Obama and the NYC "Ground Zero" Mosque

[jackson33]

Convincing the organizers that it's a bad idea is not a legal maneuver and has nothing to do with a legal hearing. Public opinion and the right to protest have nothing to do with a judgement obtained through the courts. The only legal argument you have described is the attempt to have it named as a historical site, and that didn't fly. [/Quote]

 

swansont; If the organizers can't be convinced, or the ruling authority (construction plans, pending) can't be publicly convinced, the proper and possibly only recourse will be though the Courts. Your welcome to separate this Legal System from the public, however in my opinion it's that system that the public will accept, even if grudgingly

 

 

And public opinion may yet backfire if it only stiffens the resolve of people who feel they are being unfairly persecuted via guilt by association.[/Quote]

 

I have no idea, what portion of the "public opinion", might backfire. While socially not acceptable, guilt by association is often used in law or decision making. If your saying "certainly hope not", that the Taliban or the various terrorist groups around the world might be slightly upset or they will use the decisions for recruiting, I personally couldn't care less. We're not talking about a rational movement or group of people with in a religion, we're talking about an ideology dead set on imposing a set of values, you would be the first to object to.

 

 

 

It says a lot about Muslims, or at least those Muslims supporting its construction. Of course they have the right to build the mosque, and I hope they do. It will confirm my opinion about them. [/Quote]

 

waitforufo, good points; As Limbaugh said during today's show (8/17), only 29% of Americans "favor" the building of this one Mosque. Apparently 27% also still believe Obama was NOT born in the US (I really no longer care), but these people (Birthers) are classified radical, out of touch fanatics, with an agenda. Seems to me the same definition should be applied in this case.

I can't agree that voiding up to 70% of public opinion, should be reason to prove a point, in the distant future. I don't 'think' (may be wrong*) the US or any Non-Muslim Culture, would ever submit to the general Sharia Culture. I feel a good portion of US Muslims are here, expressly to avoid the persecution of Women, Children and honestly believe their Quoran, reads differently that many of their own Imam's.

 

*I don't have time tonight to go through the History of the Hindu and Muslim folks in India, but they have accepted a partial Domestic Policy for Muslims, under Sharia Law.

 

What a ridiculous thing to think is obvious. [/Quote]

 

Sisyphus, maybe so, but there are a lot of Muslims saying the identical thing.

 

Honestly I blame the fact that we still are yet to build anything at ground zero - memorial or otherwise - for why ten years later it's still such an open wound. This Islamic Rec Center they are building two blocks away probably wouldn't be on the radar if we hadn't sat on the actual WTC site so long. [/Quote]

 

I don't know padren, but I suspect the same objections would have been raised. The initial naming the 'Cordova House' pretty well set out the path, not to mention the Imam in charge, words over many years.

 

It's been curious to me why more progress hasn't been made on the now "Freedom Tower". Are you saying it's NYC Politics, where I've been led to believe it had been based on a disputed "Memorial" to the victims.

[Sisyphus]

not to mention the Imam in charge, words over many years.

 

I suspect you think that because the only sources you are getting your information from have cherry picked quotes to make him look bad. Does it surprise you that he's written books praising American society? That he he argues for secular government, freedom of religion, and equal treatment of women? I don't suppose Rush Limbaugh mentioned any of that, did he? Or is everything you know about him that he has been critical of American foreign policy several times?

 

I'm not being critical of you, BTW, I'm being critical of the conservative pundits who are, essentially, grossly misleading people about the actual situation, to the great detriment of the real war on terror, all so they can have a cause to rile people up about.

 

It's been curious to me why more progress hasn't been made on the now "Freedom Tower". Are you saying it's NYC Politics, where I've been led to believe it had been based on a disputed "Memorial" to the victims.

 

It's NYC politics and national politics. Getting everybody to agree has been difficult. Whole project seems to be cursed.

[padren]

I don't know padren, but I suspect the same objections would have been raised. The initial naming the 'Cordova House' pretty well set out the path, not to mention the Imam in charge, words over many years.

 

It's been curious to me why more progress hasn't been made on the now "Freedom Tower". Are you saying it's NYC Politics, where I've been led to believe it had been based on a disputed "Memorial" to the victims.

 

I'm sure they'd be raised, just as people will always raise to question the "legitimacy" of any President of any opposing party after an election. It just wouldn't be as raw. There's already a Mosque a few blocks from the WTC that was built before the WTC ever existed. As far as the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, I thought he was considered to be quite progressive: he made a few comments after 9-11 that pointed out the blatantly obvious but he didn't say anything anti-American or sympathetic to radical Islam. The closest thing to controversial was by pointing out that our foreign policy made it a lot easier for Al Qaeda to recruit/operate and that Bin Laden was trained by us. Pretty much just the facts that everyone has to admit if they aren't living under a rock.

 

Are there some quotes I'm missing?

 

 

As for the stalling of the memorial at ground zero I really can't venture to guess why... I just think 10 years is too long long time to sit on it and that some people somewhere must be languishing over making real decisions.

 

The bulk of what I see on this specific building though, appears to be mostly a handful of people who mostly aren't even in New York turning it into more than it should be. It looks like

 

• The Mayor of New York is in favor
  
• The Community Board overseeing Lower Manhattan is in favor
  
• The City Council speaker is in favor
  
• The borough of Manhattan president is in favor
  
• Victim groups of 911 are divided, both against and in favor
  

 

Yet political "pot" stirrers are up in arms denouncing it as a horribly insensitive and outright provocative project. Where was the noise before this hit the national scene? Were all these NYC politicians just ramming this down angry New Yorkers' throats in some unpopular attempt at committing political suicide as a means to advance sharia law in America? I highly doubt it. I think it's an attempt to find something - anything - can could be fashioned into a wedge, and parading it out before the next election. Feisal Abdul Rauf condemned the attacks of 9-11, and from what I know mostly in passing (from reading up on him) he's actually worked with various multi-faith organizations to promote the importance of human rights and non-radical Islam. Yet this is almost painted like a freedom of speech issue where "well we let the KKK say a lot, should we let these dirty terrorists talk hate too?" when the comparison is so far from the mark it's offensive. It reads as taking the issue of building an Islamic Center by moderates, the sort we like in this country and want people in Indonesia and Malaysia and across the Middle East and Asia to see living with us in harmony in pursuit of our common values... and turning into some sick fear campaign. Honestly if this whole hub-bub never happened, and the center was built, and some Al-Qaeda sympathetic Muslim individual was to walk by it, I would imagine they'd only feel doubt about their convictions, as a testament to all the things Bin Laden says "can't happen" stare them in the face 15 stories high: Muslims living successful, happy lives in peaceful coexistence with the very people Radical Islam viciously attacked. After this big stink though, and every single person who is a living example of what it takes to make Bin Laden actually look right (even though he's still unequivocally wrong) has declared this is solely for Radical Muslims to gloat about the attacks - then a Bin Laden sympathizer might smirk walking by. Then all the fears Al-Qaeda plays to suddenly seem to be plausible, and all the talk about equality and commonality from the US sounds like a bunch of empty talk that gets thrown out the window the moment even "good Muslims" try to do something any other demographic would take for granted.

 

 

Personally, I'd like to hear Mooey's take on it all, since she lives in that city and would have a better perspective on the backstory buildup.

Edited August 18, 2010 by padren

[swansont]

swansont; If the organizers can't be convinced, or the ruling authority (construction plans, pending) can't be publicly convinced, the proper and possibly only recourse will be though the Courts. Your welcome to separate this Legal System from the public, however in my opinion it's that system that the public will accept, even if grudgingly

 

You still haven't indicated on what basis a lawsuit might be brought. What's the legal issue at play here?

 

 

I have no idea, what portion of the "public opinion", might backfire. While socially not acceptable, guilt by association is often used in law or decision making. If your saying "certainly hope not", that the Taliban or the various terrorist groups around the world might be slightly upset or they will use the decisions for recruiting, I personally couldn't care less. We're not talking about a rational movement or group of people with in a religion, we're talking about an ideology dead set on imposing a set of values, you would be the first to object to.

 

I said nothing about the Taliban or terrorist groups or recruiting. I'm talking about the American Muslims (this is taking place in NYC, remember) who may be feeling persecuted by these actions. And we most certainly are talking about people in a religion. Rationality aside; I see no difference in the rationality of Islam vs any other mainstream religion. It is the connection to terrorism that is irrational. It is as if we fear all Christians as potential abortion clinic bombers and all Catholics as pedophiles. But we don't. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. All pedophile priests are Catholic, but not all Catholics are pedophile priests.

[ParanoiA]

Honestly if this whole hub-bub never happened, and the center was built, and some Al-Qaeda sympathetic Muslim individual was to walk by it, I would imagine they'd only feel doubt about their convictions, as a testament to all the things Bin Laden says "can't happen" stare them in the face 15 stories high: Muslims living successful, happy lives in peaceful coexistence with the very people Radical Islam viciously attacked. After this big stink though, and every single person who is a living example of what it takes to make Bin Laden actually look right (even though he's still unequivocally wrong) has declared this is solely for Radical Muslims to gloat about the attacks - then a Bin Laden sympathizer might smirk walking by. Then all the fears Al-Qaeda plays to suddenly seem to be plausible, and all the talk about equality and commonality from the US sounds like a bunch of empty talk that gets thrown out the window the moment even "good Muslims" try to do something any other demographic would take for granted.

 

Well said man. I think that sentiment will pluralize to a majority sooner than we realize.

 

 

 

I think when it comes down to it, however inconvenient, there is a lot of emotion in this and emotion isn't rational. Sure it's being exploited by the right wing ditto media but that's not a good enough reason to dismiss irrational, sensitive and highly emotional Americans about this historical tragedy. Some of us just don't seem to "feel" 9/11. I'm one of those. I appreciate what happened, but I don't feel the sense of loss and national connectedness that others do about it. And I wonder how many other people, who support building this Mosque, also don't have that emotional baggage about 9/11. Maybe that clouds our appreciation for the irrationality of loss.

[padren]

I think when it comes down to it, however inconvenient, there is a lot of emotion in this and emotion isn't rational. Sure it's being exploited by the right wing ditto media but that's not a good enough reason to dismiss irrational, sensitive and highly emotional Americans about this historical tragedy. Some of us just don't seem to "feel" 9/11. I'm one of those. I appreciate what happened, but I don't feel the sense of loss and national connectedness that others do about it. And I wonder how many other people, who support building this Mosque, also don't have that emotional baggage about 9/11. Maybe that clouds our appreciation for the irrationality of loss.

 

I actually have similar thoughts on the topic that, if you can predict something negative will come about by doing something, it doesn't matter how things "should be" or how right you are - you have to address the real consequences honestly. I personally suspect that most of the people involved predicted this would not have a negative impact - I can't imagine the list of NYC politicians backing the initiative while expecting the backlash. As for people who are affected by 911 more directly than myself... I have to make room for the fact that I don't share their perspectives, but again it was the people NYC elected in NYC that backed it and if anyone should speak for those affected by 911, I'd think right at the top of the list you'd find New Yorkers.

 

 

As an aside, the sheer irony of condemning Muslims for their "insensitivity" while (very insensitivity) equating them with the very radicals that attacked on 911 is downright mind-boggling. It's moments like that where while I am trying to be sensitive to the "special needs" of this thin skinned and easily offended segment of our society...that it really feels like apologizing for a spoiled 3 yr old throwing a tantrum in a grocery store. At some point people have to grow up and deal with the fact that not everyone they think looks the same actually are the same. For the record I'm not talking about people who were directly affected by 911 - I can understand how such a trauma can leave an imprint even you rationally wish wasn't there yourself. However, most of the bile seems to be coming from people not in New York, but people who chose to wrap themselves in it just so they could justify their views and have their tantrums. It's that segment that really bothers me, them and those who rile them up.

[Pangloss]

I suspect you think that because the only sources you are getting your information from have cherry picked quotes to make him look bad.

 

I think it's worse than that. Many conservatives (many quite close to the center; people we can call "moderates") believe that Islam itself is the problem. Some of this is the product of news stories and mass-media stereotyping, and perhaps part of it's from the way American Muslims understandably prefer to fly under the radar. But there is a widespread feeling in this country that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that Sharia law and the Koran itself are at the root of the problem. Some say that the religion is broken and can be fixed; others feel that the problem cannot be corrected and that isolation and prevention is necessary.

 

But either way there is some logic to the argument that Islam has not yet been "civilized" the way religions like Christianity have. A quick glance at the list of countries by Muslim population (link below) shows that 91.2% of the world's Muslims live in the Middle East and North Africa. Not exactly the most progressive part of the world, nor the wealthiest. (Though it may not be entirely fair to lump India into that boat, which contains about 10.3% of the total and is included in that 91.2%.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

 

An obvious flaw in this argument is exhibited by the 2.5 million American Muslims, who have remained quite peaceful with very few isolated exceptions, and perhaps to some greater or lesser extent (depending on how you look at the exceptions) the 38 million+ European Muslims (not including Turkey). If Islam is not yet "civilized" then why aren't they bombing stuff every day? It seems unlikely that they're just biding their time waiting for the "go" command from some imam in Qatar.

 

So I think the argument that Islam has not yet been civilized is weak, but it's not hard to see something in the statistics and the apparent correlation with poverty and way of life. It seems to me that the answer is more in the poverty and local culture than in the religion. But if that's the case then it would be good to bolster that with some hard evidence and then show it to conservative Americans.

 

(Like, I don't know, maybe through a Muslim outreach center placed in a spot where it might be noticed?)

[waitforufo]

I wonder what the message was behind these other structures near ground zero

http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

 

And then there are these two tweets to consider

 

Gee, maybe I missed some of the more important event of September 11, 2001. I don’t recall those flying airplanes into the trade towers shouting “Big Macs are great” or “Lox & Bagels are great”, nor do I recall them shouting “Naked Chicks are great.” I seem to recall something like “Allah Akbar” which I thought translated to “God is Great” or “God is the Greatest.” These new translations totally change my perspective on Islam. I guess there is a lot I need to learn about this religion that promotes misogyny, disfigurement for minor crimes. and second class citizenship for all non believers.

[swansont]

Gee, maybe I missed some of the more important event of September 11, 2001. I don’t recall those flying airplanes into the trade towers shouting “Big Macs are great” or “Lox & Bagels are great”, nor do I recall them shouting “Naked Chicks are great.” I seem to recall something like “Allah Akbar” which I thought translated to “God is Great” or “God is the Greatest.” These new translations totally change my perspective on Islam. I guess there is a lot I need to learn about this religion that promotes misogyny, disfigurement for minor crimes. and second class citizenship for all non believers.

 

You are painting an entire religion for the actions of a few zealots. Are you claiming there are no Christians who promote misogyny, etc.? Aren't those Christians who think the government should block this promoting second-class citizenship for nonbelievers (no first amendment for you!) ? Hey, that inquisition was a lot of fun; I guess all Christians like to torture nonbelievers. Do we really need to go through the list of atrocities performed in the name of religion by some nutcases, and erroneously extrapolate that behavior to the whole of those religions, just to show how ridiculous it is to apply fallacious logic? That would take some time, because the list is long …

[Marat]

For those who want to prohibit the mosque from being built near ground zero, how would you prevent it? The principles of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights prevent any state actor from acting on the basis of religious bias to deny any group the right to erect a house of worship where it chooses, even though zoning laws can restrict where churches can be built as long as the reasons given have nothing to do with religion. In this case, however, the religious motivation for denying zoning permission would be obvious, so permission could not be denied.

 

The municipal zoning commission could hunt for ways to disguise its religious bias behind other, apparently objective and neutral reasons, saying that the mosque could not be built there because the ground was too unstable to support it or something similar. But any excuse offered at this point would be inspected so closely and struck down so readily if the least trace of religious motivation were found in it that this would be a highly ineffective device to use to keep the mosque from being built.

 

A final strategy would be to argue that it was legitimate to deny permission to build the mosque there on the ground that locating it there was like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, since its provocative presence would be likely to induce a riot. But the U.S. Supreme Court has always insisted that before the danger of exercising any important freedom can justify its restriction, the danger must be clear and immediate, not speculative, and prior to its construction, any effect that the mosque might have there is simply too speculative to permit a limitation to the free speech and religious freedom rights of the mosque-builders.

[Pangloss]

For those who want to prohibit the mosque from being built near ground zero, how would you prevent it? The principles of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights prevent any state actor from acting on the basis of religious bias to deny any group the right to erect a house of worship where it chooses, even though zoning laws can restrict where churches can be built as long as the reasons given have nothing to do with religion. In this case, however, the religious motivation for denying zoning permission would be obvious, so permission could not be denied.

 

The municipal zoning commission could hunt for ways to disguise its religious bias behind other, apparently objective and neutral reasons, saying that the mosque could not be built there because the ground was too unstable to support it or something similar. But any excuse offered at this point would be inspected so closely and struck down so readily if the least trace of religious motivation were found in it that this would be a highly ineffective device to use to keep the mosque from being built.

 

A final strategy would be to argue that it was legitimate to deny permission to build the mosque there on the ground that locating it there was like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, since its provocative presence would be likely to induce a riot. But the U.S. Supreme Court has always insisted that before the danger of exercising any important freedom can justify its restriction, the danger must be clear and immediate, not speculative, and prior to its construction, any effect that the mosque might have there is simply too speculative to permit a limitation to the free speech and religious freedom rights of the mosque-builders.

 

 

It's a reasonable question, but note that most Americans who are opposed to the building also recognize their right to build it. We know this from polling.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/fox-news-poll-percent-think-wrong-build-mosque-near-ground-zero/

[swansont]

It's a reasonable question, but note that most Americans who are opposed to the building also recognize their right to build it. We know this from polling.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/fox-news-poll-percent-think-wrong-build-mosque-near-ground-zero/

 

The 34% who think they don't have the right is, IMO, an appallingly large number.

[Pangloss]

Yah, that's why I think it's still a reasonable question.

[jackson33]

The bulk of what I see on this specific building though, appears to be mostly a handful of people who mostly aren't even in New York turning it into more than it should be. It looks like

 

The Mayor of New York is in favor

 

The Community Board overseeing Lower Manhattan is in favor

 

The City Council speaker is in favor

 

The borough of Manhattan president is in favor

 

Victim groups of 911 are divided, both against and in favor[/Quote]

 

Padren; The first four are ALL the inner circle of Bloomburg's political structure. I have no idea if their is an agenda here, a financial injection seen, a simply a political move or what, but going against the wishes of the NY Governor, most the NY US Congressional Representatives and the US populace, seems to indicate a motive. As for Victim Groups or more importantly activist groups catering to their feelings, their has IMO been a consistent pacifist attitude from the start. I'm also concerned why a 'Greek Orthodox Church', destroyed in the ATTACK, has NOT been granted permission to rebuild, while a NEW Mosque cleared through.

 

My concerns, reactions and arguments however come the American Citizen viewpoint and sincerely believe the 9-11 attacks were against the US, NYC representing the Financial Center and of Course Washington DC (2 Planes/Missiles) directed at the Government Center of the Country.

 

Personally, I'd like to hear Mooey's take on it all, since she lives in that city and would have a better perspective on the backstory buildup. [/Quote]

 

Yes, that has crossed my mind as well and 'ecoli' also lives out on Long Island, but then there are a lot of people reading this thread and not commenting....

 

 

You still haven't indicated on what basis a lawsuit might be brought. What's the legal issue at play here? [/Quote]

 

swansont; I'll go on with this, but I find it very interesting that I'm discussing 'Religious Freedom' with a few people that argue that right in the first place, however;

 

Remember, I don't believe this Mosque will EVER be built at it's current permitted site. Apparently Patterson has again be rejected, so any action legal or social action will be determined or affected during the long term process to get built. The plans, purpose, charter, money sources can all be challenged. For instance;

 

Briefly; The proposed Mosque property is owned by Soho Properties, a Muslim owned Real Estate and Development, with an additional property owned by Con Edison and currently leased by Soho. In their agreement (C/E-S), they paid 700K to assume a lease from CE for 33K$/yr for the next 61 years (2.01M$ value) and have exercised the right to purchase the property. CE is currently reviewing the property value to determine a price, to the best I can determined this price has not been settle and the additional property is still under lease. The first property purchase by Soho and had been leased to Burlington Coat Factory was priced at 18M$, until sold to Soho for around 5M$. From a legal viewpoint and definitely my opinion, if any other entity offered say 20-30B$ for the CE property, which would establish a value and Soho turned down that offer, there would be grounds to terminate the lease by Con Edison that Soho holds. If my understanding of the current circumstances are correct, NOTHING needed to be done prior to even the Demolishment of the original Coat Factory can proceed until this is settled. I could go further in suggesting the permit "to go forward" was prematurely issued on the facts, then bring back to rezoning for a Church in an industrial area.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51

 

I said nothing about the Taliban or terrorist groups or recruiting. I'm talking about the American Muslims (this is taking place in NYC, remember) who may be feeling persecuted by these actions. And we most certainly are talking about people in a religion.[/Quote]

 

I didn't say you were and why I through out the caveat "certainly hope not". Just what kind of a backlash do you think American Muslims will leash and on whom.

 

As I've consistently maintained during these discussions, anything having to do 9-11 and since 9-11, is /has been a National issue and we ARE NOT talking about people of a Religion, but an organized group of radicals (terrorist) claiming that religion for it's purpose. I do believe the numbers we're talking about (especially the clerics and several Nations) are above what's thought. If it were not, the moderates Muslim folks that disagree with the Radicals, could have stopped them years ago, cut off their money and moral support.

 

 

The municipal zoning commission could hunt for ways to disguise its religious bias behind other, apparently objective and neutral reasons, saying that the mosque could not be built there because the ground was too unstable to support it or something similar.[/Quote]

 

Not really correct Marat; Zoning laws are designed to maintain some order in a particular community, which includes religious buildings. Further people from an area, where a disagreement may exist, can and often do influence decisions. For instance, the town of -X-, having no -Y- demographic to cater to, can refuse a permit. Attempting to be 'Political Correct' and legally correct are not compatibly. In this case, it's a reason a good many Muslims themselves question the GZ Mosque, in that there are few Muslims living in this Industrial area to begin with. The reverse argument, to be fair, is that Muslims are required to pray, think at least five times a day, work or visit this area and need a place to go.

 

But the U.S. Supreme Court has always insisted that before the danger of exercising any important freedom can justify its restriction, the danger must be clear and immediate, not speculative, and prior to its construction, any effect that the mosque might have there is simply too speculative to permit a limitation to the free speech and religious freedom rights of the mosque-builders. [/Quote]

 

Maybe; But even a Religious Facility can be judged disruptive to a community, though that's not my argument. Everything about this Mosque, including it's link to the Arab League (possible Muslim Brotherhood) and the Cordoba Project is telling this has been and is being used for other than Rational Religious Objectives.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, pretty much nobody is arguing about rights. For once, we're all essentially in agreement on that part. This entire issue is a social one. I'll bet George Carlin would have had some interesting comments about it...

 

The 34% who think they don't have the right is, IMO, an appallingly large number.

 

It may seem that way to you. But this is actually a small number to me.

 

The funny part, if there is one, is that the same 34% are probably the ones that think they have a "right" to deny marriage for same-sex couples. There is an appallingly large number of folks with a twisted notion of rights. Hell, some even think we have a "right" to drive...

Edited August 18, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

Former Chairman of the Democratic Party and Presidential Candidate Howard Dean stepped into the quagmire today, saying that the "mosque" should be relocated, that it's insensitive, and that it's not about rights. He took issue with more extreme right-wing comments, but focused on a need for compromise. I think he's right, and this shows how strong the majority sentiment is on this issue.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51296-obama-and-the-nyc-ground-zero-mosque/page__pid__560638__st__60#entry560638

[Realitycheck]

Well, I was about to say the same thing. Rights aside, this is so blatantly, pathetically inflammatory, I don't know why it has gotten this far. This is a total mockery of our "rights". This is like the murderer getting off on technicalities, gloating and sneering. If the Imam is so moderate, then why is he still pushing it? There are millions of other city blocks to put this in NYC, so why there? Talk about insensitive. How much longer have we had nukes? Since when was Islam about freedom? Hello. It's amazing seeing all these lefties supporting something that will probably clean up the area, though not having gone there, I wouldn't know how bad it actually is. I find it surprising that that area would be that bad.

Edited August 22, 2010 by agentchange

[Sisyphus]

Well, I was about to say the same thing. Rights aside, this is so blatantly, pathetically inflammatory, I don't know why it has gotten this far. This is a total mockery of our "rights". This is like the murderer getting off on technicalities, gloating and sneering.

 

No, it really isn't.

 

If the Imam is so moderate, then why is he still pushing it?

 

I don't know. Perhaps because he's moderate? That isn't sarcastic, because I really don't know, but I can definitely see the argument for how it could be a symbol that is both pro-American and pro-Islam, and hence especially aggravating to Al Qaeda types.

 

There are millions of other city blocks to put this in NYC, so why there? Talk about insensitive.

 

Why where? It's not at ground zero, it's two blocks away. Where would be acceptable, if that close is SO offensive? And on what grounds is that decided, especially by a bunch of non-New Yorkers who have never even been there and have no idea what "two blocks" even means?

 

How much longer have we had nukes?

 

Huh?

 

Since when was Islam about freedom? Hello.

 

Well, just like with Christianity, what it's "about" seems to vary enormously depending on whom you ask. The "war on terror," in fact, is an ideological war largely about that very question. It's weird that so many people seem determined to shit on the good guys. It would be like getting bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and declaring war on Asia and Europe instead of Japan and Germany.

 

It's amazing seeing all these lefties supporting something that will probably clean up the area, though not having gone there, I wouldn't know how bad it actually is. I find it surprising that that area would be that bad.

 

What?

[Ringer]

Cracked has an article that sums up my feeling on the whole thing nicely.

[swansont]

So, what about the plans to burn Korans on 9/11? It's insensitive — should the government step in and stop it? Publishing cartoons of Mohommed? It's insensitive — should the government step in and stop it? And just so this isn't all about Islam, should they have stopped PZ Myers from desecrating a communion wafer, for which he received death threats?

[Realitycheck]

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ar-ground-zero/

 

 

Case closed. Who cares about why.

[Pangloss]

Publishing cartoons of Mohommed? It's insensitive — should the government step in and stop it?

 

Images of Mohammad have already been effectively censored in the US. Good luck getting even an artist's rendering broadcast on any US television channel.

 

And BTW, that was accomplished through intimidation, not government intervention. So is it really that outrageous for conservatives to wonder why they're always being asked to be sensitive towards Muslims, but feel like Muslims aren't being sensitive towards them about 9/11?

[swansont]

Images of Mohammad have already been effectively censored in the US. Good luck getting even an artist's rendering broadcast on any US television channel.

 

And BTW, that was accomplished through intimidation, not government intervention. So is it really that outrageous for conservatives to wonder why they're always being asked to be sensitive towards Muslims, but feel like Muslims aren't being sensitive towards them about 9/11?

 

Exactly — it wasn't government censorship , i.e. not in violation of the first amendment, which was the context of my post.

 

Accomplishing via the carrot and/or the stick, wielded by the people, is the way the system works. If you don't like a business or activity you are free to boycott it or protest it, and the target of such activity may or may not decide to accommodate you. Happens all the time.

[Sisyphus]

Case closed. Who cares about why.

 

Case closed? So your position is that private entities should always do whatever the majority wants them to do, case closed?

[Realitycheck]

Case closed? So your position is that private entities should always do whatever the majority wants them to do, case closed?

 

You know. I've really had it with the ignorance of the powers that be here, as well. Since when could an atheist rightly judge a religion? You wouldn't have the faintest clue about how the values and teachings cultivate such behavior as these extremists. I've seen it up close enough to see the righting on the wall. Now why doesn't mainstream Islam police itself, decry against terrorism? No, it's always "Islam is a peaceful religion," until someone develops a big enough ego to become the next Mahdi. Hello. Goodbye.