Ground Zero Mosque

[mimartin]

Actually, I replied:

Now you did, you did not answer the question before.

 

Now you answered at it, but still did not answer it, but enough for me to understand that even you know 70% would not just accept your 4 miles mark.

[Totenkopf]

Perhaps someone should commision a national poll (perhaps on Novs ballot) to see just how many people who are opposed to the location of the proposed building would be content to see it moved a mere 2-3 miles from the current proposed site. I suspect that the majority of those believed to constitute the ~70% would be content w/even 2-3 miles (maybe even only 1 mile) from "ground zero". But given that this 70% has ONLY stated that they are opposed to the current proposed site, it's really reaching to assert that they would NOT be content with a mere 4 miles. It might also gauge more accurately just HOW opposed these people are to the mosque/center even being built.

[mimartin]

I’d be more interested to know how many of the 70%, knowing the facts, are merely opposed to the Mosque being built near ground zero and how many actually expect the federal government to stop it from being built because of their opposition. I mean how many actually understand that it is not a Federal Issue.

 

Oh, and it is not reaching to say not all 70% of the 70% opposed to the site would accept the 4 mile mark. Especially when you consider people now call the Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque and it is 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

[Tommycat]

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.

 

*nitpick* You missed D. Equal protection.

 

Arguing to change the constitution in any way to meet your desires is the same thing the Liberals had been doing WRT the Second Amendment. I don't like that anymore than changing the First. The moment we decide the BILL OF RIGHTS is flexible, the rights granted in them are no longer rights.

 

I personally do not like the fact that they are putting it there. BUT the fact remains that the Federal government CANNOT interfere. I would MUCH prefer that IF a religious site were to be built there, that it were an interfaith site. That would do more to help heal the rifts between the Muslim Christian and Jewish elements within this country. BUT AGAIN, it is their RIGHT to build whatever they want there. They bought the property. It is theirs to do whatever they want with it. The government cannot and should not deprive them of their property.

 

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Totenkopf]

I’d be more interested to know how many of the 70%, knowing the facts, are merely opposed to the Mosque being built near ground zero and how many actually expect the federal government to stop it from being built because of their opposition. I mean how many actually understand that it is not a Federal Issue.

 

Oh, and it is not reaching to say not all 70% of the 70% opposed to the site would accept the 4 mile mark. Especially when you consider people now call the Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque and it is 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

 

Well, given the lack of any actual data on that view, it's pure speculation. Two blocks and four miles aren't exactly "kissing cousins".

 

Originally Posted by portion of 5th amendment

...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Which, according to the recent Kelo decision by the USSC, the city or state of NY could legally "seize" the property and compensate the developers for their out-of-pocket investment.

[mimartin]

Which, according to the recent Kelo decision by the USSC, the city or state of NY could legally "seize" the property and compensate the developers for their out-of-pocket investment.

 

Only if the city or state built something there in the publics interest. They could not resale the property to another developer to build office buildings. Since nothing is planned at this time. May run back into ex post facto again.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, that's pretty much what Kelo allowed for in the first place. The land was owned by someone else, but a developer promised the New London officials more revenue if they got the property....and they did. The original owner was forced to sell and it was upheld by the USSC. Of course, the development failed to secure funding and ended up an empty lot in the end.

[mimartin]

Of course, the development failed to secure funding and ended up an empty lot in the end.

Which is all that may happen now as they do not have the funding for the center now and the reports I've read said it will be 2014 or later before they build the center.

[Tommycat]

This smells an awful lot like a PR stunt. Kinda musky...

[Bimmerman]

1) In this case, it empowers their moral and helps give their existence meaning. The symbolic act of their goals being achieved.

2) I respectfully disagree that this threat is entirely out of proportion. Currently, we are facing the full might of the Taliban (allies and sponsors of Al-Qaeda,) an organization that spans both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are a guerrilla army that is causing significant casualties to the ISAF. Meanwhile, the Iran Revolutionary Guard has provided significant training and finances to other significant terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as many Shiite militant groups in Iraq.

All facts, all true, and all irrelevant. Not only are they way the hell away, but constantly worrying about what they might/might not/are/are not doing just gives them credibility. Ignoring them and not giving a crap about them is a better strategy-- you can't fight philosophy. If the mosque is built there, you suggest they will view that as a victory. WHO CARES?!?

 

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject. They don't have the ability to wage all-out war. All they are capable of is terrorism, which is their ability to cause others to fear them. They've succeeded in your case- you're so afraid of what they may think or do that you're willing to trample all over your own civil rights just to appease them. That is the only way they can possibly win. Building a mosque two blocks away.....who cares if they view it as a symbolic victory? It's absolutely meaningless.

 

Yes that may be the case, but on the other hand by allowing the Mosque to be built there you tell the majority of the country that their government doesn't respect their wishes and supports that not-insignificant section of our citizenry over them.

 

I personally identify with neither group, but rather with the whole of the country. I support everyone's right to be here, enjoy the rights of this Constitution, and live out their lives and express their cultures however they want.

 

I am also starting to believe that whether this mosque is built or not, we will be further divided by the event.

 

And unfortunately, if we ignore the larger part of American citizens, they will become hateful and resentful, and a large number of them will become militants.

 

No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many. That principle has been enshrined in that document and our legal system since, well, 1789. The Constitution applies even when a significant number of Americans want something else to be true. Take the civil rights struggle from 1865 to the present. The Constitution was amended to prevent slavery, give blacks the right to vote, and to give anyone born on US soil citizenship (originally designed to keep pissed off Southerners from keeping Blacks from voting). This is an example of how the Constitution protects the rights of the few from the masses. Same with freedom of religion-- do you worship Hitler? That's messed up, but your legal right. Same with free speech-- do you think Obama is a Muslim born in Indonesia? Well, you're a giant idiot, but such is your right. Same with the right to bear arms-- do you like guns? Congrats, you can own them to arm yourself. Do I need to go on? (NB-- this is the same reason Prop 8 just got overturned.)

 

Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."

 

I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics? I'm not that old, dammit!

[Lord of Hunger]

All facts, all true, and all irrelevant. Not only are they way the hell away, but constantly worrying about what they might/might not/are/are not doing just gives them credibility. Ignoring them and not giving a crap about them is a better strategy-- you can't fight philosophy. If the mosque is built there, you suggest they will view that as a victory. WHO CARES?!?

 

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject. They don't have the ability to wage all-out war. All they are capable of is terrorism, which is their ability to cause others to fear them. They've succeeded in your case- you're so afraid of what they may think or do that you're willing to trample all over your own civil rights just to appease them. That is the only way they can possibly win. Building a mosque two blocks away.....who cares if they view it as a symbolic victory? It's absolutely meaningless.

So you are implying that I am afraid of the terrorists? Well yes, I am afraid of innocent civilians dying due to a criminal network of psychopathic maniacs. I am afraid of my loved ones visiting a major city and turning on the news to find out that their plane, train, subway, etc. was blown up. I am afraid of a part of our symbolic heritage such as the Statue of Liberty being knocked down by an airliner. Hell, I'm also afraid of an ideological US civil war that could destabilize the economy and collapse world civilization as a result of our current political division.

 

Now am I constantly afraid of this sort of thing? No, I am not kept up awake at night by these sort of thoughts, nor are they on my mind often. But I do know that this threat is very real, and there is no point in pretending like it is not.

 

And as for civil rights, again I keep trying to make it clear that I only support this abridgment of the law in this one case and not as a practice. Nor do I support any form of discrimination.

No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many. That principle has been enshrined in that document and our legal system since, well, 1789. The Constitution applies even when a significant number of Americans want something else to be true. Take the civil rights struggle from 1865 to the present. The Constitution was amended to prevent slavery, give blacks the right to vote, and to give anyone born on US soil citizenship (originally designed to keep pissed off Southerners from keeping Blacks from voting). This is an example of how the Constitution protects the rights of the few from the masses. Same with freedom of religion-- do you worship Hitler? That's messed up, but your legal right. Same with free speech-- do you think Obama is a Muslim born in Indonesia? Well, you're a giant idiot, but such is your right. Same with the right to bear arms-- do you like guns? Congrats, you can own them to arm yourself. Do I need to go on? (NB-- this is the same reason Prop 8 just got overturned.)

No offense, but that is bull. The Constitution is not merely a document based on minority protection. It does protect civil rights and such as part of amendments, but that is not the intent. The Founding Fathers did not write this document saying, "Let's give white middle-class men the finger and enshrine the privileges of minority groups!". Hell, these guys were white middle-class men, some of which were owners of slaves. Their intent was to create a compromise of values between major political factions and allow for civil rights to be added through amendments (one of the reasons we have those clauses).

 

No, the Constitution is a primarily document that underlies the balancing of government authority, including Federal Government branches and their balancing with State Governments. Of course, we have failed miserably to uphold those balances, but life goes on I guess....

Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."

Why are you bringing Sarah Palin into this? Attempting to invalidate the political right does not validate your argument, especially when I identify with no political ideology. My views are purely my own.

I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics? I'm not that old, dammit!

Obviously they are being taught to label anyone who disagrees with their views as uneducated.

[Totenkopf]

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject.

 

If that's the case, they've already won. That is how many in the media treat the subject of islamism and radical muslim terrorism in the US (and probably much of the west in general). Hell, even "big sis" and the BO in general bend over backwards to use euphemisms to refer to such acts. That idiot Bloomberg tried to run a "it's probably someone upset w/the healthcare postion of the administration" when Faisal Shahzad attempted to car bomb NY.

 

No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many.

 

Not quite. A big part of the Constitution was to protect the people from a potentially tyrannical govt (hence the first 10 amendments alone being mainly aimed at restricting the govts power over the individual). In the case of the south and blacks, the 14th amendment was to prevent state govts from oppressing the newly released slaves. As Obama himself observed (bitched, actually), the Constitutiuon is basically a negative charter of govt rights vs the people.

 

Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."

 

Again, as demonstrated by the Kelo-New London decision (as well as a bunch of federal and other govt regs), just possessing private property doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want with your land. Eminent domain is NOT a new concept, but it has been expanded to unreasonable lengths w/that decision.

 

I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics?

 

How to put on a condomn, probably.

[mimartin]

Nor do I support any form of discrimination.

You do mean you do not support any form of discrimination, except in this one particular case. Right? Because how else would you describe adamantly wanting the federal government (when it is something outside the Federal Governments jurisdiction) to stop one specific group (that was not involve in illegal activity) from building a Religious building at Ground Zero (which is not at ground zero, but two blocks away)?

unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender.[/Quote]

[adamqd]

I spoke to a Muslim friend of mine, and he couldn't care less if the mosque is built or not... Because non Muslims have such a lack of understanding of Islam, and its separation from such atrocities carried out by these terroists... He thinks we are beyond help if we (non Muslims, obviously not YOU if you are) would but him and Osama in the same sentence.

[Tommycat]

I honestly cannot believe that a conservative voice would be so adamant about disallowing this mosque that they actually propose ignoring the constitution, "just this one time." That would open up the flood gates to more "just this one time" situations. Do you realize there are enough credible threats to security that they could "just this one time" us into totalitarianism?

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

lots and lots and lots of wordsy words

 

I'll go further than DI, and much more directly.

 

Please bugger off from arguments beyond your experiential ability to grasp.

 

Again, young man, you have no real experience in the real world. That is a fact undeniable, despite any objection you might raise. You are a 19 year old boy, and your steadfast refusal to consider the multitude of objections you face without a thought of concession here or point given there drives that boyness all the way home.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a boy. I was one once. Lasted until I was about 28~29. You outgrow it, and end up laughing at the crazy thoughts you held dearly, the immovable positions you once held so dearly that now barely color your thoughts...

 

I hope you soon find that day, because I cannot figure out a better way to deal with your presence than with laughter, as you refuse to lay down an argument you can't win.

 

I am laughing at your crazy undeveloped thoughts.

 

As to the thread topic.... America = freedom of religion = put a religious building wherever you want/can afford.

 

/thread

[Ping]

I honestly cannot believe that a conservative voice would be so adamant about disallowing this mosque that they actually propose ignoring the constitution, "just this one time." That would open up the flood gates to more "just this one time" situations. Do you realize there are enough credible threats to security that they could "just this one time" us into totalitarianism?

 

Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque. Just my 2 cents, as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

[Lord of Hunger]

You do mean you do not support any form of discrimination, except in this one particular case. Right? Because how else would you describe adamantly wanting the federal government (when it is something outside the Federal Governments jurisdiction) to stop one specific group (that was not involve in illegal activity) from building a Religious building at Ground Zero (which is not at ground zero, but two blocks away)?

National security? Avoiding civil unrest? Respecting the dead?

 

And as Totenkopf so kindly put it, this has to do with location. A Mosque is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built on the site of a Muslim Extremist terrorist attack is a problem.

I'll go further than DI, and much more directly.

 

Please bugger off from arguments beyond your experiential ability to grasp.

 

Again, young man, you have no real experience in the real world. That is a fact undeniable, despite any objection you might raise. You are a 19 year old boy, and your steadfast refusal to consider the multitude of objections you face without a thought of concession here or point given there drives that boyness all the way home.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a boy. I was one once. Lasted until I was about 28~29. You outgrow it, and end up laughing at the crazy thoughts you held dearly, the immovable positions you once held so dearly that now barely color your thoughts...

 

I hope you soon find that day, because I cannot figure out a better way to deal with your presence than with laughter, as you refuse to lay down an argument you can't win.

 

I am laughing at your crazy undeveloped thoughts.

Wow. And you have the right or qualifications to make these judgments about me? You don't even know me, or my life experiences.

 

And who said anything about winning? This is not a competition, this is a discussion.

 

Age does not define character. People already do that.

As to the thread topic.... America = freedom of religion = put a religious building wherever you want/can afford.

 

/thread

Qui-Gon Glenn has spoken.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque.

 

Seriously, Ping. Perhaps if you had said "some" instead of implying "all"..... Most of the conservatives in this thread have agreed that they legally have a right to build a mosque/convention center on their property as long as there are no legal problems. BO's postion has nothing to do with that sentiment.

 

...... as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

 

There is some legitimacy to this notion, but it also seems to imply that most issues find opposing parties disagreeing for the sake of disagreement and NOT b/c there might be principles involved.

 

Frankly, b/c it bears reiteration (and b/c BO's original 1/2 answer also bears it out), the argument is not over the right to place a religious "trophy" near the site of the former Twin Towers, but over the wisdom of that decision. Doing something b/c you're able and doing it b/c you should aren't axiomatically the same thing.

[Tommycat]

Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque. Just my 2 cents, as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

 

hmph. I happen to be a conservative. Quite frankly even most of the conservatives on talk radio oppose federal intervention(at least the ones I listen to... Maybe Rush Limbaugh is saying it, but I listen to him about once in a few months). MOST conservatives are saying the feds have no right to step in. And the most I heard was that Obama shouldn't have even weighed in at all.

 

Liberals in NY ALSO have a problem with the mosque. Unless you think that NY has suddenly become 70% conservative.

 

All this talk of "sensitivity to the Muslims" building the mosque while being insensitive to those who live there has done nothing to bridge the gap. Those who lost loved ones are split on the issue, but all of NYC were traumatized. So for them to rail about insensitivity, smacks of hypocrisy.

 

Many of those opposed have said it's not about the mosque in general. They would gladly accept it within 2 blocks of their home. They are not saying for the government to step in and stop it. Just that they don't want it.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Wow. And you have the right or qualifications to make these judgments about me? You don't even know me, or my life experiences.

I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.

 

And who said anything about winning? This is not a competition, this is a discussion.

Right, that is why you have some of the smartest minds in the forum plugging away at your arguments, really quite effectively shredding them, yet you come back for more, and always with your smarmy condescension. You are either a troll, or you are irresistible troll-bait.

 

Qui-Gon Glenn has spoken.

Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.

[JediMaster12]

And as Totenkopf so kindly put it, this has to do with location. A Mosque is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built on the site of a Muslim Extremist terrorist attack is a problem.[/Quote]

 

And it has been said multiple times that the proposed site is nowhere on the WTC site. It is two blocks away in a building that had been in use as a prayer location for Muslims long before the events of September 11th.

 

I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.[/Quote]

 

I've heard this speech before and I totally agree. I'm only 26 and I'm still learning from my elders. I know that those that have come before me know more than I ever will yet the same happens vice versa where the old learn from the young. Glad you made that statement Qui-Gon.

 

Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.[/Quote]

 

Agreed there yet when people formulate their arguments regarding yes or no to building a mosque, they conveniently forget it. The same convenient forgetting that has occurred throughout US history.

[Totenkopf]

And it has been said multiple times that the proposed site is nowhere on the WTC site. It is two blocks away in a building that had been in use as a prayer location for Muslims long before the events of September 11th.

 

Two things. First, in a city the size of NY, 2 blocks easily rates as "close". To say that it is "nowhere near" begs a definition of how elasticly terms are being used. As to the other, is that merely that a bunch of muslims are using the building to pray in unoffically or is some kind of permit involved that permits them to use it as an ersatz religious site? Afterall, people can pretty much pray wherever they like so long as they are not bothering anyone and the owners of the property don't object (hence no one claiming unlawful trespass for instance). Somehow I get the impression that if the current building were being used as is (or in a repaired state), we might not really be hearing about this. Afterall, no one is really pissing and moaning about all the little "street mosques" that can be found throughout NY.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

totes what about the free market if the invisible hand didnt want that mosque there the mosque's builders would have been outbid for the land

[Totenkopf]

Given this guys trouble raising funds, maybe it doesn't.