Mosque at Ground Zero

[Whitney]

This isn't even at Ground Zero, as deekayfry already noted.

I think I might have been a bit tired when I replied to this thread...somehow I thought deekayfry was complaining about the mosque being at ground zero.

[pinkocommie]

First, I don't know you, I think I like you though.  Second I wrote the YouTube comment because you  said "Self defense makes sense to me. Stuff defense? No. They can have it. It's just stuff" in the self defense thread.  If you aren't afraid of bullies, why are you so eager to just give them your possessions without a fight?

So wait, now me not wanting to get hurt or hurt someone else over a trivial possession like a wallet is somehow me being eager to give away my possessions without a fight?  And me not wanting to get hurt or hurt someone else over a wallet is somehow comparable to not allowing my actions to be dictated by terrorists?  It seems to me that you are straining to draw conclusions between two entirely different situations here.  I'm not afraid of bullies who say they're going to hurt me if I do something.  Someone with a gun in my face?  Yeah, that's scary, but the only reason I'm going what they want is because of the gun in my face.  Surely you can see the difference between allowing the possibility of terrorism to dictate whether or not a building is built and giving a robber your wallet if he has the means to immediately kill you?

Some things are worth fighting for, like freedom.  A wallet?  Not worth fighting for.

Second, there is nothing ridiculous about comparing Christians or Muslims to members of the KKK.  Most members of the KKK are god fearing law abiding citizens who are just paranoid that white people are losing their stranglehold on power in America.  They are not a terrorist group.  They are about love and white pride, it says so on their website.  Just because some people in the KKK bombed some churches 40 years ago doesn't make them a terrorist group.  Obviously more people have died because of Allah and Jesus than white pride, and I wouldn't call Christians or Muslims terrorists.

Haha, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I think.  I don't really understand what you're trying to say.  Defending the honor of the KKK seems a bit odd, regardless.

Also -

Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization".[10][11][12][13] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[14] A similar effort was made in 2004 when a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization so it could be banned from campus.[15] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant

On November 14, 2008, an all-white jury of seven men and seven women awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages to plaintiff Jordan Gruver, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the Imperial Klans of America.[116] The ruling found that five IKA members had savagely beaten Gruver, then 16 years old, at a Kentucky county fair in July 2006.[117]

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

So I guess my advice would be to not get your info about the KKK from KKK websites.  

Third, yes you are free to fly where you want, but now you may be subject to a strip search in order to get there.

What do you mean "now"?  This possibility existed before 9/11 as well.  I have never agreed with this kind of invasion of privacy, but I also can choose not to fly. Just like those who dislike the mosque can choose not to go there.  Freedom freedom freedom, oi!

Fourth, I personally have no problem with the mosque.  I have also stated that the people who have a problem with it are not rational people.  Just because they aren't rational doesn't mean that they aren't real.  I don't think your opinion on the child support laws are rational, but I can understand your personal bias given the info you have shared on the board.

...OK.

[humblesmurph]

First, I don't know you, I think I like you though.  Second I wrote the YouTube comment because you  said "Self defense makes sense to me. Stuff defense? No. They can have it. It's just stuff" in the self defense thread.  If you aren't afraid of bullies, why are you so eager to just give them your possessions without a fight?

So wait, now me not wanting to get hurt or hurt someone else over a trivial possession like a wallet is somehow me being eager to give away my possessions without a fight?  And me not wanting to get hurt or hurt someone else over a wallet is somehow comparable to not allowing my actions to be dictated by terrorists?  It seems to me that you are straining to draw conclusions between two entirely different situations here.  I'm not afraid of bullies who say they're going to hurt me if I do something.  Someone with a gun in my face?  Yeah, that's scary, but the only reason I'm going what they want is because of the gun in my face.  Surely you can see the difference between allowing the possibility of terrorism to dictate whether or not a building is built and giving a robber your wallet if he has the means to immediately kill you?

Some things are worth fighting for, like freedom.  A wallet?  Not worth fighting for.

Second, there is nothing ridiculous about comparing Christians or Muslims to members of the KKK.  Most members of the KKK are god fearing law abiding citizens who are just paranoid that white people are losing their stranglehold on power in America.  They are not a terrorist group.  They are about love and white pride, it says so on their website.  Just because some people in the KKK bombed some churches 40 years ago doesn't make them a terrorist group.  Obviously more people have died because of Allah and Jesus than white pride, and I wouldn't call Christians or Muslims terrorists.

Haha, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I think.  I don't really understand what you're trying to say.  Defending the honor of the KKK seems a bit odd, regardless.

Also -

Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization".[10][11][12][13] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[14] A similar effort was made in 2004 when a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization so it could be banned from campus.[15] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant

On November 14, 2008, an all-white jury of seven men and seven women awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages to plaintiff Jordan Gruver, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the Imperial Klans of America.[116] The ruling found that five IKA members had savagely beaten Gruver, then 16 years old, at a Kentucky county fair in July 2006.[117]

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

So I guess my advice would be to not get your info about the KKK from KKK websites.  

Third, yes you are free to fly where you want, but now you may be subject to a strip search in order to get there.

What do you mean "now"?  This possibility existed before 9/11 as well.  I have never agreed with this kind of invasion of privacy, but I also can choose not to fly. Just like those who dislike the mosque can choose not to go there.  Freedom freedom freedom, oi!

Fourth, I personally have no problem with the mosque.  I have also stated that the people who have a problem with it are not rational people.  Just because they aren't rational doesn't mean that they aren't real.  I don't think your opinion on the child support laws are rational, but I can understand your personal bias given the info you have shared on the board.

...OK.

Freedom to walk down the street without being accosted by some jerk is important too.  As I said, I don't know you, I made an obviously false assumption about your willingness to taunt Muslims. I wouldn't do it just to do it because it's disrespectful, not out of fear.  Now if it's for the sake of a funny joke then I'm all for it. I can't see how teasing Muslims is more important than your personal possessions.  However, that's your opinion and there is nothing wrong with it.  

If I got my information about Muslims from a Muslim website it likely wouldn't say anything about terrorism.  Catholic websites probably won't advertise their reputation for scarring young boys.  I live in the real world. In the real world, I'm much more afraid of real Christians and Muslims than the KKK (fake christians).  

Airports did change after 9/11.  Whether or not it's a relevant fact is debatable sure, but of course we go through more BS now at the airport because of fear.  Some people just can't stop taking airplanes.  Some people travel as a part of their vocation.

I brought up the last point about child support to gauge your reaction if they were to try to change the law to make it more fair.  You seem like somebody who fights for what they believe in. If you were to object, your objection, in my view, would be irrational and sexist (unless it was markedly different from the ones you and I discussed), not unlike the irrational racism that is at the heart of this debate.  However, I defend your right to make that objection and have it heard.

[pinkocommie]

Freedom to walk down the street without being accosted by some jerk is important too.  As I said, I don't know you, I made an obviously false assumption about your willingness to taunt Muslims. I wouldn't do it just to do it because it's disrespectful, not out of fear.  Now if it's for the sake of a funny joke then I'm all for it. I can't see how teasing Muslims is more important than your personal possessions.  However, that's your opinion and there is nothing wrong with it.

If I got my information about Muslims from a Muslim website it likely wouldn't say anything about terrorism.  Catholic websites probably won't advertise their reputation for scarring young boys.  I live in the real world. In the real world, I'm much more afraid of real Christians and Muslims than the KKK (fake christians).  

Airports did change after 9/11.  Whether or not it's a relevant fact is debatable sure, but of course we go through more BS now at the airport because of fear.  Some people just can't stop taking airplanes.  Some people travel as a part of their vocation.

I brought up the last point about child support to gauge your reaction if they were to try to change the law to make it more fair.  You seem like somebody who fights for what they believe in. If you were to object, your objection, in my view, would be irrational and sexist (unless it was markedly different from the ones you and I discussed), not unlike the irrational racism that is at the heart of this debate.  However, I defend your right to make that objection and have it heard.

I'm not trying to argue that the freedom to walk down the street isn't important and my opinion IS NOT that teasing Muslims is more important that personal possessions. (?)

EDMD was not about taunting or teasing Muslims for me, it was about reacting to a fringe terrorist Muslim group that threatened to kill the creators of South Park for depicting Mo'.  You seem pretty to be comfortable mis-characterizing whatever necessary to make your point more valid, and it makes trying to have a discussion with you very difficult.

Your second point is both confusing and seems meaningless to this discussion.

I never claimed airports didn't change, so you're arguing against a strawman there.  The point I was trying to make was that mentioning the possibility of being strip searched because of increased airport security post 9/11 is silly because it was possible that you might have been strip searched before 9/11.  Do you have any statistics showing that the number of strip searches have increased since airport security was revamped after the attack?  Data is necessary when bringing up these kinds of points.  Also, when people use an airplane, they're buying a service from a private company.  That company has the right to implement whatever rules they want as long as it's legal to do so.  These rules are less a violation of rights and more an example of how businesses everywhere operate.  Airports are a sticky example though, because there is some government imposed requirements in regard to safety measures, but I still don't think airport security measures and not allowing a building to be built for no other reason except it's a Mosque kind of close to the WTC site are really comparable examples of the sacrifices we should expect make for safety.

The last paragraph...I've read it four times and I've read it to my partner and neither one of us really understand your point.  So I guess if someone else gets it, let me know.  One thing to mention is that while statements being made in other posts can be helpful to reference, it seems like mentioning my comments on the child support thread and the self defense thread here is an example of taking something out of context for the sake of argument, which is a waste of time for everyone.

[humblesmurph]

how is depicting Mo not teasing Muslims?  Just because you did it for a higher purpose, doesn't mean it didn't offend regular peace loving Muslims.  

I brought up the self defense thread to explain why I was mistaken about your bravery in the face of danger.

I brought up the airport to illustrate that the threat of violence changes the way we do things.

I brought up the KKK because that is a group I am bigoted against. I cannot be friends with a member.  I compared them to Christians and Muslims because they have killed and scared people for their cause, just like Christians and Muslims.  

No analogies or logical comparisons:  I don't care if they build a mosque.  However, I don't live in NYC and didn't know anybody who died in the 9/11 attacks.  I like to think if I did, I wouldn't be bigoted, but that is a what if.  Because I can't know how these people feel, I'm hard pressed to just push their concerns aside without them having their say.  What is so wrong with letting a bigot have his day in court?  

This last paragraph was my original point minus my bias against religion in general.  Some of you who may or may not be lawyers started talking about legal this and constitution that.  I don't have legal training.  I say let the courts decide.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the stripper analogy.  It seems obvious to me that a person in New England is much more likely to be affected by laws in texas given that they are in the same country.

This is irrelevant.  Texas state law has no effect on adult entertainment in any other state.

You make wild assumptions about how people in the Middle East feel about one building thousands of miles away. I can't say you are wrong, how could I know, they are thousands of miles away.

It's not an assumption.  I can tell you why I think I'm right: I lived in Teheran for four-and-a-half years and was stationed in Riyadh for five months.  They pay attention to what we do.  Ahmadinejad, amongst others, makes his dinner railing against America.  What makes you think he won't glom onto this?

You have stated that you are not a lawyer, neither am I (obviously).  Is it so impossible to think that  you don' t know all of the relevant facts and New York City Codes? As I stated in an earlier post, courts are where legal decisions are made.  I never suggested denying anybody their due process of the law.

Certainly my knowledge is limited, as I've made clear.  I don't know that the lot is zoned for religious use.  I don't know that the Muslim church has paid for the pertinent permits.  But I do know that if they have satisfied extant law, and the city of New York creates another barrier, the Muslims have a very strong case for an Establishment Clause violation; in my layman's opinion, rightfully so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This last paragraph was my original point minus my bias against religion in general.  Some of you who may or may not be lawyers started talking about legal this and constitution that.  I don't have legal training.  I say let the courts decide.

"Legal this"? "Constitution that"?  No, really?

I think I've already made plain that I'm not a lawyer.  If you haven't figured that out by now, that's your problem, not mine.

However, that doesn't mean I cannot read the Constitution.  Unlike you, I'm not so quick to surrender my capacity for judgment to the government.  I reserve the right to judge for myself the correctness of our government's actions, insofar as it is or isn't Constitutional, even though I'm not a lawyer.

If you've surrendered that capacity, as your last sentence clearly implies, more's the pity.

[pinkocommie]

how is depicting Mo not teasing Muslims?  Just because you did it for a higher purpose, doesn't mean it didn't offend regular peace loving Muslims.

I didn't say it didn't tease them, I said the reason I participated in it had nothing to do with wanting to tease them.  That might not make a difference to you, but it does make a difference.

I brought up the self defense thread to explain why I was mistaken about your bravery in the face of danger.

OK

I brought up the airport to illustrate that the threat of violence changes the way we do things.

Never said it didn't, said it shouldn't.  Thus the Franklin quote that you claimed was wrong even though I fail to see how anything you've said has proven it wrong in any way.

I brought up the KKK because that is a group I am bigoted against. I cannot be friends with a member.  I compared them to Christians and Muslims because they have killed and scared people for their cause, just like Christians and Muslims.

OK

No analogies or logical comparisons:  I don't care if they build a mosque.  However, I don't live in NYC and didn't know anybody who died in the 9/11 attacks.  I like to think if I did, I wouldn't be bigoted, but that is a what if.  Because I can't know how these people feel, I'm hard pressed to just push their concerns aside without them having their say.  What is so wrong with letting a bigot have his day in court?

I don't think it makes sense to be able to stop someone from building something simply because enough people don't like it.  As far as I know, there is no legal reason for this building not to be built.  If there is a legal reason, please let us all know.  If not, why are you arguing?

This last paragraph was my original point minus my bias against religion in general.  Some of you who may or may not be lawyers started talking about legal this and constitution that.  I don't have legal training.  I say let the courts decide.

So you're arguing about something that you yourself feel you are unqualified to argue about?  That doesn't make much sense to me.

[humblesmurph]

Strictly speaking, this isn't really an argument.

 "Let the court decide" isn't like saying "we sa massa I'ms too stupid to know whats what so I let yo big brain do tha wuk".  I'm saying, in a open forum, for everybody to see, let these people have their say.  There is an apparent disconnect here.    I think that if you own your land, you can do what you want. However, that is just not how things work.  For whatever reason, people convene and decide who can do what with land that they have already paid for.  Elected officials are doing something that the people in the city don't want. When the will of the people comes up against the rights of a few, something needs to be reconciled. It appears the will of the people is wrong, maybe there can be a process that brings them to the light besides just calling them bigots. It's dismissive.  It just makes people more angry.  

Just because it's wrong to bomb a mosque doesn't mean it won't happen.  If it were to happen, that would do more damage to our already tattered international reputation than the delayed mosque.  I wish people weren't racist.  But they are. In this case it's not just a few people, it may be over half the city.  I refuse to believe that 50% of NYC residents are just ignorant bigots.  Some of these people are good people with a bad opinion.  Time and effort should be spent to change that opinion before an Islamic community center is built 2 blocks from ground zero.

It absolute terms, we do give up some of liberty for security. I give up the liberty to slap you for the security of knowing that it is illegal for you to slap me. More concretely, we didn't just have to accept the Patriot act.  We did because we were scared into it, it doesn't mean we deserve to die, it just means that we as a citizenry are weak.  We just have to agree to disagree about the Franklin quote.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Strictly speaking, this isn't really an argument.

 "Let the court decide" isn't like saying "we sa massa I'ms too stupid to know whats what so I let yo big brain do tha wuk".  I'm saying, in a open forum, for everybody to see, let these people have their say.  There is an apparent disconnect here.    I think that if you own your land, you can do what you want. However, that is just not how things work.  For whatever reason, people convene and decide who can do what with land that they have already paid for.  Elected officials are doing something that the people in the city don't want. When the will of the people comes up against the rights of a few, something needs to be reconciled. It appears the will of the people is wrong, maybe there can be a process that brings them to the light besides just calling them bigots. It's dismissive.  It just makes people more angry.  

Yah, I'm pretty sure I haven't called anyone a bigot.  I've called the propsed barring of this particular use of this particular plot of land "apparently unConstitutional".

Just because it's wrong to bomb a mosque doesn't mean it won't happen.  If it were to happen, that would do more damage to our already tattered international reputation than the delayed mosque.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather risk that than our Constitutional freedom.

I wish people weren't racist.  But they are. In this case it's not just a few people, it may be over half the city.  I refuse to believe that 50% of NYC residents are just ignorant bigots.  Some of these people are good people with a bad opinion.  Time and effort should be spent to change that opinion before an Islamic community center is built 2 blocks from ground zero.

1)  This is about religion, not race.  Muslims come in all nationalities and colors.
2)  I can understand their emotional response to this mosque, and I don't doubt that the vast majority are fine folks.  That doesn't mean that they're right in wanting to prevent this land-use. The idea that they should be able to do so is a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority.  

It absolute terms, we do give up some of liberty for security. I give up the liberty to slap you for the security of knowing that it is illegal for you to slap me. More concretely, we didn't just have to accept the Patriot act.  We did because we were scared into it, it doesn't mean we deserve to die, it just means that we as a citizenry are weak.  We just have to agree to disagree about the Franklin quote.

The point of Franklin's words are that the blessings of liberty are bestowed upon those brave enough to live without the securities which inherently diminish those liberties.  As such, I've always loved those words.

[humblesmurph]

Strictly speaking, this isn't really an argument.

 "Let the court decide" isn't like saying "we sa massa I'ms too stupid to know whats what so I let yo big brain do tha wuk".  I'm saying, in a open forum, for everybody to see, let these people have their say.  There is an apparent disconnect here.    I think that if you own your land, you can do what you want. However, that is just not how things work.  For whatever reason, people convene and decide who can do what with land that they have already paid for.  Elected officials are doing something that the people in the city don't want. When the will of the people comes up against the rights of a few, something needs to be reconciled. It appears the will of the people is wrong, maybe there can be a process that brings them to the light besides just calling them bigots. It's dismissive.  It just makes people more angry.  

Yah, I'm pretty sure I haven't called anyone a bigot.  I've called the propsed barring of this particular use of this particular plot of land "apparently unConstitutional".

Just because it's wrong to bomb a mosque doesn't mean it won't happen.  If it were to happen, that would do more damage to our already tattered international reputation than the delayed mosque.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather risk that than our Constitutional freedom.

I wish people weren't racist.  But they are. In this case it's not just a few people, it may be over half the city.  I refuse to believe that 50% of NYC residents are just ignorant bigots.  Some of these people are good people with a bad opinion.  Time and effort should be spent to change that opinion before an Islamic community center is built 2 blocks from ground zero.

1)  This is about religion, not race.  Muslims come in all nationalities and colors.
2)  I can understand their emotional response to this mosque, and I don't doubt that the vast majority are fine folks.  That doesn't mean that they're right in wanting to prevent this land-use. The idea that they should be able to do so is a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority.  

It absolute terms, we do give up some of liberty for security. I give up the liberty to slap you for the security of knowing that it is illegal for you to slap me. More concretely, we didn't just have to accept the Patriot act.  We did because we were scared into it, it doesn't mean we deserve to die, it just means that we as a citizenry are weak.  We just have to agree to disagree about the Franklin quote.

The point of Franklin's words are that the blessings of liberty are bestowed upon those brave enough to live without the securities which inherently diminish those liberties.  As such, I've always loved those words.

I understand Franklin's words, I don't think that they were applied correctly to this discussion.  I have serious doubts about the bravery of the public at large.  Frankly I don't take a slave holder to be the end all be all on the subject of liberty.  


So I'm clear on this, Thump, you don't want a public forum where all the Constitutional intricacies can be laid out bare for all to see?  I trust a public courtroom much more than the back rooms of NYC politics.

[Davin]

Just because it's wrong to bomb a mosque doesn't mean it won't happen.  If it were to happen, that would do more damage to our already tattered international reputation than the delayed mosque.

In effect you're definitely willing to do something bad (prevent people from building a religious building while allowing other people to build religious buildings), just because of the possibility that some random person in the future might do something bad to them. This is very wrong. We shouldn't have freed the slaves because some people might don some white sheets and kill them later.

My point is, you don't definitely punish a person for the possible actions of someone else in the future.

I wish people weren't racist.  But they are. In this case it's not just a few people, it may be over half the city.

Doesn't matter, we have legal protections for minorities for a reason.

I refuse to believe that 50% of NYC residents are just ignorant bigots.

Never refuse to believe anything, just look at the data.

Some of these people are good people with a bad opinion.  Time and effort should be spent to change that opinion before an Islamic community center is built 2 blocks from ground zero.

I think it would change their opinions a lot faster if they just built the damn thing and everyone else lived with it. In my understanding of social changes throughout history, waiting for the popular opinion to change has never worked, while showing an example to the majority has worked with most changes. It took how long from slaves to be freed to where they were protected equally under the law? What changed it? If it hadn't been for the civil disobedience like the kind organized by MLK Jr., we'd probably still to this day have two different water fountains. My point is, waiting for the majority to change their opinion takes a lot longer than showing the majority that they're wrong.

[humblesmurph]

Just because it's wrong to bomb a mosque doesn't mean it won't happen.  If it were to happen, that would do more damage to our already tattered international reputation than the delayed mosque.

In effect you're definitely willing to do something bad (prevent people from building a religious building while allowing other people to build religious buildings), just because of the possibility that some random person in the future might do something bad to them. This is very wrong. We shouldn't have freed the slaves because some people might don some white sheets and kill them later.

My point is, you don't definitely punish a person for the possible actions of someone else in the future.

I wish people weren't racist.  But they are. In this case it's not just a few people, it may be over half the city.

Doesn't matter, we have legal protections for minorities for a reason.

I refuse to believe that 50% of NYC residents are just ignorant bigots.

Never refuse to believe anything, just look at the data.

Some of these people are good people with a bad opinion.  Time and effort should be spent to change that opinion before an Islamic community center is built 2 blocks from ground zero.

I think it would change their opinions a lot faster if they just built the damn thing and everyone else lived with it. In my understanding of social changes throughout history, waiting for the popular opinion to change has never worked, while showing an example to the majority has worked with most changes. It took how long from slaves to be freed to where they were protected equally under the law? What changed it? If it hadn't been for the civil disobedience like the kind organized by MLK Jr., we'd probably still to this day have two different water fountains. My point is, waiting for the majority to change their opinion takes a lot longer than showing the majority that they're wrong.

We are a Democratic Republic. When the rights of a few are threatened, I want to go to court.  When the will of the people is circumvented, I want to go to court.  Both ideals are very important to me.  I'd like to resolve the issue without picket signs and soundbites if possible.

Davin, do you think that it is wrong to allow these people to make their  case in court?

[Davin]

Davin, do you think that it is wrong to allow these people to make their  case in court?

I think it's wrong that it would need to court to court at all. No law is being broken, they're not the ones causing an unreasonable civil disturbance, they don't need to present their case that they should be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else. They should just be allowed the same rights everyone else has. What case do they have to make besides "hey, Christians get to build churches, Jews get to build whatever temple crap they build but we can't build a Mosque? That's bullshit."

[humblesmurph]

Davin, do you think that it is wrong to allow these people to make their  case in court?

I think it's wrong that it would need to court to court at all. No law is being broken, they're not the ones causing an unreasonable civil disturbance, they don't need to present their case that they should be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else. They should just be allowed the same rights everyone else has. What case do they have to make besides "hey, Christians get to build churches, Jews get to build whatever temple crap they build but we can't build a Mosque? That's bullshit."

I meant the people opposed to the Islamic center.  Should the people opposed to the project be able to present their case?