Mosque at Ground Zero

[humblesmurph]

There is nothing about America being a Democratic Republic that I know of that supports the position that this private entity should have to waste the time and money legally debating what they do with their own property solely on the grounds that some people don't like it.  Am I missing something here?

Yes you may be.  They did in fact have to waste time and money debating the issue.  They won the vote 29-1 with 9 abstaining I believe.   If the vote had gone the other way, wouldn't you want to know why?  I would certainly like the Imam to have his day in court.  I live in Washington DC, we'd raise hell if he didn't.

People who are opposed want to be heard.  Let them be heard.  If it's bigotry, then let us shine a light on that bigotry.  Hold a mirror up to the public and let them see themselves for what they really are.  Hopefully some of them will change their minds.  

If this goes to court, the mosque will be built, the lunatics will be appeased, and maybe I can say I don't live in a country where over 50% of the people are against religious freedom.

I said legally debate the issue, not politically debate it, so I don't know what relevance your first paragraph has in regard to my comment.

The way I learned a Democratic Republic works is that people voice their opinions by electing leaders who share their views.  There are also instances on the state level where laws and taxes are voted on, but this doesn't extend to the people being allowed to vote on the actions of a private company who, like you've pointed out, has already gotten the political go ahead to build their structure.  Regardless, we're not even talking about a vote on the issue, but are discussing legal action in regard to the issue, so I was confused as to why you mentioned America being a Democratic Republic in the first place.  Seems like a weird thing to bring up in this conversation.

The reason it shouldn't go to court is that it's a waste of time and money for everyone involved - especially the for-all-we-know law abiding citizens trying to build the structure.  Your dedication to the idea that this waste of time and money is somehow necessary for everyone to be nicer to each other or more comfortable with the structure is irrelevant and your assumption that frivolous lawsuits are a victim-less endeavor is incorrect.  Nothing good can come from encouraging people to tie up the legal process with frivolous lawsuits.  No percentage of hurt feelings makes a frivolous lawsuit somehow not frivolous.

People elect leaders who share their view. Yes.  Apparently these leaders don't share the view of the people. The people are simply wrong.  However, they feel like their political voice is being trampled on.  I don't know how to reconcile that.

 I try as best as I can to be objective in all things.  It is because I was so in favor of the mosque in the first place, that I tried to consider the other side of things so closely.  I have a bias against Christianity and Republicans.  In trying to counter that bias, I try to put myself in their shoes.  

Yes, I want people to be nicer to each other.  I'd prefer if everything didn't just become a red vs blue thing in this country.  We are at war with people who are mad at us about the treatment of Islamic  holy land (they are right imo).   Allowing an Imam with strong ties to the middle east region to build a 100 million dollar 13 story structure 2 blocks from ground zero entails some complication.  Where is he getting the money from?  I for one don't care, and I would go out on a limb to say that you don't either.  However, some see it as a legitimate question.  

If I knew some other way to bring truth to the light besides a frivolous lawsuit, I would have already suggested it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Look it up. It's easy.  Ground Zero Pat Robertson.

Thanks for your assistance.

I asked a simple yes or no question and I get a question in response.  No you didn't say lawsuits were forbidden, that is why I asked you the question point blank.

Given that I've made my commitment to the inviolability of personal rights pretty plain, what on earth ever gave you the idea that I would support their abrogation?  That is the point of my answer.  Did I say so?  No.  Don't impute such an odious position upon my with a loaded question.

Saying it's a public discussion doesn't mean anything, I've already made the point about the lack of power.  I didn't know about this lawsuit either until yesterday.  I just assumed somebody would try something like this.

Well, until this lawsuit, this forum was as good a place to discuss it as anywhere, and as public as you could ask for.  Now that it will go to court, it will still be public, and that's fine.

What is it you think that I'm trying to pussy foot around?

I did not say you are pussyfooting around.  I said I don't do so.  

To me, it's a complicated matter. There isn't much difference in our viewpoints in my opinion.  I am for upholding the constitution and defending civil liberties.  I didn't have any uneasy feelings about the mosque.  No mixed emotions. I thought it would be great when I first heard about it last year.  

We are in agreement, for the most part.

That said, I believe that effort should be paid to appease those who are deeply hurt by this, if only because I can't even begin to imagine how they feel.

This is where we disagree.  A frivolous lawsuit, which would seem doomed on its face, would impose legal fees upon the church that may prevent its opening on the grounds of finance, even if the suit were to be dismissed.  No matter how deeply they feel about this issue, we are a nation of laws, not feelings.  They have every right to sue; they do not have the right to a judgment based on feelings, if said judgments violate the Constitution.

People are scared in part because we don't know who we are fighting.

I also think fear is a poor basis for making decisions.

People seem to think that Imam Rauf is friendly with or receiving money from entities that are considered threats.  I think he is a great man.  I commend him for what he is trying to do.  I hope he is friendly with some of our enemies, maybe he can bridge the gap so that we can come to some sort of understanding and the fighting can stop.

I'm not going to die over this.  I'm not a soldier.  My arguments come from a place of wanting to preserve human life.

I don't doubt your motives, and am sorry if you got the impression otherwise.  My argument comes from a place of wanting to preserve human rights, as well as life.

[humblesmurph]

Look it up. It's easy.  Ground Zero Pat Robertson.

Thanks for your assistance.

I asked a simple yes or no question and I get a question in response.  No you didn't say lawsuits were forbidden, that is why I asked you the question point blank.

Given that I've made my commitment to the inviolability of personal rights pretty plain, what on earth ever gave you the idea that I would support their abrogation?  That is the point of my answer.  Did I say so?  No.  Don't impute such an odious position upon my with a loaded question.

Saying it's a public discussion doesn't mean anything, I've already made the point about the lack of power.  I didn't know about this lawsuit either until yesterday.  I just assumed somebody would try something like this.

Well, until this lawsuit, this forum was as good a place to discuss it as anywhere, and as public as you could ask for.  Now that it will go to court, it will still be public, and that's fine.

What is it you think that I'm trying to pussy foot around?

I did not say you are pussyfooting around.  I said I don't do so.  

To me, it's a complicated matter. There isn't much difference in our viewpoints in my opinion.  I am for upholding the constitution and defending civil liberties.  I didn't have any uneasy feelings about the mosque.  No mixed emotions. I thought it would be great when I first heard about it last year.  

We are in agreement, for the most part.

That said, I believe that effort should be paid to appease those who are deeply hurt by this, if only because I can't even begin to imagine how they feel.

This is where we disagree.  A frivolous lawsuit, which would seem doomed on its face, would impose legal fees upon the church that may prevent its opening on the grounds of finance, even if the suit were to be dismissed.  No matter how deeply they feel about this issue, we are a nation of laws, not feelings.  They have every right to sue; they do not have the right to a judgment based on feelings, if said judgments violate the Constitution.

People are scared in part because we don't know who we are fighting.

I also think fear is a poor basis for making decisions.

People seem to think that Imam Rauf is friendly with or receiving money from entities that are considered threats.  I think he is a great man.  I commend him for what he is trying to do.  I hope he is friendly with some of our enemies, maybe he can bridge the gap so that we can come to some sort of understanding and the fighting can stop.

I'm not going to die over this.  I'm not a soldier.  My arguments come from a place of wanting to preserve human life.

I don't doubt your motives, and am sorry if you got the impression otherwise.  My argument comes from a place of wanting to preserve human rights, as well as life.

In order

You're welcome

I don't see how the yes or no question was loaded.  You still haven't answered it.  I'm not imputing anything about you.

Setting aside the lack of power, this forum isn't public enough.  How many people have read our words, maybe 20? Besides forums like these often contain people who are on the same page politically.  I don't see the right wing american viewpoint being represented very much in the old HAF threads I have read.   Both sides need to represented for healthy debate imo.

You typed-"Also, were I to be saying something like your imputation, you may rest assured that I would say so clearly, with no pussy-footing. Until then, you need not wonder. Did I say lawsuits should be forbidden?"    I'm confused.  I don't know what you think that I'm imputing, and clearly you are saying that I'm "pussy-footing".  If you have since changed your mind, that's cool.

fair enough

We can't try the case here.  I would think your valid points would be brought up in court. If it is doomed, the whole ordeal won't take much time.  I would imagine it wouldn't take a judge to long to simply throw out the case.

I'm not talking about making decisions based on fear.  The judge will make a finding of fact, based on the law.  It's the fear that is motivating the lawsuit, not the decision.

I admire the nobility of your intent and the skill with which you argue your points.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see how the yes or no question was loaded.  You still haven't answered it.  I'm not imputing anything about you.

Given that I've made my commitment to the inviolabilty of personal rights plain ...

Setting aside the lack of power, this forum isn't public enough.  How many people have read our words, maybe 20? Besides forums like these often contain people who are on the same page politically.  I don't see the right wing american viewpoint being represented very much in the old HAF threads I have read.   Both sides need to represented for healthy debate imo.

Very true, but this is hardly the only place this is being discussed; nor is New York the only place where this sort of attack on the freedom of conscience is occurring.

You typed-"Also, were I to be saying something like your imputation, you may rest assured that I would say so clearly, with no pussy-footing. Until then, you need not wonder. Did I say lawsuits should be forbidden?"    I'm confused.  I don't know what you think that I'm imputing, and clearly you are saying that I'm "pussy-footing".  If you have since changed your mind, that's cool.

1)  The emphasized section nowhere contains reference to you, at all.  I wrote that because you entertain some question in your mind as to whether I hold a position relevant to this argument.  I am assuring you that, were such the case, I would make it clear, in plain language.

2) You strike me as imputing to me a position -- that I would deny the right to seek redress in court -- by asking said question, when my entire position is staked on the respect for Constitutionality.  I am therefore wondering "why is he asking me such an off-beat question, when my respect for individual rights is clear?"

We can't try the case here.  I would think your valid points would be brought up in court. If it is doomed, the whole ordeal won't take much time.  I would imagine it wouldn't take a judge to long to simply throw out the case.

I'm sure they will, amongst others.  I'm not the sharpest tack in the box.

I'm not talking about making decisions based on fear.  The judge will make a finding of fact, based on the law.  It's the fear that is motivating the lawsuit, not the decision.

I'm talking about people taking an opinion on this issue, based on fear.

I admire the nobility of your intent and the skill with which you argue your points.

Thanks for your kind words.  It's nice to have vigorous discussion that doesn't sink to snark at the first divergence of opinion.

[deekayfry]

Yada, yada, yada... due process, blah blah, proportional and congruence test...  Imputation, inviolable right...  *tsk* *tsk* *tsk*

Talk about derailing  

But gentlemen, ladies, put yourself in the people's shoes who face the threat of not having a place to worship and a renegade fundamentalist group breathing down your neck and stirring up an entire nation AGAINST YOU and those who share similar beliefs that you share. PLUS, we now have the re-kindling of 9/ll.  This discussion goes beyond the intricacies of law, courts, interpretations, and finer points.  We discuss people who already have fear of going in public with a head dress, wearing Islamic religious symbols, and having time to pray.

The people who want a place of worship now faces a potential long and protracted legal battle, should Satanist Pat Robertson wish to tie this up with the very things we argue over.  Would it be so easy if it does end up being dismissed, which it might, but leave it to anyone to dig far enough into the manure pile and dredge up a shovel and keeps digging.

Just watch, when this topic dies away, and this sensational story loses luster, and falls out of the news, and we go on to the next big thing, these people are still left with fighting for something they wish for, and they still will have to deal with the racism and bigotry that has come along with it.

My point of the topic is that we face a particularly scary point in our time, where popular bigotry is on the rise, and the people we elect who are suppose to represent all people and all citizens now rouse the public against a particular group.

The topic intention WAS NOT  to discuss WHO said WHAT, HOW they said it, and what you SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT I said.  Right?

[humblesmurph]

Yada, yada, yada... due process, blah blah, proportional and congruence test...  Imputation, inviolable right...  *tsk* *tsk* *tsk*

Talk about derailing  

But gentlemen, ladies, put yourself in the people's shoes who face the threat of not having a place to worship and a renegade fundamentalist group breathing down your neck and stirring up an entire nation AGAINST YOU and those who share similar beliefs that you share. PLUS, we now have the re-kindling of 9/ll.  This discussion goes beyond the intricacies of law, courts, interpretations, and finer points.  We discuss people who already have fear of going in public with a head dress, wearing Islamic religious symbols, and having time to pray.

The people who want a place of worship now faces a potential long and protracted legal battle, should Satanist Pat Robertson wish to tie this up with the very things we argue over.  Would it be so easy if it does end up being dismissed, which it might, but leave it to anyone to dig far enough into the manure pile and dredge up a shovel and keeps digging.

Just watch, when this topic dies away, and this sensational story loses luster, and falls out of the news, and we go on to the next big thing, these people are still left with fighting for something they wish for, and they still will have to deal with the racism and bigotry that has come along with it.

My point of the topic is that we face a particularly scary point in our time, where popular bigotry is on the rise, and the people we elect who are suppose to represent all people and all citizens now rouse the public against a particular group.

The topic intention WAS NOT  to discuss WHO said WHAT, HOW they said it, and what you SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT I said.  Right?

To be fair, you posted a rather long post about who said what, and misquoted me multiple times in the process.  

Anyway, back on point.  Unfortunately, it seems the public doesn't need to be roused, the bigotry is at scary heights and the politicians are just taking advantage of it.  It's not just in the US.   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/au ... ve-britain

[pinkocommie]

This is also appropriate for this thread I think.

http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/?from=rss

As well as this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update

[humblesmurph]

This is also appropriate for this thread I think.

http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/?from=rss

As well as this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update

I almost missed that last part of the Daily show clip.  A qu'ran burning, in front of a church????  To be honest, I haven't read a Koran since highschool, and the English translation is said to distort it a bit, but it seemed a lot like the Bible to me.

 In the interest of fairness, on this forum with members across the globe it should be noted that the US might not be as anti Islam as other parts of the West.  We elected a president with a Semitic name. We don't want to ban burkas, unlike our easy going neighbors to the north and across the Atlantic.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2 ... 50246.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -veil.html

[Tank]

Obama defends right to build mosque near 9/11 site

US President Barack Obama has staunchly defended controversial plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York.

Opponents have protested against the construction of an Islamic cultural centre and mosque several hundred feet away from the site of the Twin Towers.

Mr Obama acknowledged "sensitivities" surround the 9/11 site, but said Muslims have the same right to practice their religion "as anyone else".

"Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," Mr Obama said...

[Sophus]

I am disappointed with Sam Harris' response to this. In my opinion he makes a huge generalization of all muslims, even going as far to say "there is no such thing as Islamaphobia".

As it turns out, a number of New Yorker muslims wanting this center are Sufis - the most peaceful, hippy muslims there are. Not that they are the only peaceful ones. Not that they are the only peaceful muslims. Living in a part of the world where we aren't incredibly familiar with Islam, like we are Christianity, I think we are more susceptible to the generalizations the media gives. Yes, there are extremist muslims in some parts of the world, and there may very well be more of them than there are extremist Christians right now (although given the crazy things a lot of Christian Americans believe I'm sure they would be Pharisees if only they had power). However, in my own experience, the average muslim has been no worse and no scarier than the average Christian.

[Kylyssa]

I was just over commenting on an article about Obama's support of religious freedom.  Commenters are saying he ought to be impeached, etc.  

I decided to mention that building a community center with a mosque in it near the site of the Twin Towers is no different from building a church in Oklahoma City.  The Oklahoma City Bomber was a Christian extremist so what's the difference, really?

[defiant1]

Its amazing how you seem to find more religious tolerance from the atheist community than in any religious community in existence today..... but who's keeping track, right?

[Will]

I wonder if there's a Christian church near the Murrah building in Oklahoma City (Tim McVeigh was, of course, a Christian). Or a Jewish synagogue near the Olympic Hotel in Nicosia, Cyprus (Operation Wrath of God, the terrorist campaign carried out by Israel in the 1970s). How stupid this all is.

[deekayfry]

I am disappointed with Sam Harris' response to this. In my opinion he makes a huge generalization of all muslims, even going as far to say "there is no such thing as Islamaphobia".

As it turns out, a number of New Yorker muslims wanting this center are Sufis - the most peaceful, hippy muslims there are. Not that they are the only peaceful ones. Not that they are the only peaceful muslims. Living in a part of the world where we aren't incredibly familiar with Islam, like we are Christianity, I think we are more susceptible to the generalizations the media gives. Yes, there are extremist muslims in some parts of the world, and there may very well be more of them than there are extremist Christians right now (although given the crazy things a lot of Christian Americans believe I'm sure they would be Pharisees if only they had power). However, in my own experience, the average muslim has been no worse and no scarier than the average Christian.

Good point  In that case, all bets are off!

[KDbeads]

The only time I am not particularly peaceful is when I wake up in the morning. :mad: