see - your objection is reasonable and if it's successful any other objection by anyone else that still thinks the mosque shouldn't be built doesn't have a brain and won't be listened to? Really?
I have addressed what you have posted - you think there are other suitable places to build this mosque and a compromise is possible.
I have pointed to instances of intolerance towards mosques that are nowhere near ground zero. So I don't believe a compromise is possible. But for some reason you refuse to comprehend that fact so I'll just take note of your disingenuousness and move along.
And what about the Xian community centers? Maybe they don't do bible/religion classes, but I'm sure there are religious posters, verses that are visible.
Too much is being made of a building that's already in existence. It's not only a mosque; it's a community center, and it's not located at Ground Zero but several blocks away.
So, if Xian religions can sponsor community centers why not other religions?
Oh, yeah, because this country was founded by THE Xian god and only the Xian god.
However, your rant is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that I whine about coming from the left. You denigrate Christian community centers while defending Muslim centers ... simply on the basis of which religion it is.
LOL at the stupid! I thought the muslims wanted to stone women to death and kill homosexuals? That's not very "liberal" or "progressive"...