Ground Zero Mosque

[JediAthos]

I am strongly with Mimartin on this issue. I served in this country's military and then and now I hear and see people do things and say things that I don't agree with. When I enlisted I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and while I may not be active anymore I no less believe in the founding principles of the country, including the Bill of Rights.

[Lord of Hunger]

LOH. I'm going to be pretty blunt, so please forgive me.

There is nothing to forgive, mate. I'm passionate about my arguments because I don't see the point of doing otherwise.

Just because extremist elements within a religion attack us does not automatically relieve us of the obligation to remain on the high road. In fact it is even more reason to keep the high ground. We need to step up and be the bigger people. While those who are out to destroy us tell theworld how bad we are they lose credibility when we turn around and forgive.

 

You talk of Christian values, but Jesus himself says to turn the other cheek. Forgiveness is divine.

We've been forgiving them quite a bit though. Hell, once we crush the governments that sponsor them, we help rebuild those countries with hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars. Our soldiers risk their lives and our ability to win the war for their innocent civilians that they routinely brutalize and murder. We gave those civilians civil rights and the ability to practice their religion in an environment without fear.

 

I think whatever divine forces there are can excuse us for leaving the high road for one moment.

The only way Muslim extremist will defeat the U.S. is if we allow our fear to destroy the principles this country was founded on. It is not the high road, it is the right road.

There is no fear involved. This is grief, frustration, and quite a few other well-deserved emotions.

 

Tell me, will one refusal suddenly destroy our principles and permanently ruin our name for all eternity and incur the judgment of the divine powers?

 

It's not like they can't build it somewhere else.

As to the government speaking out in favor of the Mosque, well they took an oath to defend the Constitution, so they dang well should speak up in defending the 1st Amendment. I find it really funny that the “so-called” Socialist is the one stepping up to defend property rights, while the conservative talking heads seem to be against property rights.

Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.

As for hurting someone’s feelings, I could care less about feelings or if someone’s feelings are hurt. This is about property rights and discrimination. They bought the property and as long as they abide by all existing laws and ordinances then they have the right to do with it what they want. The government cannot stop them from building just because they are Muslim. That would be discrimination (which frankly LOH you seem to be advocating). The Constitution protects individual rights, so the majority not liking it is a moot point, unless you are also advocating changing the Constitution, because as I pointed out before you cannot pass a ex pos facto law.

The Government in all reality can do whatever it wants, and already has broken plenty of parts of the Constitution for less noble deeds. And it's not as if we need to ban Mosques from the United States, or even stop this Mosque. JUST MOVE IT AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO. The Constitution won't turn to dust and the Founding Fathers won't return in chariots of hellfire with a plague of bald eagles behind them if we at least just move it away from Ground Zero. Hell, if it is really meant to support religious tolerance then I am happy for it to be built, I'll visit it if I happen to go to New York. Just don't build it at Ground Zero.

 

Oh yes, and here's another reason not build such a Mosque: What's to prevent some homegrown American terrorist cell (as in, overzealous pro-US militants) from burning the thing to the ground once it's built?

 

Which is the worse scenario in regards to foreign relations:

 

1) We force the site to be MOVED and life goes on.

 

2) The Mosque is built, only to be destroyed.

[mimartin]

Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.

Prrinciples have no meaning now? Law has no meaning?

 

Since you have decided to disintegrate the topic to complete silliness now, I’ll take my leave. You wish to respect and honor those that died on September 11, 2010, but yet choice to dishonor those that served this nation. Laws, honor and principles may mean nothing to you, but that attitude ruins the only decent reason you have given for not building the Mosque near Ground Zero. Because with out those, honor and respecting the dead means nothing.

 

I’m starting to agree more and more with Ron Paul and Time Magazine.

[HockeyGoalie35]

I will not argue if the mosque is built. 1rst amendment right. But I am against it personally, knowing servicemen who have died for our country. To protect us from Muslim extremists

[Lord of Hunger]

Prrinciples have no meaning now? Law has no meaning?

 

Since you have decided to disintegrate the topic to complete silliness now, I’ll take my leave. You wish to respect and honor those that died on September 11, 2010, but yet choice to dishonor those that served this nation. Laws, honor and principles may mean nothing to you, but that attitude ruins the only decent reason you have given for not building the Mosque near Ground Zero. Because with out those, honor and respecting the dead means nothing.

So you misrepresent my views and then get offended by your own misrepresentation? Wow.

 

I'll make my position clear yet again: Principles and laws are meaningless WHEN THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE WHO THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE.

 

Forgive the repeated use of the shift key, but I find it silly that we value a document over the populace that the document was created for. Those who have died for laws, honor, and principles died not so that we'd just have laws, honor, and principles, but so that we'd have them for the benefit of the people.

 

Democracy...it means RULE of the PEOPLE. Not rule of the documents. That would be engrafocracy (engrafo is the Greek word for document according to Google Translator).

 

The Founding Fathers didn't make a bunch of laws for the sake of having laws. Those laws exist for the sake of the American people. Their worth is only as far as they accomplish what they were made for.

 

And the Constitution is not a perfect document. It is made by man and thus is only as functional as man has made it. Hell, it's a 200 year old document. Following it to the letter will not solve all of our problems. Understanding its reasoning, benefits, and limitations is a far greater service to our country.

[VeniVidiVicous]

Please do not misrepresent my views. This has nothing to do with any particular religion. It has to do with the extremists of a particular religion being supported by the construction of a particular building.

 

Let me make myself clear on my position, since I personally feel that something is not being understood:

 

This Mosque is being built on the site of the 9/11 attacks, which were caused by Muslim Extremists.

 

Most (not necessarily all but at least the vast majority of) Muslim Extremists promote the destruction of Western Civilization and the establishment of a global caliphate in order to realize a Sharia Utopia, and have stated this to be their goal.

 

The majority of the American people feel this is disrespectful to them, those who died in the attack, and the nation in general. Our President and other government officials have ignored their feelings and are supporting the construction of the Mosque.

 

Therefore, in the interests of national security, in support of our military opposing the forces of Islamic Extremism, and out of respect of the American people past, present, and future, THIS MOSQUE should not be built.

 

To clarify further the definition "THIS MOSQUE": It is a Mosque built upon the site of 9/11. The range of this site varies from individual view, but I personal see it as anything within about 4 miles.

 

To further clarify, I do not oppose Mosque construction in any other part of the country, or the free practice of any religion. I oppose THIS MOSQUE alone.

 

And yes, I believe exceptions to such laws should be possible when they are just. This is such an example, which is very rare. And no, I am not making up this as I go. I have never believed that laws should be absolute from day one, and I still don't.

 

I get where you're coming from but i'm sticking to my original statement. I believe you support all religous institutions or none.

 

I know others have said this already but i'm going to say it again anyway, Near Ground Zero is not Ground Zero.

[Liverandbacon]

I am strongly with Mimartin on this issue. I served in this country's military and then and now I hear and see people do things and say things that I don't agree with. When I enlisted I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and while I may not be active anymore I no less believe in the founding principles of the country, including the Bill of Rights.

 

Pretty much my exact feelings.

 

The only reason I have heard for not building the mosque that doesn't dissolve under scrutiny is the claim of insensitivity. And when it comes to that, hurt feelings are not enough to justify violating the Constitution.

 

Oh yes, and here's another reason not build such a Mosque: What's to prevent some homegrown American terrorist cell (as in, overzealous pro-US militants) from burning the thing to the ground once it's built?

 

Should we restrict abortion because people might kill abortion doctors? Should we not build buildings because someone might launch a plane into them?

 

Giving in to terrorists is bad enough without us giving in to potential terrorists.

[Totenkopf]

@LOH--frankly, to do what your suggesting w/the Constitution is pretty much what many liberals argue for....it's just an evolving document that must conform to the times. Rendering it utterly meaningless as its interpretation shifts with the wind. I agree w/mimnartin and others in the sense that if all the laws/ordinances are followed properly, there is no legal reason they should be denied the right to build. However, that argument is something of a strawman in this debate, where the argument has NOT been that they don't have the RIGHT to build. Most of the protests I've seen have been exhortations of DON'T build it there and not that they're not legally allowed to do so (again, all things being above board). Many in the support of the mosque/center (even BO) have attempted to portray it otherwise in an an attempt to discredit the opposition as well as other reasons of their own. While it would have been smarter for the president NOT to weighed in on what's essentially a local issue, once he did so he shouldn't have merely stopped at his strawman argument and should have told them (the muslims at that dinner) that he also believed (or does he?) that placing the center there might not have been a good idea as well.

 

As to the whole "ground zero" moniker and the "late" Burlington Coat Factory building:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-07-mosque-ground-zero_N.htm. It might not have stood right in the epicenter, but was damamged by the attacks.

[Lord of Hunger]

I get where you're coming from but i'm sticking to my original statement. I believe you support all religous institutions or none.

So you don't believe that there are situational issues?

The only reason I have heard for not building the mosque that doesn't dissolve under scrutiny is the claim of insensitivity. And when it comes to that, hurt feelings are not enough to justify violating the Constitution.

I'll leave this point alone as I've already argued over it with Mimartin.

Should we restrict abortion because people might kill abortion doctors? Should we not build buildings because someone might launch a plane into them?

 

Giving in to terrorists is bad enough without us giving in to potential terrorists.

I'm saying that is particular scenario has significant risk of triggering a terrorist attack by American terrorists.

@LOH--frankly, to do what your suggesting w/the Constitution is pretty much what many liberals argue for....it's just an evolving document that must conform to the times. Rendering it utterly meaningless as its interpretation shifts with the wind.

No, I am saying that there should be at least a degree of flexibility so that it may adequately reflect the interests of the American people.

[JediAthos]

It's been almost nine years since Frank Tatum lost his mother on 9/11. "I think about it everyday. I miss her warmth and her smile. She was probably the most unselfish person I've ever met in my entire life" says Tatum.

 

While many family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 share the same feelings on those that they lost, they differ in their opinions on an Islamic mosque proposed just blocks away from Ground Zero.

 

"I think it's important not to give into the hysteria. We do have religious freedom. I know the wounds are still very open, me myslef included but you have to look at the big picture. You can't practice these freedoms only when it suits us. You have to practice them all along" says Tatum.

 

(source: http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/lost-1277413-tatum-met.html)

 

Families of September 11th victims teamed up with community leaders Wednesday to express their support for the proposed Islamic center and mosque near the World Trade Center site.

 

The group, 9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow, held a rally with more than 40 religious and civic organizations in Lower Manhattan.

 

They say the center is a perfect fit for the neighborhood because the imam preaches tolerance and interfaith dialogue.

 

"My kid was only one. They left her there. And I will tell you, that I am not leaving behind my country," said Donna O'Connor, whose daughter perished in the terrorist attacks. "People who speak up for American civil liberties now are really living what we were always told in this mythic way American meant. So I will tell you, please don't try to place 9/11 families against one another. We're not."

 

(source: http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/124348/rally-held-in-support-of-lower-manhattan-islamic-center)

 

Those excerpts are quotes from people who lost loved ones on September 11th 2001 who rallied and have come out in support of the building of the islamic community center.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

That is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

I've stated my agreement with Mimartin on this issue and I won't waver from that. To say that these people cannot build their community center on the property they LEGALLY PURCHASED simply because there is some insignificant chance that an extremist might pop up there is ridiculous. To say that we should back off the guarantee of religious freedom that we have in the United States is equally as ridiculous. It's not something you get to support when it suits you. This entire issue is surrounded by so much hype, hysteria, and grandstanding it is absolutely insane.

 

As for the "will of the American people" most of the news stories I've seen quoting polls talking about "a majority of those surveyed" or a % of the respondents. How many people did they survey? 100? 1000? There are over 300 million people living in this country, so unless you've spoken to all of them I tire of hearing about the "will of the American people." It seems to me there are plenty of people for this project including families of the victims of that horrible day as I pointed out.

 

If they were trying to build this on the World Trade Center site I'd say take a hike. As it is they are taking a building that was damaged, and abandoned and making it useful again. As far as I'm aware there were no deaths in the building associated with the terrorist attacks so the notion that it is somehow directly connected to those that died is a little off to me as well.

[mur'phon]

@LoH: Just curious, do you believe that the constitution should only be folowed in cases where it supports "the american people". If so, how do we determine their will/interests? Don't we allready elect politicians to represent those interests? Finaly, assuming the will of "the american people", means the majority, what about the rights of the minority, whoose rights the constitution(among other things) are meant to defend?

[Sabretooth]

@LoH: Just curious' date=' do you believe that the constitution should only be folowed in cases where it supports "the american people". If so, how do we determine their will/interests?[/quote']

 

Sorry to encourage a tangent, but I'd just like to further add that: isn't the constitution put down to ensure that interests of the American people (i.e. residents of the USA) are chalked out explicitly and so that they may not change with every passing leader?

[Tommycat]

@mimartin: I think we're arguing on the same side here. While I think it's in poor taste to build it there, there is nothing the government should do about it BUT to defend their right to build it there. It is also within people's right to protest it.

 

I also feel this may cause even more hard feelings between the two sides. The vast majority in New York do not want it there. It will likely stress the tensions far more than they should. But again. There is no LEGAL justification to block it. If the government were to step in and block it, EVEN I would have a problem with that. You cannot remake the laws for just one religion.

 

@LOH: Don't you dare start letting the government rewrite the friggin Constitution. You really think those buggers in office would hesitate to rewrite it into a wholly unrecognizable document that takes away freedom's we currently take for granted. I mean who's to say thatnthis government or the next might restrict free speech to the point where all news outlets mustn't speak ill of those in office.

[mimartin]

So you misrepresent my views and then get offended by your own misrepresentation? Wow.

Where did I say I was offended? Already wrote I could care less about hurt feelings and that includes my own.

[Lord of Hunger]

Sorry to encourage a tangent, but I'd just like to further add that: isn't the constitution put down to ensure that interests of the American people (i.e. residents of the USA) are chalked out explicitly and so that they may not change with every passing leader?

Yes, but to a degree it needs to be flexible so it can actually be of service. Perhaps, there should be small, sensible exceptions to certain rules. I am not entirely certain on this issue.

@LOH: Don't you dare start letting the government rewrite the friggin Constitution. You really think those buggers in office would hesitate to rewrite it into a wholly unrecognizable document that takes away freedom's we currently take for granted. I mean who's to say thatnthis government or the next might restrict free speech to the point where all news outlets mustn't speak ill of those in office.

I'm not saying "rewrite the Constitution". I'm saying the laws that exist within the Constitution should be somewhat flexible so that we aren't been screwed over by our own laws.

Where did I say I was offended? Already wrote I could care less about hurt feelings and that includes my own.

Since you have decided to disintegrate the topic to complete silliness now, I’ll take my leave.

This was not a direct, "your views offend me", but I got the impression that you highly value principles and did not wish to discuss whether one should act on them. Also, "complete silliness"? Please correct me if I am wrong, but when that sort of label is assigned it is usually because the labeling party is offended.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

i wish someone would flex your 1st amendment right to free speech so you couldnt pollute the internet with your dumb argument

[Darth333]

We've been forgiving them quite a bit though. Hell, once we crush the governments that sponsor them, we help rebuild those countries with hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars. Our soldiers risk their lives and our ability to win the war for their innocent civilians that they routinely brutalize and murder. We gave those civilians civil rights and the ability to practice their religion in an environment without fear.

You've never been out of town very often, did you? This is one of the most arrogant and uninformed statement I've read on these boards...at least it's just words...

 

I think whatever divine forces there are can excuse us for leaving the high road for one moment.

How original! History continues to repeat itself ...How about opening a history book and traveling a little?

 

I'm saying the laws that exist within the Constitution should be somewhat flexible so that we aren't been screwed over by our own laws.

Oh boy! Ever heard of Constitutional Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law

[mimartin]

This was not a direct, "your views offend me", but I got the impression that you highly value principles and did not wish to discuss whether one should act on them. Also, "complete silliness"? Please correct me if I am wrong, but when that sort of label is assigned it is usually because the labeling party is offended.

 

Nope, principles have nothing to do with it. Laws do, the founding fathers provided the blue print for what the government can and cannot do. In doing so, the majority does not always rule. I suggest you read the Bill of Rights, particular the 1st Amendment. So to me the silliness was arguing that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were merely principles and advocating discrimination because the majority is in favor of it. There is no way you would ever convince me either one of those were legal, ethical or fair, so further debate was a waste of my time and energy.

 

So you are completely wrong, I was not offended, just tired of wasting my time.

[VeniVidiVicous]

So you don't believe that there are situational issues?

 

I'm saying the principal overrides possible situational issues.

 

Either you've tax exemption for ALL religions or you don't have any exemption for ALL religions, it's literally that simple.

[Lord of Hunger]

i wish someone would flex your 1st amendment right to free speech so you couldnt pollute the internet with your dumb argument

And I respect your opinion too.

You've never been out of town very often, did you? This is one of the most arrogant and uninformed statements I've read on these boards...at least it's just words...

So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? We've done some good there, and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

 

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?

How original! History continues to repeat itself ...How about opening a history book and traveling a little?

So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?

 

And yes, I have opened a history book. Many actually. While my classmates forgot theirs, I read mine front to back about ten times. And I have been to other countries.

Oh boy! Ever heard of Constitutional Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law

Yes, and I am proposing the idea that it may not work all the time. I suppose that makes me a heretic according to the mainstream view of American law, but I was under the impression that we tolerated all views.

Nope, principles have nothing to do with it. Laws do, the founding fathers provided the blue print for what the government can and cannot do. In doing so, the majority does not always rule. I suggest you read the Bill of Rights, particular the 1st Amendment.

Done so, along with the entire Constitution, the Amendments, the Federalist Papers, and a few other gifts for our law makers. Admittedly my memory is not the best, so I admittedly forget the exact wording of certain amendments on occasion.

So to me the silliness was arguing that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were merely principles

I did not say merely principles. You said that. I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?

and advocating discrimination because the majority is in favor of it.

Again, that's you and you alone who presented that notion. If it was a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist religious site, I would not support it either, especially if extremists from that religion were responsible for the terrorist attack in the first place. I could care less if it is a religion or a secular ideology either. I merely support my country and oppose her enemies.

There is no way you would ever convince me either one of those were legal, ethical or fair, so further debate was a waste of my time and energy.

Especially since you insist on misinterpreting my stances, yes it is a waste of time.

So you are completely wrong, I was not offended, just tired of wasting my time.

Then feel free not to reply. At this point, I'm only posting because people reply to me and I do not like to leave posts unanswered.

 

However, it does look like we must agree to disagree at this point. Thank you for the debate.

I'm saying the principal overrides possible situational issues.

 

Either you've tax exemption for ALL religions or you don't have any exemption for ALL religions, it's literally that simple.

Thank you for clarifying. I respectfully disagree, and at this point that's all I have to say without repeating myself.

[Sabretooth]

we help rebuild those countries with hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars.

Really, the US does? Because if they spent even $5 million rebuilding Afghanistan after their not-so-covert war against the Soviet Union, none of this Islamic terrorism mess would have ever come into place. The CIA-ISI-created mujahedeen would have been dissolved, Afghan kids would have been educated by books instead of bullets and the country wouldn't have had to suffer everything you had to fight a second war to "liberate" it from.

 

Our soldiers risk their lives and our ability to win the war for their innocent civilians that they routinely brutalize and murder. We gave those civilians civil rights and the ability to practice their religion in an environment without fear.

Not to mention making matters worse by treating the symptoms and leaving the core free. Those thousands of tax dollars go into the pockets of corrupt leaders of puppet governments who're more interested in being the new king of the ghetto and less of stopping the carnage they've known all their lives.

 

So while you fight the good fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and put up sentimental posters of the American soldier suffering for someone else, you throw a few buckets of aid money at Pakistan, who use the money to fund the same ****ing terrorists killing Americans. (Why yes, I know you just checked my Location).

 

Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.

Principles always have meaning, especially so when in opposition to those they serve. Because if they didn't, they could be easily replaced with more pertinent principles such as, say, 24/7 surveillance, Mao suits and regular SS patrols.

 

The Constitution won't turn to dust and the Founding Fathers won't return in chariots of hellfire with a plague of bald eagles behind them if we at least just move it away from Ground Zero.

It's worth a shot - I'd move to the US if something like that happened.

 

What's to prevent some homegrown American terrorist cell (as in, overzealous pro-US militants) from burning the thing to the ground once it's built?

The thousands of tax dollars that go into public security? The FBI? The police? Alternately, commission the Swiss Guard.

 

Forgive the repeated use of the shift key, but I find it silly that we value a document over the populace that the document was created for.

I'm sure it finds you silly as well.

 

Those who have died for laws, honor, and principles died not so that we'd just have laws, honor, and principles, but so that we'd have them for the benefit of the people.

To be honest, I don't think they were thinking that much when they died.

 

Democracy...it means RULE of the PEOPLE. Not rule of the documents. That would be engrafocracy (engrafo is the Greek word for document according to Google Translator).

Literally, yes, it means that. But in practice, most modern democratic systems are in fact, about representation of communities, and rule of the majority with explicit provisions for the minority. A proper "rule of the people" would be more akin to Swiss democracy, where every citizen has a say in what the country does. In the US, Obama represents the people of the US, but is not singularly, the people of the US (even though some suspect of him having mind control).

 

SUPER BONUS PRO TIP: People didn't come up with words like democracy and oligarchy using Google Translate.

 

The Founding Fathers didn't make a bunch of laws for the sake of having laws. Those laws exist for the sake of the American people. Their worth is only as far as they accomplish what they were made for.

Laws aren't made to accomplish something, they're made to regulate behaviour in a society. If zero crime rates can be considered a sign of accomplishment of laws, then, that's that. Doesn't mean you'll just revoke the laws then and let everything be lollipops and sunshine, because it won't be.

 

And the Constitution is not a perfect document. It is made by man and thus is only as functional as man has made it. Hell, it's a 200 year old document. Following it to the letter will not solve all of our problems. Understanding its reasoning, benefits, and limitations is a far greater service to our country.

This makes me wonder if you've even read the constitution, any constitution, not just the American one.

 

So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? We've done some good there, and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

 

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?

The nobility brings tears to me eyes... since most of those insurgents are being paid with US dollars.

 

So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?

No, it will lead to the Fourth Reich. And it probably won't be called Reich, because Americans don't speak German.

 

I did not say merely principles. You said that. I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?

I think that people came up with the principles in that book. You know, for people.

 

Again, that's you and you alone who presented that notion. If it was a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist religious site, I would not support it either, especially if extremists from that religion were responsible for the terrorist attack in the first place. I could care less if it is a religion or a secular ideology either. I merely support my country and oppose her enemies.

Goddamn Buddhist extremists and their acts of terror

 

Why wouldn't you support if was some other religious site? Because the area surrounding Ground Zero is a religion-free zone for some reason? I sense an atheist mass emigration soon.

[JediMaster12]

I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?[/Quote]

 

They would have importance if people realized how far we have let elected officials decisively and conviently ignore some parts while paying attention to others. Such would be the whole issue of the Iraq war itself which under the Constitution is illegal. There is a certain section of the Constitution that states that any treaties/charters/agreements signed by the United States shall become part of the supreme law of the land. Well when the United States joined the United Nations, they signed a charter that includes a section about the rules of engagement in a war. One was that a nation can retaliate against the offending nation in self defense and two war can be declared if there was substantial proof of harm to nations of the world.

 

Well Iraq didn't attack us. The terrorists were declared to be from Afghanistan. There were no WMDs in Iraq and really the shelf life of anthrax is not 30+ years, more like a year max. No case could be made that the security council bought. So what do we do? Well we go in and invade Iraq anyway.

 

We may have that phrase "By the people, for the people" in our minds but how does it benefit anyone when we agree to our laws and then break them at our own convenience? To deny the Muslims of that community the right to build an official mosque on property that they already own contains serious implications that we don't really respect the laws and ideas that were drawn up by the Founding Fathers. THey are not just whimsical ideas. The intention is "to place before mankind the common sense of the subject. In terms so plain and firm so as to command their assent" (1776).

[mimartin]

I did not say merely principles. You said that. I am arguing that principles should benefit those who they are built by and for. You know, "By the people, for the people"? Or does that have no importance?

 

Last I checked, the people the founding fathers were speaking of were American Citizens. You can be a Muslim and a American Citizen. So Muslims are the “people” too.

I did not say merely principles.[/Quote]

Nope you wrote principles first, not me. I was talking about tax free financing.

Again, I am not debating principle. I am debating a specific case.

Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.

**************************

You keep saying I’m misrepresenting you. Are you not advocating that the government of the United States stop the building of this Mosque near ground zero because of your perceived national security threat and the majority of Americans are against it, even though there is no legal means for the government to stop it and doing so would violate our own rule of law? You think we should give up our own laws and outright violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to do this?

 

To further clarify, I do not oppose Mosque construction in any other part of the country, or the free practice of any religion. I oppose THIS MOSQUE alone..

Therefore, in the interests of national security, in support of our military opposing the forces of Islamic Extremism, and out of respect of the American people past, present, and future, THIS MOSQUE should not be built..

The majority of the American people feel this is disrespectful to them, those who died in the attack, and the nation in general.

Again, you argue for principles when those principles have no meaning when in opposition to those they serve.

Looks pretty clear to me that you are advocating not allowing this Mosque to be built because the American people do not want it to be built, Constitution and the Bill of Right be dammed, just don’t let them build that Mosque, how exactly is that misrepresenting what you wrote?

 

If I’m incorrect, please point out the law that would give the United States government the power to stop the building of this Mosque. “Because they can” is not a law and would most likely not win over the justices when this was taken before the Supreme Court, because as you know after reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is they limit the power of what our government is allowed to do.

[Darth InSidious]

Are they clinging to their crosses, Mr. Hunger?

Where the yellow cab-fleet tosses, Mr. Hunger?

Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,

Wait the call of the muezzin?

Do they fear the Muslims breeding,

And feel majority receding?

If the voice of Glenn Beck falters,

If the Muslims mosques will monger,

Do they tremble for their altars?

Do they, Hunger?

 

It would greatly, I must own, soothe me, Hunger!

If you left this theme alone, haughty Hunger!

With lugubrious eye-swivel

You do fight with stern decree;

For your God or dream or devil

You will answer, not to me.

So you may go and play the hero,

(I'd critique if I were younger);

On the subject of Ground Zero... Chuck it, Hunger!

 

(With apologies to Mr. Chesterton.)

[Lord of Hunger]

Last I checked, the people the founding fathers were speaking of were American Citizens. You can be a Muslim and a American Citizen. So Muslims are the “people” too.

And I have never said they were not "people". Again, they can feel free to build their Mosques wherever they want, just not at Ground Zero.

Nope you wrote principles first, not me. I was talking about tax free financing.

 

**************************

You keep saying I’m misrepresenting you. Are you not advocating that the government of the United States stop the building of this Mosque near ground zero because of your perceived national security threat and the majority of Americans are against it, even though there is no legal means for the government to stop it and doing so would violate our own rule of law? You think we should give up our own laws and outright violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to do this?

I was saying that in this one very specific case, and ONLY this case alone, we make one exception to the rule. It has nothing to do with their race, their religion, or anything other than opposing the goals of terrorists and supporting the American people in general.

Looks pretty clear to me that you are advocating not allowing this Mosque to be built because the American people do not want it to be built, Constitution and the Bill of Right be dammed, just don’t let them build that Mosque, how exactly is that misrepresenting what you wrote?

Because I am not saying Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned or simply because the American people don't want it to be built. I am saying maybe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were built by imperfect men and cannot account for every situation, and that it is to respect the American people both living and slain.

They would have importance if people realized how far we have let elected officials decisively and conviently ignore some parts while paying attention to others. Such would be the whole issue of the Iraq war itself which under the Constitution is illegal. There is a certain section of the Constitution that states that any treaties/charters/agreements signed by the United States shall become part of the supreme law of the land. Well when the United States joined the United Nations, they signed a charter that includes a section about the rules of engagement in a war. One was that a nation can retaliate against the offending nation in self defense and two war can be declared if there was substantial proof of harm to nations of the world.

 

Well Iraq didn't attack us. The terrorists were declared to be from Afghanistan. There were no WMDs in Iraq and really the shelf life of anthrax is not 30+ years, more like a year max. No case could be made that the security council bought. So what do we do? Well we go in and invade Iraq anyway.

 

We may have that phrase "By the people, for the people" in our minds but how does it benefit anyone when we agree to our laws and then break them at our own convenience? To deny the Muslims of that community the right to build an official mosque on property that they already own contains serious implications that we don't really respect the laws and ideas that were drawn up by the Founding Fathers. THey are not just whimsical ideas. The intention is "to place before mankind the common sense of the subject. In terms so plain and firm so as to command their assent" (1776).

I do not think the Founding Fathers viewed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as perfect documents either. And nor do I believe these are whimsical ideas, however they are ideas conceived by human beings and are technically only as good as how human beings constructed them. That's not to say, conveniently ignore the document whenever we want. I only advocate one exception alone.

Really, the US does? Because if they spent even $5 million rebuilding Afghanistan after their not-so-covert war against the Soviet Union, none of this Islamic terrorism mess would have ever come into place. The CIA-ISI-created mujahedeen would have been dissolved, Afghan kids would have been educated by books instead of bullets and the country wouldn't have had to suffer everything you had to fight a second war to "liberate" it from.

I am aware of this, but the actions of some administrations do not equal the acts of others. And we don't know for a fact that the mujahedeen would have shut down after their war with the Soviets if we had supplied them money. It may be perfectly possible that they would have used it to take over as they did anyway (admittedly after much infighting leading to the rule of the even more extremist Taliban).

Not to mention making matters worse by treating the symptoms and leaving the core free. Those thousands of tax dollars go into the pockets of corrupt leaders of puppet governments who're more interested in being the new king of the ghetto and less of stopping the carnage they've known all their lives.

 

So while you fight the good fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and put up sentimental posters of the American soldier suffering for someone else, you throw a few buckets of aid money at Pakistan, who use the money to fund the same ****ing terrorists killing Americans. (Why yes, I know you just checked my Location).

Obviously we have been ineffective in controlling our money and where it goes in regards to foreign affairs. Therefore, we have to be more careful about it.

Principles always have meaning, especially so when in opposition to those they serve. Because if they didn't, they could be easily replaced with more pertinent principles such as, say, 24/7 surveillance, Mao suits and regular SS patrols.

So we must follow the Constitution to the absolute letter or we'll become a military junta?

 

France is actually considering a ban on the burka in order to protect women's rights. Will they automatically become a totalitarian state as a result?

The thousands of tax dollars that go into public security? The FBI? The police? Alternately, commission the Swiss Guard.

I suppose, but you'll have to have more or less 24/7 surveillance around the thing, and that could just provoke an even stronger outcry. There are already extremist elements in the Right that could use this as further justification of their views (which are essentially that the Administration supports our enemies).

 

Though if worst comes to shove the Swiss Guard would be extremely effective....

I'm sure it finds you silly as well.

I was being sarcastic. I've had some annoying (admittedly unrelated) cases recently were people didn't listen/read all of what I was saying, but took parts of it and misinterpreted it.

To be honest, I don't think they were thinking that much when they died.

True.

Literally, yes, it means that. But in practice, most modern democratic systems are in fact, about representation of communities, and rule of the majority with explicit provisions for the minority. A proper "rule of the people" would be more akin to Swiss democracy, where every citizen has a say in what the country does. In the US, Obama represents the people of the US, but is not singularly, the people of the US (even though some suspect of him having mind control).

This is true, but our representatives are supposed to act on our interests. I know that doesn't usually happen (I've seen the opposite in many cases) because politicians either have to make judgment calls on an issue or they had less pure interests in mind.

SUPER BONUS PRO TIP: People didn't come up with words like democracy and oligarchy using Google Translate.

No, which is why I used these: " ". It wasn't meant as a serious word, which I probably should have clarified. My mistake.

Laws aren't made to accomplish something, they're made to regulate behaviour in a society. If zero crime rates can be considered a sign of accomplishment of laws, then, that's that. Doesn't mean you'll just revoke the laws then and let everything be lollipops and sunshine, because it won't be.

Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.

This makes me wonder if you've even read the constitution, any constitution, not just the American one.

Again, I have.

The nobility brings tears to me eyes... since most of those insurgents are being paid with US dollars.

See earlier statement.

No, it will lead to the Fourth Reich. And it probably won't be called Reich, because Americans don't speak German.

My point is that I doubt one exception will lead to the transformation of the United States into a fascist dictatorship, military junta, communist oligarchy, or any such totalitarian state. Hitler's Reich, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc., did not occur over night. They were gradual changes caused by a COMPLETE elimination of the previous law.

I think that people came up with the principles in that book. You know, for people.

And I doubt they wanted us to blindly obey those principles and not question the effectiveness of our laws at all.

Goddamn Buddhist extremists and their acts of terror

 

Why wouldn't you support if was some other religious site? Because the area surrounding Ground Zero is a religion-free zone for some reason? I sense an atheist mass emigration soon.

It's purely dependent on what ideology or religion we are talking about. The idea is to oppose validating the goals of whatever extremists have assaulted this country, be it Muslim, Christian, communist, fascist, etc..

Are they clinging to their crosses, Mr. Hunger?

Where the yellow cab-fleet tosses, Mr. Hunger?

Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,

Wait the call of the muezzin?

Do they fear the Muslims breeding,

And feel majority receding?

If the voice of Glenn Beck falters,

If the Muslims mosques will monger,

Do they tremble for their altars?

Do they, Hunger?

 

It would greatly, I must own, soothe me, Hunger!

If you left this theme alone, haughty Hunger!

With lugubrious eye-swivel

You do fight with stern decree;

For your God or dream or devil

You will answer, not to me.

So you may go and play the hero,

(I'd critique if I were younger);

On the subject of Ground Zero... Chuck it, Hunger!

 

(With apologies to Mr. Chesterton.)

Um, thank you for the poetry?