Mosque at Ground Zero

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm happy that this President has made his views so plain.  Hopefully, he can throw his weight into the issue efficiently.

[Sophus]

The Hitch is still at it! Here is Christopher Hitchens' thoughts on the mosque which starkly contrasts with Sam Harris'. I am losing respect for Harris due to his intolerance which is no different from the Sarah Palins of the world. I cannot wrap my head around the hypocrisy of Islamaphobia. The only threat to the Constitution is coming from people like these.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

The more I read Hitchens, the more I like him.  A great article.

[Sophus]

The more I read Hitchens, the more I like him.  A great article.

Indeed.
This whole whacky situation may come in handy in the future to further point out how atheism is not a religion, as atheists are so split on this issue. As PZ Myers notes:

Jerry Coyne summarizes some of the views by Gnu Atheists â€" it turns out we don't all speak with one voice on the matter, which isn't surprising at all.However, I will turn to my other guru, Jeffrey Rowland, who has a cartoon summarizing the issue.

Great minds don't think alike?

I tend to see this more as a serious concern because it is a threat to Constitution.

I'm happy that this President has made his views so plain. Hopefully, he can throw his weight into the issue efficiently.

Republicans are already talking about making this a voting issue for November. This country's nuts.

[Martin TK]

A OP I wrote on CARM is what got me kicked out of there. In it I said that there was a Christian Terrorist group in America long before the Muslim Extremists ever came to the US.  The KKK in the South used Christianity and the support of many churches in their terror acts against African Americans, but this didn't stop a Southern Baptist Church from being built across the street from where a KKK Rally resulted in the dealth of three young men in 1968.

It's simply a case of religious freedom, which is a RIGHT in this country.  Now get the HARD CORE RIGHT to agree, that's another story.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I tend to see this more as a serious concern because it is a threat to Constitution.

Yes, as I noted above, my entire disgust with this entire issue is the public's willingness to jettison their own rights.  It's as if no one has ever read the bit by Pastor Niemoller about "First they came for the Jews ... "

I'm happy that this President has made his views so plain. Hopefully, he can throw his weight into the issue efficiently.

Republicans are already talking about making this a voting issue for November. This country's nuts.[/quote]

I welcome this.  Coupled with their treatment of Romney a couple of years ago, any campaign manager worth his salt could build a credible argument to all of the minority sects that Republicans have no respect for their religion. Mormons, SDAs, JWs, Holy Rollers, Jews, Muslims ... granted that that wouldn't pull a majority, it would still be hard blow to a Republican candidate, who ostensibly would be running on a platform of smaller govt in other spheres.

The Republicans would have to use the Amendment process; looking at the electoral layout, I don't think the Republicans could muster 38 states.  In fact, I'd be surprised if they got 30.

[Martin TK]

I tend to see this more as a serious concern because it is a threat to Constitution.

Yes, as I noted above, my entire disgust with this entire issue is the public's willingness to jettison their own rights.  It's as if no one has ever read the bit by Pastor Niemoller about "First they came for the Jews ... "

I'm happy that this President has made his views so plain. Hopefully, he can throw his weight into the issue efficiently.

Republicans are already talking about making this a voting issue for November. This country's nuts.

I welcome this.  Coupled with their treatment of Romney a couple of years ago, any campaign manager worth his salt could build a credible argument to all of the minority sects that Republicans have no respect for their religion. Mormons, SDAs, JWs, Holy Rollers, Jews, Muslims ... granted that that wouldn't pull a majority, it would still be hard blow to a Republican candidate, who ostensibly would be running on a platform of smaller govt in other spheres.

The Republicans would have to use the Amendment process; looking at the electoral layout, I don't think the Republicans could muster 38 states.  In fact, I'd be surprised if they got 30.[/quote]

Given that the Equal Rights Amendment hasn't passed in 85 years, I seriously doubt that an amendment  to change the 14th, or to establish something new as another amendment, such as gay marriage or something to do with this Mosque or anything else, is likely to make much headway.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed.  The amendment process was made difficult for this very reason: to prevent inflamed passions from making retarded law.

[deekayfry]

The president has gotten yellow bellowed and back peddled.  He should have either stayed out or stood by his initial statements.

The Right Wing-Ding Republicans need to shut-up.  They look like they did in 2004, 2006, and 2008... a whole lot of fear mongering, hate mongering wackos.  AZ and this will bite them in the ass eventually.  What's saddening is that they give good religious people a bad name, Christian's included.

In as much as it is generalize the entire Islamic religion on a few radical murderers, I am going to say the same for Christians, Gingrich, Palin, and O' Riley are making all Christians look bad, and they are making the Christian religion stink.  I am sorry, the nation is not Christian, it wasn't intended to be Christian, and Freedom of Religion is not "Freedom of Christian Religion" and to hell with everything else.

[Sophus]

Indeed.  The amendment process was made difficult for this very reason: to prevent inflamed passions from making retarded law.

Oh yes, I understand that it is incredibly difficult to amend the Constitution.    The threat I think rises from the fact that, historically speaking, in spite of Constitutional Amendments we've had no problem ignoring them at times. Say,segregations? Gay rights? Other instances of corruption in spite of a Constitution, more relatable to the [strike:34h0etap]Ground Zero Mosque[/strike:34h0etap] Park51 Community Center, do happen. The Constitution is useless if it is not upheld.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed.  The amendment process was made difficult for this very reason: to prevent inflamed passions from making retarded law.

Oh yes, I understand that it is incredibly difficult to amend the Constitution.    The threat I think rises from the fact that, historically speaking, in spite of Constitutional Amendments we've had no problem ignoring them at times. Say,segregations? Gay rights? Other instances of corruption in spite of a Constitution, more relatable to the [strike:2ck16g4t]Ground Zero Mosque[/strike:2ck16g4t] Park51 Community Center, do happen. The Constitution is useless if it is not upheld.

Very true, but this is exactly why this debate happening so publicly is a good thing, in my mind.  Roaches don't like sunlight.

[humblesmurph]

The president has gotten yellow bellowed and back peddled.  He should have either stayed out or stood by his initial statements.

Mr. Obama is not a coward.  He has not wavered from his stance that Imam Rauf has the right to do what he wants with his land and practice his faith in accordance with the law.  People took his initial statements as an endorsement of the community center. I believe people were mistaken.  Endorsing the community center's location/timing and upholding the constitution/founding principles are two distinctly different things.  His later comments clarified that distinction.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Once you remember that he was a professor of Constitutional law at one time, the President's statements have always been crystal clear.

The fact that he was such a professor leads me to trust and support him, despite the fact that I disagree with a bit of his politics.

[Recusant]

Mr. Obama is not a coward.  He has not wavered from his stance that Imam Rauf has the right to do what he wants with his land and practice his faith in accordance with the law.  People took his initial statements as an endorsement of the community center. I believe people were mistaken.  Endorsing the community center's location/timing and upholding the constitution/founding principles are two distinctly different things.  His later comments clarified that distinction.

QFT  

Though I might not have agreed with all of your previous posts in this thread, humblesmurph, I am in full agreement with you here!

[deekayfry]

President Obama said this,

"[I am] not commenting on the wisdom of the project, just the broader principle that the government should treat "everyone equal, regardless" of religion.

I read that as someone who has second thoughts.  He did not need to say something like that.  It was defensive, and regardless of what he intended to mean, it has fanned an already white hot fire to something even hotter.

My "yellow bellied" statement went too far, and it has left me with some egg on my face  What had me angry was before he said that, I was excited by his perfectly crisp constitutional statement of the government supporting all religions equally.  Then, what I see the next day just screwed it all to hell.