Happy Atheist Forum

I am from NY, born and somewhat raised there.  It is appalling to see something like this happening in our time.  This cultural center well be built blocks away from the Ground Zero site.

Yet, it is in the news, and truly insidious people have made a game of political football out of this.  Why shouldn't any place of worship be built anywhere? Provided that is done through fain and necessary channels.  It is this kind of bigotry that makes us as Americans hypocrites.  We say we all for religious tolerance, religious freedom, (albeit under the Christian banner... a topic of another discussion).  Yet, we practice this tolerance in ways we see fit.  Sure we tolerate and favor Christians and to a lesser extent Jews.  Sure we marginally tolerate Asian religion.  Yet when it comes to something that does not resumble us like Islam?  Noooo, we cannot accept Islam, even though we have ravaged an entire nation, killing tens of thousands, and sparking a civil war (read Iraq) based on fictional evidence of WMD.  Neither the sentiments behind 9/11 nor the invasion and disruption of Iraq justifies the other.

It is painful to see that we punish a whole society for terrible acts of a few, and that our own reasons are the same of those who fight us.  It is painful to see that Americans are so insensitive and selective.  Its okay to rail against one particular religion, submit, subvert, and run them off, but "oh god and heaven forbid" we do away with Prayers in school.  That is an attack on the Christian God, Satan is alive and well! Forget that Islam believes in the same God.

The cultural center, with a mosque, will NOT be at Ground Zero.  It will be four blocks away.  I cannot fathom why a select group of individuals have intentionally fanned flames of hatred and bigotry.  People who knowingly and willingly pounce on something like this just to score political points.

This is not my America!

Your thoughts on this?

I think you should check the news again..the cultural center has been there this whole time they just want to add on to it...at least that's what I've read.  Nonetheless...it's America...we are all about freedom of religion; right?  If not, then the terrorists already won.

Quote from: "Whitney"I think you should check the news again..the cultural center has been there this whole time they just want to add on to it...at least that's what I've read.

I was in New York last month. This isn't even at Ground Zero, as deekayfry already noted. The signs said they were building a 9/11 memorial museum there. I took photographs on the trip but didn't think to get any of Ground Zero, because, well... it's just a construction site with walls around it; can't hardly see anything. Now I wish I had.

Muslims should be completely free to build whatever worship center they want so long as the government is funding it. And I keep respecting this right of theirs separate from what I think of their religion.

I can understand a bit of resentment at the building, but at the same time, we are a nation of laws.  Instances such as the are the proving ground; in this way, we shall know whether we hew true, or cut crooked.

Emotionally I would hate it, rationally I should support the rights of the individual to express their world view in almost anyway they see fit. I suppose that is the deep tribal animal in me railing against mind born of the Enlightenment. I suppose I just wish religion would lay down and die peacefully and let humanity find its own way at last, to let humanity grow up and be all it can be.

Quote from: "Tank"I suppose I just wish religion would lay down and die peacefully and let humanity find its own way at last, to let humanity grow up and be all it can be.

Please refudiate (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/palin-invents-word-compares-he.html) this.
 

:sigh:

Build the Mosque. Freedom of religion is necessary in a free society and guarantees people like us freedom from religion. If we don't allow a mosque today, we'll find ourselves on a slippery slope heading even faster toward theocracy. I certainly don't want that.

Anyway, it's not like all Muslims are somehow responsible for 9/11. I disagree with their belief system but not to a point where I'm going to start generalizing to that degree. 9/11 was perpetrated by hateful, ignorant, desperate people who happened to be Muslim. Their faith may have played a part in what they became, but that alone can't be the basis for condemning a billion people. I'm an environmentalist, but I would never commit acts of environmental terrorism.

Quote from: "Will"Build the Mosque. Freedom of religion is necessary in a free society and guarantees people like us freedom from religion. If we don't allow a mosque today, we'll find ourselves on a slippery slope heading even faster toward theocracy. I certainly don't want that.

Anyway, it's not like all Muslims are somehow responsible for 9/11. I disagree with their belief system but not to a point where I'm going to start generalizing to that degree. 9/11 was perpetrated by hateful, ignorant, desperate people who happened to be Muslim. Their faith may have played a part in what they became, but that alone can't be the basis for condemning a billion people. I'm an environmentalist, but I would never commit acts of environmental terrorism.

Yeah, exactly.  From the numbers I've seen (though I can't find the link right now, so correct me if I'm wrong) a fair amount of people who died in the incident were Muslim.  Not that that really matters, but to say that this was a Muslim attack that all Muslims supported is kind of crazy.  Do they not allow any Christian churches within a specific radius of the Oklahoma city bombing site?  Has that ever even come up?

Everyone here is talking about mixed feelings, and how they don't like the religion, but they support their freedom to practice and build whatever they want.  Am I the only Atheist who would genuinely love to see this mosque built.

Since 9/11 Muslims were a group of people that suddenly got alienated. It became acceptable, even a patriotic duty, to discriminate against American Muslims. I think that letting this mosque happen without half the country losing their damn minds would have been a show of solidarity. It's been 9 years, I think there should be some form of gesture that says: "We don't hate you guys anymore..." And allowing them to build this mosque, so close to where the damage was done, I think, would be a perfect way to do that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Islam is better than Christianity! I'm not a Muslim, but I love Islam. Osama bin Laden is kind of like the Islamic Fred Phelps, isn't he?

If the people don't want a mosque then don't build a mosque.  The buildings were literally torn down in the name of Islam.  If people are really upset about it then it's more trouble than it's worth. The world doesn't need another mosque anywhere let alone a stones throw away from ground zero.  It might be different if there was another shiny new set of buildings at the site, but it's still a hole, a wound--a mosque so near would be like salt in that wound.

Quote from: "KebertX"Everyone here is talking about mixed feelings, and how they don't like the religion, but they support their freedom to practice and build whatever they want.  Am I the only Atheist who would genuinely love to see this mosque built.

It should be built and there shouldn't be a controversy.  What scares me and upsets me is that we have become a nation of bigots.  Islam was all ready hated and feared before 9/11, it became exponentially worst after that, and now... you have this, garbage.  I had a best friend in college who was Islamic.  His home was destroyed when the two bombs went of in Dar El Salaam.  Thankfully, he and his family were all right.  He was at school.

It's just an excuse to fan the flames.

I don't have mix feelings supporting religious freedom, though.  Banning religion is committing social suicide.  Religious freedom, freedom from religion, and a secular government has given way to 230 years of relative peace.  Theocracy means constant death and war as is with the other extreme of banning all religion.

Quote from: "deekayfry"It should be built and there shouldn't be a controversy.  What scares me and upsets me is that we have become a nation of bigots.  Islam was all ready hated and feared before 9/11, it became exponentially worst after that, and now... you have this, garbage.  I had a best friend in college who was Islamic.  His home was destroyed when the two bombs went of in Dar El Salaam.  Thankfully, he and his family were all right.  He was at school.

It's just an excuse to fan the flames.

I don't have mix feelings supporting religious freedom, though.  Banning religion is committing social suicide.  Religious freedom, freedom from religion, and a secular government has given way to 230 years of relative peace.  Theocracy means constant death and war as is with the other extreme of banning all religion.

If there are two things I can't stand, it's Theocracy, and Literal Interpretations of Scripture!  I wasn't paying attention to American's attitude toward Islam before 9/11. But I have noticed a definite hypocracy toward the religion. A country embracing Christianity has no grounds to reject Islam.

I also have a lot of Muslim friends, and I can't think of another demographic who was done more harm by the terrorist attacks.  I would be really glad if this mosque was built. I'm tired of this anti Islamic bullcrap. If anyone needs to not be alienated these days, it's American Muslims.

I have Muslim friends also.  I don't think that they should be discriminated against at all.  However, not building a Mosque very near to ground zero is not the same as religious oppression.  It's not like I'm talking about burning down a Mosque, or aggressively trying to convert Muslims.  

Religion is silly.  The best we can do is limit the damage caused by it.  It seems to me that building a Mosque near ground zero might make people very angry.  Protecting this Mosque from Christian extremist might require a lot of time and energy.  However, not building it wouldn't cause nearly the same reaction.  Just doesn't seem worth the trouble for a meaningless gesture towards a meaningless religion.  Muslims are not going to feel any less discriminated against.

If we really want to do something about how people of Middle Eastern descent are treated, a change in foreign policy is needed. Being more respectful of their "holy land" seems a lot more fruitful.  Building the mosque is almost like saying, "see we don't hate Muslims" we have a Muslim friend.  All the while we shit all over them where it really counts.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I have Muslim friends also.  I don't think that they should be discriminated against at all.  However, not building a Mosque very near to ground zero is not the same as religious oppression.  It's not like I'm talking about burning down a Mosque, or aggressively trying to convert Muslims.  

The Constitution forbids the government from favoring any religion over the other.  If they own the land, it is zoned properly, and they have the necessary permits, any refusal by the government to allow the mosque would prima facie be discrimination; which is only a subtle form of persecution.

QuoteReligion is silly.  The best we can do is limit the damage caused by it.  It seems to me that building a Mosque near ground zero might make people very angry.  Protecting this Mosque from Christian extremist might require a lot of time and energy.  However, not building it wouldn't cause nearly the same reaction.  Just doesn't seem worth the trouble for a meaningless gesture towards a meaningless religion.  Muslims are not going to feel any less discriminated against.

In other words, let some freedoms get trampled when some folks threaten to throw a temper tantrum?

QuoteIf we really want to do something about how people of Middle Eastern descent are treated, a change in foreign policy is needed. Being more respectful of their "holy land" seems a lot more fruitful.  Building the mosque is almost like saying, "see we don't hate Muslims" we have a Muslim friend.  All the while we shit all over them where it really counts.

Our foreign policy leaves much to be desired, true; but if you were a Muslim living in Jeddah, how do you think you would feel if this were to be shut down?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The Constitution forbids the government from favoring any religion over the other.  If they own the land, it is zoned properly, and they have the necessary permits, any refusal by the government to allow the mosque would prima facie be discrimination; which is only a subtle form of persecution.

Legality aside, I've been discriminated against plenty of times, such is the reality when you live  in a white Christian nation.   I much prefer the subtle form of persecution to the real persecution (slavery) that my ancestors faced.  As far as the constitution, I didn't say build a church or a temple for Satanic worship.  If no houses of worship were allowed to be built, then there is no discrimination.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In other words, let some freedoms get trampled when some folks threaten to throw a temper tantrum?

Yes--absolutely--yes.  Don't show pictures of the Muslim prophet because somebody might die.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Our foreign policy leaves much to be desired, true; but if you were a Muslim living in Jeddah, how do you think you would feel if this were to be shut down?

Even if I was able to know all of the facts of the matter, and had sufficient knowledge of the US constitution, I still would most likely be more concerned about my day to day life than a building in NYC.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Even if I was able to know all of the facts of the matter, and had sufficient knowledge of the US constitution, I still would most likely be more concerned about my day to day life than a building in NYC.

The point is not the building.  It's the treatment of your fellow Muslims.  Surely you can see that.

Sure, day-to-day life would dominate the thoughts of most Muslims.  But the fact that their American brethren were being treated as second-class citizens would have far-reaching ramifications in foreign policy, in that no Arab government would trust us, say, to broker a peace deal between them and Israel; none would be more likely to entertain our pleadings to rein in the price of oil; none would be more likely to work with us in dismantling terrorist networks that are, after all, largely based in those countries.

And when the citenzenry there do look up from the drudgery of their own lives, they'll see what?  An America that espouses freedom while not granting it to people of their own faith.  They will see hypocrisy.

As an American, I don't want that to be the face of my country.

I was a staunch supporter of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day and the more I hear about this building and people making it out to be way more of a big deal than it ought to be, I am becoming a staunch supporter of this building being built.  I'm pro-freedom which includes people having the freedom to make fun of religious figures AND buy property and build places of worship that I personally think are silly or a waste of money or are even in bad taste.

One thing I think ought to be avoided at all costs is allowing fear of extremists of any kind to dictate our behavior.  Franklin said it best - Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Even if I was able to know all of the facts of the matter, and had sufficient knowledge of the US constitution, I still would most likely be more concerned about my day to day life than a building in NYC.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The point is not the building.  It's the treatment of your fellow Muslims.  Surely you can see that.

Sure, day-to-day life would dominate the thoughts of most Muslims.  But the fact that their American brethren were being treated as second-class citizens would have far-reaching ramifications in foreign policy, in that no Arab government would trust us, say, to broker a peace deal between them and Israel; none would be more likely to entertain our pleadings to rein in the price of oil; none would be more likely to work with us in dismantling terrorist networks that are, after all, largely based in those countries.

And when the citenzenry there do look up from the drudgery of their own lives, they'll see what?  An America that espouses freedom while not granting it to people of their own faith.  They will see hypocrisy.

As an American, I don't want that to be the face of my country.

Neither do I.   I just don't see how any Muslim is harmed by not putting a mosque somewhere. To me it's like saying that a stripper in Maine is somehow discriminated against because a neighborhood in Texas doesn't want a strip club in close proximity to a school.

This is one mosque on one block in a city that has lots of mosques in a state with lots of mosques in a country with lots of mosques.  The US is hypocritical in many ways, I don't think that this mosque will serve to change that perception whether it's built or not.  If it is was to be blocked it would happen on some legal ground.  It wouldn't be a case of the state saying "Muslims don't deserve equal rights".  As I stated before, the city could forbid any house of worship from being built on that site and there is no longer any hypocrisy.

We can make far reaching assumptions about who might feel what where, but you and I both know for a fact that some very irrational people in NYC will be deeply hurt by this.  I'm more than a little scared of what they might do. I'm more concerned for Muslims who might be harmed in a mosque bombing than the potential feelings of Muslim in the Middle East.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I was a staunch supporter of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day and the more I hear about this building and people making it out to be way more of a big deal than it ought to be, I am becoming a staunch supporter of this building being built.  I'm pro-freedom which includes people having the freedom to make fun of religious figures AND buy property and build places of worship that I personally think are silly or a waste of money or are even in bad taste.

One thing I think ought to be avoided at all costs is allowing fear of extremists of any kind to dictate our behavior.  Franklin said it best - Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

"...avoided at all costs..."  Really?  Franklin was wrong.  Have you been to an airport in the last 9 years?  Of course people's actions are affected by those who could kill them.  You wouldn't dare draw Mohammad on YouTube for the world to see.  I'm not daring you to do it, I'd actually beg you not to.  If you were to do it, you'd hide your identity and whereabouts which kind of defeats the whole standing up to extremists point of it.

  I'm a staunch believer in "I don't like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it".  However, if there was a plan to build a KKK museum next to the site where Martin Luther King was shot and they found some legal way to stop it from happening, I wouldn't mind one bit.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Even if I was able to know all of the facts of the matter, and had sufficient knowledge of the US constitution, I still would most likely be more concerned about my day to day life than a building in NYC.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The point is not the building.  It's the treatment of your fellow Muslims.  Surely you can see that.

Sure, day-to-day life would dominate the thoughts of most Muslims.  But the fact that their American brethren were being treated as second-class citizens would have far-reaching ramifications in foreign policy, in that no Arab government would trust us, say, to broker a peace deal between them and Israel; none would be more likely to entertain our pleadings to rein in the price of oil; none would be more likely to work with us in dismantling terrorist networks that are, after all, largely based in those countries.

And when the citenzenry there do look up from the drudgery of their own lives, they'll see what?  An America that espouses freedom while not granting it to people of their own faith.  They will see hypocrisy.

As an American, I don't want that to be the face of my country.

Neither do I.   I just don't see how any Muslim is harmed by not putting a mosque somewhere. To me it's like saying that a stripper in Maine is somehow discriminated against because a neighborhood in Texas doesn't want a strip club in close proximity to a school.

This is one mosque on one block in a city that has lots of mosques in a state with lots of mosques in a country with lots of mosques.  The US is hypocritical in many ways, I don't think that this mosque will serve to change that perception whether it's built or not.  If it is was to be blocked it would happen on some legal ground.  It wouldn't be a case of the state saying "Muslims don't deserve equal rights".  As I stated before, the city could forbid any house of worship from being built on that site and there is no longer any hypocrisy.

We can make far reaching assumptions about who might feel what where, but you and I both know for a fact that some very irrational people in NYC will be deeply hurt by this.  I'm more than a little scared of what they might do. I'm more concerned for Muslims who might be harmed in a mosque bombing than the potential feelings of Muslim in the Middle East.

If it is legal to build it then they can build it, end of story. The underlined is a perfect slippery slope argument. If not this mosque/church/museum then why not the next one or the next one ore the next one?

"If it's legal they can build it..." Tank, you and I agree on that point.  In fact it's not really a point to agree on, it's like agreeing on the sun coming up.  My point was that I could see the reasoning behind trying to fight this legally.  Conversely, if a court ruled that it was illegal, then they can't build it.  Questions of law aren't decided on the internet, on television, or in online forums.

My thing is this. It seems to me that the people bitching and moaning the most are the hyper-religious. Let them bitch and moan, and arrest them if any harm comes to the building, or individuals entering the building. I hope it will be beautiful when it's build, I might wanna visit it some time.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I was a staunch supporter of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day and the more I hear about this building and people making it out to be way more of a big deal than it ought to be, I am becoming a staunch supporter of this building being built.  I'm pro-freedom which includes people having the freedom to make fun of religious figures AND buy property and build places of worship that I personally think are silly or a waste of money or are even in bad taste.

One thing I think ought to be avoided at all costs is allowing fear of extremists of any kind to dictate our behavior.  Franklin said it best - Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

"...avoided at all costs..."  Really?  Franklin was wrong.  Have you been to an airport in the last 9 years?  Of course people's actions are affected by those who could kill them.  You wouldn't dare draw Mohammad on YouTube for the world to see.  I'm not daring you to do it, I'd actually beg you not to.  If you were to do it, you'd hide your identity and whereabouts which kind of defeats the whole standing up to extremists point of it.

  I'm a staunch believer in "I don't like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it".  However, if there was a plan to build a KKK museum next to the site where Martin Luther King was shot and they found some legal way to stop it from happening, I wouldn't mind one bit.

Haha, wow - can you tell me what I would dare or not dare to do in any given hypothetical, or does your intimate knowledge of me only extend to this subject?  Point being, don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do - you don't know me well enough to make those kinds of judgments about me.  I didn't draw Mo' on youtube, but I drew a pic and posted it on my blog where my email - which is my legal name - is also posted.  I'm not interested in wasting my life being afraid of bullies, even crazy bullies with guns.  You do realize what happens when people start augmenting their behavior out of fear of terrorism, right?  More terrorism!  If it's an effective way to control people, it will gain popularity in use and I have no interest in fostering that.  Increased security at an airport is not the same as not allowing a building to be built.  If airports were shut down completely against the owner's will, your analogy in this case might be valid.

Equating a KKK museum being built next to the site where MLK was shot to a Mosque being built two blocks away from the WTC site is frankly ridiculous.  The only way, in that dense area of the city, anyone might tie a building that far away to the WTC site is if they were trying to.  So I guess that's why the question keeps being raised - what's the real reason people have an issue with this being built?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Neither do I.   I just don't see how any Muslim is harmed by not putting a mosque somewhere. To me it's like saying that a stripper in Maine is somehow discriminated against because a neighborhood in Texas doesn't want a strip club in close proximity to a school.

This is one mosque on one block in a city that has lots of mosques in a state with lots of mosques in a country with lots of mosques.  The US is hypocritical in many ways, I don't think that this mosque will serve to change that perception whether it's built or not.  If it is was to be blocked it would happen on some legal ground.  It wouldn't be a case of the state saying "Muslims don't deserve equal rights".  As I stated before, the city could forbid any house of worship from being built on that site and there is no longer any hypocrisy.

We can make far reaching assumptions about who might feel what where, but you and I both know for a fact that some very irrational people in NYC will be deeply hurt by this.  I'm more than a little scared of what they might do. I'm more concerned for Muslims who might be harmed in a mosque bombing than the potential feelings of Muslim in the Middle East.

It's too late for that though. This has already gone all over the news, and Americans have expressed utter outrage and disgust towards the mosque.  NOW we're being hypocrites. We're doing it because they're Muslims. That's the only reason proximity to ground zero is an issue. That's the only reason people across the country even give a shit. They're Muslims, building a place for Muslims to congregate, and propagate Islam, and they're close to a place where anti-Islamic hate was deeply entrenched in the American mindset.

Who cares? It's just an Islamic center, right? It wouldn't matter to me either way if it were built, except now we've demonstrated an initial rejection of Islam. Now we've basically said, "NO! You can't do that, you're the people we hate! YOU'RE the ethnic group that did this to us!  Now get away, we don't want you here anymore!" Holding this mosque up any more is just wrong.

It's too late to say that we're not discriminating against them, and too late to say we're not being hypocrites. The only positive course of action relevant to this mosque is to let it get built and move on.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I was a staunch supporter of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day and the more I hear about this building and people making it out to be way more of a big deal than it ought to be, I am becoming a staunch supporter of this building being built.  I'm pro-freedom which includes people having the freedom to make fun of religious figures AND buy property and build places of worship that I personally think are silly or a waste of money or are even in bad taste.

One thing I think ought to be avoided at all costs is allowing fear of extremists of any kind to dictate our behavior.  Franklin said it best - Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

"...avoided at all costs..."  Really?  Franklin was wrong.  Have you been to an airport in the last 9 years?  Of course people's actions are affected by those who could kill them.  You wouldn't dare draw Mohammad on YouTube for the world to see.  I'm not daring you to do it, I'd actually beg you not to.  If you were to do it, you'd hide your identity and whereabouts which kind of defeats the whole standing up to extremists point of it.

  I'm a staunch believer in "I don't like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it".  However, if there was a plan to build a KKK museum next to the site where Martin Luther King was shot and they found some legal way to stop it from happening, I wouldn't mind one bit.

Lol, My friend Abdul (Muslim) didn't just draw Muhammad for "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day," he personally spread the word and got about 100+ other people to draw him too. At least 80% of the Muslims in the world are... sane.

You can't compare Islam to the KKK. The KKK is a domestic terrorist organization, Islam is a religion. Despite stereotypes, actually a peaceful religion.  I can understand how people who live in Theocratic societies in the Middle East feeling angry or frustrated with the state of the world.  I wouldn't go so far as to call it brainwashing, but when everyone in your society has the exact same beliefs and values, and you have powerful figure-heads telling you that dissent is unacceptable... It breeds anger towards us infidels.

I feel sorry for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and anyone in the Middle East who has been convinced to harbor hate towards others by a manipulative society. That's the real injustice, when people use an otherwise good religion to purposely breed hatred in people's minds. But most Muslims don't live in the Middle East. Most Muslims are sensible people who believe in nonviolence and a simple elegant oneness of God.

The ONLY problem I see with Islam is the fact that God doesn't exist. If people are blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, or threatening people who leave the religion with violence, then they're doing it wrong.  Those are such non-Muslim things to do, and it's not fair that those behaviors should be representative of the religion. The Extremist Minority who yells the loudest is sadly the one that is heard the most.

So that's my lecture about how Islam is misunderstood. It's a really nice religion, as far as I'm concerned.  So I fully support the building of the Ground Zero Mosque. I'd be glad to see it built!

Fun Fact of the Day: The Qu'ran gives more rights to women than the Bible!

Quote from: "humblesmorph"Neither do I.   I just don't see how any Muslim is harmed by not putting a mosque somewhere. To me it's like saying that a stripper in Maine is somehow discriminated against because a neighborhood in Texas doesn't want a strip club in close proximity to a school.

Your analogy fails on two levels, because, while there are not New Englanders affected by Texas law, there are Muslims who would be affected by, not a law, but by an unConstitutional act.

QuoteThis is one mosque on one block in a city that has lots of mosques in a state with lots of mosques in a country with lots of mosques.  The US is hypocritical in many ways, I don't think that this mosque will serve to change that perception whether it's built or not.  If it is was to be blocked it would happen on some legal ground.  It wouldn't be a case of the state saying "Muslims don't deserve equal rights".  As I stated before, the city could forbid any house of worship from being built on that site and there is no longer any hypocrisy.

The problem with your argument is that there are no legal bars to this mosque of which I am aware.  Given that case, declaring that it isn't discrimination if we bar all religious buildings would still be wrong -- unConstitutionally so -- , because if the lot is zoned for religious use and we change the zoning because of an Islamic project, we are still violating the Establishment Clause, arguably.  That's a case that I, a layman, would feel comfortable arguing in a court.

QuoteWe can make far reaching assumptions about who might feel what where, but you and I both know for a fact that some very irrational people in NYC will be deeply hurt by this.  I'm more than a little scared of what they might do. I'm more concerned for Muslims who might be harmed in a mosque bombing than the potential feelings of Muslim in the Middle East.

I am much more concerned about the integrity of our Constitution than either issue listed in this paragraph.  Denying Muslims the right to legally build mosques where they have previously been allowed would establish, as Tank has implied, a fearful precedent.  The government has no business regulating religion.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I was a staunch supporter of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day and the more I hear about this building and people making it out to be way more of a big deal than it ought to be, I am becoming a staunch supporter of this building being built.  I'm pro-freedom which includes people having the freedom to make fun of religious figures AND buy property and build places of worship that I personally think are silly or a waste of money or are even in bad taste.

One thing I think ought to be avoided at all costs is allowing fear of extremists of any kind to dictate our behavior.  Franklin said it best - Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

"...avoided at all costs..."  Really?  Franklin was wrong.  Have you been to an airport in the last 9 years?  Of course people's actions are affected by those who could kill them.  You wouldn't dare draw Mohammad on YouTube for the world to see.  I'm not daring you to do it, I'd actually beg you not to.  If you were to do it, you'd hide your identity and whereabouts which kind of defeats the whole standing up to extremists point of it.

  I'm a staunch believer in "I don't like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it".  However, if there was a plan to build a KKK museum next to the site where Martin Luther King was shot and they found some legal way to stop it from happening, I wouldn't mind one bit.

Haha, wow - can you tell me what I would dare or not dare to do in any given hypothetical, or does your intimate knowledge of me only extend to this subject?  Point being, don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do - you don't know me well enough to make those kinds of judgments about me.  I didn't draw Mo' on youtube, but I drew a pic and posted it on my blog where my email - which is my legal name - is also posted.  I'm not interested in wasting my life being afraid of bullies, even crazy bullies with guns.  You do realize what happens when people start augmenting their behavior out of fear of terrorism, right?  More terrorism!  If it's an effective way to control people, it will gain popularity in use and I have no interest in fostering that.  Increased security at an airport is not the same as not allowing a building to be built.  If airports were shut down completely against the owner's will, your analogy in this case might be valid.

Equating a KKK museum being built next to the site where MLK was shot to a Mosque being built two blocks away from the WTC site is frankly ridiculous.  The only way, in that dense area of the city, anyone might tie a building that far away to the WTC site is if they were trying to.  So I guess that's why the question keeps being raised - what's the real reason people have an issue with this being built?

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?  

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.

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.  

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.

Quote from: "humblesmorph"Neither do I.   I just don't see how any Muslim is harmed by not putting a mosque somewhere. To me it's like saying that a stripper in Maine is somehow discriminated against because a neighborhood in Texas doesn't want a strip club in close proximity to a school.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Your analogy fails on two levels, because, while there are not New Englanders affected by Texas law, there are Muslims who would be affected by, not a law, but by an unConstitutional act.

QuoteThis is one mosque on one block in a city that has lots of mosques in a state with lots of mosques in a country with lots of mosques.  The US is hypocritical in many ways, I don't think that this mosque will serve to change that perception whether it's built or not.  If it is was to be blocked it would happen on some legal ground.  It wouldn't be a case of the state saying "Muslims don't deserve equal rights".  As I stated before, the city could forbid any house of worship from being built on that site and there is no longer any hypocrisy.

The problem with your argument is that there are no legal bars to this mosque of which I am aware.  Given that case, declaring that it isn't discrimination if we bar all religious buildings would still be wrong -- unConstitutionally so -- , because if the lot is zoned for religious use and we change the zoning because of an Islamic project, we are still violating the Establishment Clause, arguably.  That's a case that I, a layman, would feel comfortable arguing in a court.

QuoteWe can make far reaching assumptions about who might feel what where, but you and I both know for a fact that some very irrational people in NYC will be deeply hurt by this.  I'm more than a little scared of what they might do. I'm more concerned for Muslims who might be harmed in a mosque bombing than the potential feelings of Muslim in the Middle East.

I am much more concerned about the integrity of our Constitution than either issue listed in this paragraph.  Denying Muslims the right to legally build mosques where they have previously been allowed would establish, as Tank has implied, a fearful precedent.  The government has no business regulating religion.

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.  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. 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 sated in an earlier post, courts are where legal decisions are made.  I never suggested denying anybody their due process of the law.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Neither do I.   I just don't see how any Muslim is harmed by not putting a mosque somewhere. To me it's like saying that a stripper in Maine is somehow discriminated against because a neighborhood in Texas doesn't want a strip club in close proximity to a school.

This is one mosque on one block in a city that has lots of mosques in a state with lots of mosques in a country with lots of mosques.  The US is hypocritical in many ways, I don't think that this mosque will serve to change that perception whether it's built or not.  If it is was to be blocked it would happen on some legal ground.  It wouldn't be a case of the state saying "Muslims don't deserve equal rights".  As I stated before, the city could forbid any house of worship from being built on that site and there is no longer any hypocrisy.

We can make far reaching assumptions about who might feel what where, but you and I both know for a fact that some very irrational people in NYC will be deeply hurt by this.  I'm more than a little scared of what they might do. I'm more concerned for Muslims who might be harmed in a mosque bombing than the potential feelings of Muslim in the Middle East.

It's too late for that though. This has already gone all over the news, and Americans have expressed utter outrage and disgust towards the mosque.  NOW we're being hypocrites. We're doing it because they're Muslims. That's the only reason proximity to ground zero is an issue. That's the only reason people across the country even give a shit. They're Muslims, building a place for Muslims to congregate, and propagate Islam, and they're close to a place where anti-Islamic hate was deeply entrenched in the American mindset.

Who cares? It's just an Islamic center, right? It wouldn't matter to me either way if it were built, except now we've demonstrated an initial rejection of Islam. Now we've basically said, "NO! You can't do that, you're the people we hate! YOU'RE the ethnic group that did this to us!  Now get away, we don't want you here anymore!" Holding this mosque up any more is just wrong.

It's too late to say that we're not discriminating against them, and too late to say we're not being hypocrites. The only positive course of action relevant to this mosque is to let it get built and move on.

I'm saddened that some of the  US public has expressed utter outrage, I hope they are in the minority. I don't know any people who hate Muslims. I know people who discriminate against people who look like they are from the middle east, but they don't really care what direction they pray in.  I suspect it's not hatred of Islam that is at the root of all this, it's hatred of foreign brown people.  Doesn't really matter why though, this is a democracy and voices (however stupid) must be at least listened to.  My only point was that people fight when strip clubs or prisons or land fills are slotted to come to their neighborhoods (even if they might actually improve the economy), this doesn't seem any different.  

 It's not just an arbitrary decision.  If it's legal it will be built.  We are bound by our laws.

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.  

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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!

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.  

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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!

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

QuoteYou 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?

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "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 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.

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

OK

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

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.

Quote from: "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".

QuoteJust 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.

QuoteI 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).  

QuoteIt 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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "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".

QuoteJust 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.

QuoteI 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).  

QuoteIt 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I refuse to believe that 50% of NYC residents are just ignorant bigots.

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

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I refuse to believe that 50% of NYC residents are just ignorant bigots.

Quote from: "Davin"Never refuse to believe anything, just look at the data.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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?

Quote from: "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."

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Davin, do you think that it is wrong to allow these people to make their  case in court?

Quote from: "Davin"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?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I meant the people opposed to the Islamic center.  Should the people opposed to the project be able to present their case?

Yes, and I hope the judge throws it out and fines them for wasting the court's time.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Nor did I say he was that.  You're mighty fond of erecting straw-men, ain't you?

QuoteSo 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.

You're right, the Internet is private, too; I mean, we wouldn't think of discussing it in, say, a forum, now would we?  Also, your last sentence is a pretty obvious excluded-middle fallacy.

To answer the legitimate part of your question: not if bringing it to court entails an attempt to stifle the freedom of conscience of American citizens, via undue burden, such as an Establishment-Clause lawsuit against the City of New York would be in this case; such a lawsuit could only arise in the event the rights of the Muslims were thought to have been abrogated.

Quite plainly, the public is not courageous.  This very issue proves that they often take counsel in their fears.

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?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I meant the people opposed to the Islamic center.  Should the people opposed to the project be able to present their case?

Quote from: "Davin"Yes, and I hope the judge throws it out and fines them for wasting the court's time.

I would bet large sums of money that it gets thrown out.  

The mosque will get built, and the scared bigots will have had their say.  If them having their say can somehow ease the feeling of this thing being forced down their throat, what's the harm?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"If them having their say can somehow ease the feeling of this thing being forced down their throat, what's the harm?

Then their feelings are what need to change, not the world changing around their feelings. It can only be good for them to realize that they shouldn't rely on their feelings so much. So no unreasonable harm I can see.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Nor did I say he was that.  You're mighty fond of erecting straw-men, ain't you?

QuoteSo 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.

You're right, the Internet is private, too; I mean, we wouldn't think of discussing it in, say, a forum, now would we?  Also, your last sentence is a pretty obvious excluded-middle fallacy.

To answer the legitimate part of your question: not if bringing it to court entails an attempt to stifle the freedom of conscience of American citizens, via undue burden, such as an Establishment-Clause lawsuit against the City of New York would be in this case; such a lawsuit could only arise in the event the rights of the Muslims were thought to have been abrogated.

Quite plainly, the public is not courageous.  This very issue proves that they often take counsel in their fears.

I didn't say anything about what you thought of Franklin, I was stating my opinion of the man.  

Our discussion has absolutely no bearing on the issue.  This forum has no power. I don't see an excluded middle fallacy. Legal matters are handled in courts.  This is a legal matter.

Apparently, a firefighter backed by Pat Robertson is suing to have this stopped. Are you saying he should not be allowed to bring his case before a judge?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"They're Muslims, building a place for Muslims to congregate, and propagate Islam, and they're close to a place where anti-Islamic hate was deeply entrenched in the American mindset.

Says what?  I don't know the particulars, but that broad generalization needs to be checked.  The Center could be very likely set in a neighborhood with a majority of people who are Islamic.  It would make sense if it were.  Usually places of worship reflect the population that surrounds it.

QuoteWho cares? It's just an Islamic center, right? It wouldn't matter to me either way if it were built, except now we've demonstrated an initial rejection of Islam. Now we've basically said, "NO! You can't do that, you're the people we hate! YOU'RE the ethnic group that did this to us!  Now get away, we don't want you here anymore!" Holding this mosque up any more is just wrong.

Now you say this, yet oddly all your responses prior have expressed something entirely different.

QuoteIt's too late to say that we're not discriminating against them, and too late to say we're not being hypocrites. The only positive course of action relevant to this mosque is to let it get built and move on.

You switch position.  I am all for changing viewpoints, but you are merely re-phrasing what we say.

QuoteI'm saddened that some of the  US public has expressed utter outrage, I hope they are in the minority.

What you say here contradicts what your overall expression within this post.

QuoteI don't know any people who hate Muslims.

I find that hard to believe, but keep reading onto the next quote.

QuoteI know people who discriminate against people who look like they are from the middle east,

You just said you don't know anyone who hate Muslims.  Yet, you know people who discriminate people from the Middle East.  You present a fallacy.  Not all people from the Middle East are Muslim.
Discrimination based on looks is awful.  A person is then judged by color, stereotypes, and prejudice as oppose to morals, personality, and attitude.

 

Quotebut they don't really care what direction they pray in.

If you refer to devote followers of Islam, you are very sadly mistaken, and although I am atheist, it is very insulting to my friends who practice this faith.  The call to prayer, and the direction they must face is a bedrock of their beliefs and is every bit equal to Holy Communion having bread and wine and not anything else.

 

QuoteI suspect it's not hatred of Islam that is at the root of all this, it's hatred of foreign brown people.

Your generalization is very stereotypical.
Also, not all Islamic followers are "brown."  Just like EVERY other faith in the world, the people who represent them come from all forms of heritages and ethnic groups, shapes, and sizes.   This is the beauty of diversity.

QuoteDoesn't really matter why though, this is a democracy and voices

Good point, people who are against that Mosque have the right to speak against it, and even the right to fight it, but their basis and reasoning has no legal weight.  My personal concern is that our politicians are fervently fanning the flames to score political points just before election, and we as stupid little sheep are drooling and fawning all over it.

QuoteMy only point was that people fight when strip clubs or prisons or land fills are slotted to come to their neighborhoods (even if they might actually improve the economy), this doesn't seem any different.

If they don't seem any different, then how are they are similar?  How about this?  The DISTINCT difference is that a Mosque, Church, Synagogue, Kingdom Hall, Church of Latter Day Saints are places of worship.  A landfill and a strip joint are business enterprises as in commerce.  As for the places of worship, the First Amendment is rather clear on this, see the Free Exercise Clause.  Then back up into the Constitution and read the Interstate Commerce Clause as to the basic right of government regulating commerce.

QuoteIt's not just an arbitrary decision.  If it's legal it will be built.  We are bound by our laws.

As for arbitrary, we have the courts to weigh on this.  The courts decide whether it is legal or not.

Oh man, thanks DK, I feel like I'm not even talking about the topic anymore, just constantly re-directing de-rails back to the subject, only to be pulled in some other direction.  Also, sorry if I added to the de-railing, I'm not very good at ignoring small points in order to stay on topic.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Also, sorry if I added to the de-railing, I'm not very good at ignoring small points in order to stay on topic.  :|

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I didn't say anything about what you thought of Franklin, I was stating my opinion of the man.

It was implied in contrast.

QuoteOur discussion has absolutely no bearing on the issue.  This forum has no power.

It's a public discussion.  

QuoteI don't see an excluded middle fallacy. Legal matters are handled in courts.  This is a legal matter.

Apparently, a firefighter backed by Pat Robertson is suing to have this stopped. Are you saying he should not be allowed to bring his case before a judge?

I was unaware of such a suit.  Could you link to it?  Now that it is a legal matter, my comment about an excluded-middle is certainly superceded.

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?

Quote from: "deekayfry"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"They're Muslims, building a place for Muslims to congregate, and propagate Islam, and they're close to a place where anti-Islamic hate was deeply entrenched in the American mindset.

Says what?  I don't know the particulars, but that broad generalization needs to be checked.  The Center could be very likely set in a neighborhood with a majority of people who are Islamic.  It would make sense if it were.  Usually places of worship reflect the population that surrounds it.

QuoteWho cares? It's just an Islamic center, right? It wouldn't matter to me either way if it were built, except now we've demonstrated an initial rejection of Islam. Now we've basically said, "NO! You can't do that, you're the people we hate! YOU'RE the ethnic group that did this to us!  Now get away, we don't want you here anymore!" Holding this mosque up any more is just wrong.

Now you say this, yet oddly all your responses prior have expressed something entirely different.

QuoteIt's too late to say that we're not discriminating against them, and too late to say we're not being hypocrites. The only positive course of action relevant to this mosque is to let it get built and move on.

You switch position.  I am all for changing viewpoints, but you are merely re-phrasing what we say.

QuoteI'm saddened that some of the  US public has expressed utter outrage, I hope they are in the minority.

What you say here contradicts what your overall expression within this post.

QuoteI don't know any people who hate Muslims.

I find that hard to believe, but keep reading onto the next quote.

QuoteI know people who discriminate against people who look like they are from the middle east,

You just said you don't know anyone who hate Muslims.  Yet, you know people who discriminate people from the Middle East.  You present a fallacy.  Not all people from the Middle East are Muslim.
Discrimination based on looks is awful.  A person is then judged by color, stereotypes, and prejudice as oppose to morals, personality, and attitude.

 

Quotebut they don't really care what direction they pray in.

If you refer to devote followers of Islam, you are very sadly mistaken, and although I am atheist, it is very insulting to my friends who practice this faith.  The call to prayer, and the direction they must face is a bedrock of their beliefs and is every bit equal to Holy Communion having bread and wine and not anything else.

 

QuoteI suspect it's not hatred of Islam that is at the root of all this, it's hatred of foreign brown people.

Your generalization is very stereotypical.
Also, not all Islamic followers are "brown."  Just like EVERY other faith in the world, the people who represent them come from all forms of heritages and ethnic groups, shapes, and sizes.   This is the beauty of diversity.

QuoteDoesn't really matter why though, this is a democracy and voices

Good point, people who are against that Mosque have the right to speak against it, and even the right to fight it, but their basis and reasoning has no legal weight.  My personal concern is that our politicians are fervently fanning the flames to score political points just before election, and we as stupid little sheep are drooling and fawning all over it.

QuoteMy only point was that people fight when strip clubs or prisons or land fills are slotted to come to their neighborhoods (even if they might actually improve the economy), this doesn't seem any different.

If they don't seem any different, then how are they are similar?  How about this?  The DISTINCT difference is that a Mosque, Church, Synagogue, Kingdom Hall, Church of Latter Day Saints are places of worship.  A landfill and a strip joint are business enterprises as in commerce.  As for the places of worship, the First Amendment is rather clear on this, see the Free Exercise Clause.  Then back up into the Constitution and read the Interstate Commerce Clause as to the basic right of government regulating commerce.

QuoteIt's not just an arbitrary decision.  If it's legal it will be built.  We are bound by our laws.

As for arbitrary, we have the courts to weigh on this.  The courts decide whether it is legal or not.

I've been misquoted here.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I didn't say anything about what you thought of Franklin, I was stating my opinion of the man.

It was implied in contrast.

QuoteOur discussion has absolutely no bearing on the issue.  This forum has no power.

It's a public discussion.  

QuoteI don't see an excluded middle fallacy. Legal matters are handled in courts.  This is a legal matter.

Apparently, a firefighter backed by Pat Robertson is suing to have this stopped. Are you saying he should not be allowed to bring his case before a judge?

I was unaware of such a suit.  Could you link to it?  Now that it is a legal matter, my comment about an excluded-middle is certainly superceded.

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?

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

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

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

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I was unaware of such a suit.  Could you link to it?

This (http://portal.tds.net/news/read.php?id=18050884&ps=1011&srce=news_class&action=9&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_USNWU00L9_UNEWS&page=2) is the most detailed story about the lawsuit I've seen so far.

Of course Robertson's group would have no standing attempting to stop the community center/mosque simply because of what it is.  Rather they are trying to say that the building which the Cordoba Initiative wants to tear down to make way for the mosque should have been protected as historical. (The NYC landmarks commission having already ruled that the building could be torn down.)

QuoteThe law center argues it deserves landmark status for its architectural features â€" and for its newer historical significance as a structure that withstood being hit by debris from one of the hijacked jetliners used in the terrorist attacks.

"The building is the only building of its kind that links the growth of American free enterprise to the present-day events and the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, events which stand as a testament to economic, social and political freedom in the face of violence," Joshpe wrote.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Look it up. It's easy.  Ground Zero Pat Robertson.

Thanks for your assistance.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteSaying 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.

QuoteWhat 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.  

QuoteTo 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.

QuoteThat 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.

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

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

QuotePeople 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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Look it up. It's easy.  Ground Zero Pat Robertson.

Thanks for your assistance.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteSaying 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.

QuoteWhat 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.  

QuoteTo 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.

QuoteThat 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.

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

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

QuotePeople 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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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.

Quote from: "Thump"Given that I've made my commitment to the inviolabilty of personal rights plain ...

Quote from: "humblesmorph"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.

QuoteYou 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?"

QuoteWe 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.

QuoteI'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.

QuoteI 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.

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

Talk about derailing  :P

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?

Quote from: "deekayfry"Yada, yada, yada... due process, blah blah, proportional and congruence test...  Imputation, inviolable right...  *tsk* *tsk* *tsk*

Talk about derailing  :P

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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/poll-islam-negative-britain)

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

Quote from: "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

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.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/28/14850246.html)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -veil.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/7882785/Europeans-back-burka-ban-Americans-oppose-outlawing-Muslim-veil.html)

Obama defends right to build mosque near 9/11 site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973459)

QuoteUS 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...

I am disappointed with Sam Harris' response to this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/). 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html?hp) - 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.

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?

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?

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.

Quote from: "Sophus"I am disappointed with Sam Harris' response to this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/). 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html?hp) - 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!

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

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

The Hitch is still at it! Here is Christopher Hitchens' thoughts on the mosque (http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/) 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.  

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

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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 (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/i_dont_care_about_a_mosquecomm.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29&utm_content=Twitter):

QuoteJerry 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. (http://www.overcompensating.com/posts/20100816.html)

Great minds don't think alike?

I tend to see this more as a serious concern because it is a threat to Constitution (http://www.slate.com/id/2263208/).

QuoteI'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.

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.

Quote from: "Sophus"I tend to see this more as a serious concern because it is a threat to Constitution (http://www.slate.com/id/2263208/).

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 ... "

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Sophus"I tend to see this more as a serious concern because it is a threat to Constitution (http://www.slate.com/id/2263208/).

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 ... "

QuoteI'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.

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

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.

Quote from: "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:34h0etap]Ground Zero Mosque[/strike:34h0etap] Park51 Community Center, do happen. The Constitution is useless if it is not upheld.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "deekayfry"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.

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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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!

President Obama said this,

Quote"[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.

Turns out all this kerfuffle was over nothing...

Quote from: "Slate Magazine"Bill Kristol may win this round. On Wednesday, the conservative columnist stated plainly, "There will be no thirteen-story mosque near Ground Zero." He's probably rightâ€"not because the political panic-mongering is going to shut the project down, but because it's going to collapse under the weight of its planners' incompetence. Politico reports that the Cordoba Project hasn't even begun raising money for the project. The group needs about $100 million; it has $18,255. It also lacks "even the most basic real estate essentials," like a blueprint, an architect, and an engineer. The group's spokesman says that while they might build the cultural center with foreign money, they would prefer to use domestic funds. But "currently, they have none of either." And they're not likely to come up with much, either in the way of cash or professional expertise, with their project in the middle of a political flame war. Even a source who Politico described as a "prominent supporter of the project" is less than impressed. "This is amateur hour," he said. "That's why the idea that this is some big conspiracy is so silly. You could say this is not a well-oiled machine."

Hmm.  Almost makes you wonder which source broke this story originally, and why.

I'm all for the building of this mosque.  To me, it makes no sense to punish a majority for the sins of a few extremists.  Muslims have every right to celebrate their faith the same way a Christian or a Jew or any other person of another faith would.  To discriminate against them is not only illegal, but bigoted as well.  If anything, I'd be happy to see them take a stand and show that they don't agree with the actions of those terrorists who organized 9/11, and show Americans how true Muslims worship.

On a semi-related note, both inappropriate and maybe a little funny, my friend's dad said, Well, they let Catholics build churches near playgrounds, don't they?  

Quote from: "philosoraptor"On a semi-related note, both inappropriate and maybe a little funny, my friend's dad said, Well, they let Catholics build churches near playgrounds, don't they?  lol

hahahahah

An excellent opinion article about the Burn Quaran Day.  Just imagine all this over a building in downtown New York.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/20/ahmed.quran.burning/index.html?hpt=Mid

The author makes good points of tolerance and understanding and intolerance.  Rather I should say he pleading for tolerance. He sheds light on a cause for concern as this is a slippery slope.  The pastor is now suggesting a day for burning the Talmud.

This is something that physically disgust me.  The name of the church where this burning will take place?

Dove World Outreach Center

Disgusting.

The act itself is one thing, a freedom of expression, but to stand behind a sign that says "Dove World Outreach Center", and flagrantly display an act that runs completely counter of the name of the place of worship (or rather I should say rule over) is purely disgusting.

Disgusting is far too kind of a word.

It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

There are already two churches right across from ground zero and one of them is Catholic. This community center would be two blocks away, not even visible from the site. It doesn't look as though it's going to be built anywhere but I find what you have said to be disrespectful to the peaceful muslims who condemn the actions of those you are likening them to, by not discerning between the radicals and the moderates whatsoever.

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

Who is this "they" you speak of?  The terrorists?  They're dead.  Muslims in general?  Be careful of your ground, then.  You, as a Catholic, could by the same logic be called a supporter of pedophilia.

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

It's completely disrespectful to assume that everyone who lost someone in 9/11 is of a faith that prays in churches, or of any faith at all.

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

At least at a community center, there are ways to make use of your time that are productive and beneficial.  Giving people a place to pray is like giving people a place to waste effort.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

At least at a community center, there are ways to make use of your time that are productive and beneficial.  Giving people a place to pray is like giving people a place to waste effort.

An excellent point here.

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

But the Muslim God is the correct God, in the eyes of Muslims, so why should they build a church?

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

Hmm, someone hasn't ready anything in the thread in which he/she just posted.

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

What is disrespectful about building a place of worship wherever it may be?  How is a group of Muslims who wish to erect this center disrespect9/11, when they had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place?

Quote from: "Sophus"Turns out all this kerfuffle was over nothing...

One time I farted and it sounded like Barry White saying "kerfuffle" while eating a subway sandwich.
/end threadjack

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

Is it? Well, so is indoctrinating children into silly superstitions, discriminating against women, gays and everyone who dares to think for themselves or is a member of a different tribe, talking on the phone while at the register in a store, taking up three seats in a full city bus by yourself and a bunch of other things. We live with those - why should we not live with another mosque?

'Sides, it's unlikely to get airplaned by Al Quaida again what with that nice shiney crescent moon at the top to warn all the hijacked airliners to steer clear...

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "pc4lf"It's completely disrespectful. If anything they should build a church so family's of victims can pray.

Is it? Well, so is indoctrinating children into silly superstitions, discriminating against women, gays and everyone who dares to think for themselves or is a member of a different tribe, talking on the phone while at the register in a store, taking up three seats in a full city bus by yourself and a bunch of other things. We live with those - why should we not live with another mosque?

'Sides, it's unlikely to get airplaned by Al Quaida again what with that nice shiney crescent moon at the top to warn all the hijacked airliners to steer clear...

Unfortunately, as far as my limited understanding of the detailed workings of a fundamentalist Muslim terrorists mind reaches, that is not true. A Muslim killed as 'collateral damage' of an attack by the said terrorist would go straight to paradise and so would their whole family, in due course(?). The terrorist would see themselves as doing a favour to any Muslims they killed during an attack. Theistic delusion is a wonderful thing, for the deluded.

Quote from: "Tank"Unfortunately, as far as my limited understanding of the detailed workings of a fundamentalist Muslim terrorists mind reaches, that is not true. A Muslim killed as 'collateral damage' of an attack by the said terrorist would go straight to paradise and so would their whole family, in due course(?). The terrorist would see themselves as doing a favour to any Muslims they killed during an attack. Theistic delusion is a wonderful thing, for the deluded.

That is correct. I was refering to the site being a primary target with a red dot in the middle though - not a collateral.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Tank"Unfortunately, as far as my limited understanding of the detailed workings of a fundamentalist Muslim terrorists mind reaches, that is not true. A Muslim killed as 'collateral damage' of an attack by the said terrorist would go straight to paradise and so would their whole family, in due course(?). The terrorist would see themselves as doing a favour to any Muslims they killed during an attack. Theistic delusion is a wonderful thing, for the deluded.

That is correct. I was refering to the site being a primary target with a red dot in the middle though - not a collateral.

Ah! My misunderstanding. I would agree, I would not expect the Muslim centre to be a target for Muslim extremists. I just hope one nutty New Yorker doesn't take the law into their own hands.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Tank"Unfortunately, as far as my limited understanding of the detailed workings of a fundamentalist Muslim terrorists mind reaches, that is not true. A Muslim killed as 'collateral damage' of an attack by the said terrorist would go straight to paradise and so would their whole family, in due course(?). The terrorist would see themselves as doing a favour to any Muslims they killed during an attack. Theistic delusion is a wonderful thing, for the deluded.

That is correct. I was refering to the site being a primary target with a red dot in the middle though - not a collateral.

Ah! My misunderstanding. I would agree, I would not expect the Muslim centre to be a target for Muslim extremists. I just hope one nutty New Yorker doesn't take the law into their own hands.

Some of those nutters seem crazy enough to have a go, unfortunately.

Quote from: "karadan"Some of those nutters seem crazy enough to have a go, unfortunately.

I don't know really. The original comment was a little off the cuff now I think about it. I wonder how much anti-Islamic feeling there is in New York from the people who live there? It would be interesting to get an input from somebody who lives there. It just strikes my that if a couple of teenagers can carry out something like the Columbine shooting that there might be some disgruntled New Yorker quite capable of shooting up a 'Mosque'. Yet as far as I know that has not happened in New York, or for that matter anywhere in America.  If 9/11 was going to start a shooting religious war in the USA surly it would have started by now?  

I dunno. Who knows what sort of crazy this issue might bring out in some people. The debate is becoming unnecessarily heated now.

[youtube:1wflijwt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ESQvktr68[/youtube:1wflijwt]

It is possible that this situation could become the last straw for some individual, one hopes not.

A classic Charlie Brooker critique of the situation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ero-mosque (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque)

To be honest, as a Christian, I have more of a problem with the strip clubs that are closer.

Quote from: "pc4lf"To be honest, as a Christian, I have more of a problem with the strip clubs that are closer.

Why Jesus hung around with a prostitute? People often do what they need to to get by. 1 in 4 pole dancers in the UK are at university making cash on the side. There was a Danish porn 'actress' 'Tiny Tove' who did a dozen or so films in the 80's simply to fund her way through university, she's a doctor now. One of Christianity's greatest problems is sticking it's nose into other people's business and telling them what they are doing is wrong when what the other person is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with the interferer.

The sex industry is bad in a large part because of 'do gooders' who criminalise the participants because of outdated middle eastern misogynistic ideas. For the most part his keeps the good people from getting involved and cleaning it up. If the sex industry were properly open and regulated it would be far harder to traffic youngsters as that sort of activity could be reported without any pseudo-moralistic back lash on the person reporting the issue.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "pc4lf"To be honest, as a Christian, I have more of a problem with the strip clubs that are closer.

Why Jesus hung around with a prostitute? People often do what they need to to get by. 1 in 4 pole dancers in the UK are at university making cash on the side. There was a Danish porn 'actress' 'Tiny Tove' who did a dozen or so films in the 80's simply to fund her way through university, she's a doctor now. One of Christianity's greatest problems is sticking it's nose into other people's business and telling them what they are doing is wrong when what the other person is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with the interferer.

The sex industry is bad in a large part because of 'do gooders' who criminalise the participants because of outdated middle eastern misogynistic ideas. For the most part his keeps the good people from getting involved and cleaning it up. If the sex industry were properly open and regulated it would be far harder to traffic youngsters as that sort of activity could be reported without any pseudo-moralistic back lash on the person reporting the issue.

That is quite a common misconception. The bible called her a sinner. She was a woman. Female sinner = Prostitute!

With the way big cities are set up there is probably a church just around the corner of the strip club and a bar across the street from the church too and probably a convience store selling lotto tickets on every corner (ie lots of "sin" near sites that we think call for reverence).  Mixed use areas have...well, a big mix of different types of businesses all in a small area; that's how the big city remains walkable.

Personally, I don't care what businesses are "near" ground zero.  If someone wants to open an amusement park or some other nonsense on the actual site that has been reserved as a memorial park then I'd raise a fuss.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Sophus"Turns out all this kerfuffle was over nothing...

One time I farted and it sounded like Barry White saying "kerfuffle" while eating a subway sandwich.
/end threadjack

 :upset:  :upset: , I am derailing the topic!!!

BTW, no offense intended... I am totally joking

Quote from: "pc4lf"To be honest, as a Christian, I have more of a problem with the strip clubs that are closer.

I can respect this.  At least you're internally consistent, and tolerant [I hope] at the same time.

That's not to say I have a problem with strip clubs, thank you.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm all for the building of this mosque.  To me, it makes no sense to punish a majority for the sins of a few extremists.  Muslims have every right to celebrate their faith the same way a Christian or a Jew or any other person of another faith would.  To discriminate against them is not only illegal, but bigoted as well.  If anything, I'd be happy to see them take a stand and show that they don't agree with the actions of those terrorists who organized 9/11, and show Americans how true Muslims worship.

I'm all for the building of this mosque, but for exactly the opposite reason.  I do want to punish the majority of Muslims for the actions of a few extremists, and, while there isn't much of a way to do that, having a nice, inviting center near Ground Zero with a 9/11 memorial where they will have to listen to some Sufis is at least a way to annoy them into thought and might cause them to stop putting their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalala" whenever the subject of Wahabbist terrorism comes up.

Of course, I agree with the last sentence.

In case this hasn't already been said, the Not Mosque at Not Ground Zero used be part of something called the Cordoba Initiative. It was named that to allude to a time and place where religious persecution was absent, a variety of religious practices were abundant, and very stimulating thought was rampant throughout the city. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious triumph over america or anything else. The main benefactor of this not mosque at not ground zero says that "Islam needs to be Americanized." Yes, the Muslims conquered Cordoba, but not too long afterwards, it was conquered right back by the Christians. And I think we all know what late medieval Spain was like when run by the Christians. So... nothing to do with religious triumph and everything to do with religious coexistence and understanding of cultures.

Having said all that, I don't like it when anything is constructed or established to propagate and house institutionalized willful ignorance and attempts to manipulate people. There are 2 floors in this building plan to allow people to pray, worship, and spread their horse shit. Most of it is just a place for muslims to chum with each other and to spread the message to others that muslims in general are not jihadist crusaders (somehow basketball courts and cafes do that). It is in down town Manhattan, so they are obviously going to get a shitstorm by people with pre-determined and highly emotional opinions about it. You will have Christians saying that Muslims are trying to commandeer UHMERKA (in a yankee accent of course), Muslims saying both "no, we are actually trying to do the opposite", and "you are all islamaphobes and will be punished by allahk for daring to criticize muslims", jews saying similar things to christians, just in a New York Jewish accent, then dipshit atheists like pat condell saying unimaginable retarded bigoted things, and then atheists criticizing Western and Israeli foreign policy (which automatically makes you (me) a jew hater) and trying to get across to people that muslims aren't just pissed off because they have sand in their butt cracks and feel like flying planes into US buildings and do nothing to countries who don't invade their countries.

This so-called cultural center will do, despite its intentions, little to advance the ideals it will try to advance. What it will actually accomplish is getting everyone lay out their diametrically opposed views on religion, world events, ideals of freedom, ideals of equality, etc in a very controversial and emotional way on a conveniently laid out canvas. This is arguably the most controversial thing going on this century that isn't, of course, a catastrophe like 9/11 (although 9/11 wasn't really controversial, just catastrophic).

So, I will lay out some of my thoughts on this canvas. The muslims are by no means pacifists. If the US, Britain, Israel, and other nations had brutally invaded and terrorized a land full of Quakers, there would be no 9/11. The Koran is filled with violence just like the Bible and Torah and advocates the use of violence against the enemies of Islam just like the Bible and Torah. It's unfortunate that these are the major religions and beliefs that permeate the vast majority of the world and world leadership. Should muslims be able to put up something that symbolizes Islam almost as close to ground zero as another actual mosque as long as they comply with the zoning laws? Well, what is anyone going to do about it? What do you people who think there should be no YMMA there want to be done about it? It's like the abortion issue. What do people who think abortion is murder want to do? Prosecute the doctor or mother for some degree of homicide? The "Mosque at Ground Zero" is not about the community center there. Nothing will be done one way or another regardless of how upset the public is and it is pointless to dwell specifically on the YMMA. What I think should be addressed is how the West and Israel treat the Middle East via Tomahawk missles, Apache Helicopters, nuclear threats, tanks, imposed military dictatorships/monarchies, proxy wars, CIA coups, etc. Maybe, just maybe this is what is driving the conflict. And this is what I wish to advance with the canvas provided by this event.

And no, I am not anti-Semitic or anything of that sort. I simply detest Israel's treatment of Palestine, Lebanon, etc. It has nothing to do with Jews themselves. I think they are just as deluded and blissfully ignorant and full of shit as all religious people. However, it's pretty routine that anyone who criticizes Israel is either labeled an anti-Semite or a self-hating jew. I find this to be complete bullshit and, therefore, I hate all the jews.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"The muslims are by no means pacifists.

I can tell by this statement that you've met many Muslims in your lifetime.

QuoteIf the US, Britain, Israel, and other nations had brutally invaded and terrorized a land full of Quakers, there would be no 9/11. The Koran is filled with violence just like the Bible and Torah and advocates the use of violence against the enemies of Islam just like the Bible and Torah.

Right.  And it's totally fair to gauge the Muslims by their book, but ignore the other two when referencing their respective religions.  Seriously, some guy bombs an abortion clinic and he's a lone wacko, but a few muslims hijack some planes and the whole religion is to blame?  That's a statement of both ignorance and bigotry.

QuoteWhat I think should be addressed is how the West and Israel treat the Middle East via Tomahawk missles, Apache Helicopters, nuclear threats, tanks, imposed military dictatorships/monarchies, proxy wars, CIA coups, etc. Maybe, just maybe this is what is driving the conflict. And this is what I wish to advance with the canvas provided by this event.

Agreed.

QuoteI find this to be complete bullshit and, therefore, I hate all the jews.

Right, hating all Jews based on the ideas of a handful of people, most of whom are actually Christian.  Makes perfect sense.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"The muslims are by no means pacifists.

I can tell by this statement that you've met many Muslims in your lifetime.

You are partially correct here. I have met many muslims and can tell to reasonable extent that they are not pacifists (all I've met believe it's appropriate to use violence in self-defense), but onto the substantial stuff, you are correct that it is not right or logical to base all individual muslims upon what some other individual muslims do or what is said in the koran. Rather, certain passages in the Koran are extremely violent and some (a very small minority of muslims) actually go by this. I misspoke (mis-typed) while comparing Islam in general to say Quakers in general. Certainly not all muslims are non-pacifists. Many very well may be pacifists, but highly unlikely as high percentage-wise as with the Quakers. I seriously doubt that if Saudi Arabia was a theocratic society that strictly practiced the tenants of The Religious Study of Friends that 16 of the 19 hijackers would be from there. Is this ignorant or bigoted? Keep in mind that i absolutely do not want to prejudge any individual muslim or their beliefs based on what is said in the holy book or what certain individuals do as well as with any other group of people (although, if the Koran explicitly stated to try and be highly diplomatic with the enemy and never resort attacking the enemy, that fewer individual muslims would behave violently).

QuoteI find this to be complete bullshit and, therefore, I hate all the jews.

Right, hating all Jews based on the ideas of a handful of people, most of whom are actually Christian.  Makes perfect sense.

Well, I think we agree here. It makes no sense to label people as anti-Semitic because they disagree and/or detest the actions and values of Benjamin Netanyahu or Paul Wolfowitz and assume that they hate jews. It's a rather sickening epidemic of labeling people with legitimate disagreements with certain individuals as being racist or whatever. Detesting Israel killing 1300 Palestinians and being called anti-semitic is like detesting Al-Sharpton for being a manipulative charlatan and being called racist.

Btw, I find it to be complete bullshit when Noam Chomsky is considered a self-hating jew because of his analysis of Israeli/Middle Eastern political history. In case you didn't understand, I was saying that "I hate the jews" mockingly from the perspective of the people who do this sort of labeling.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"Well, I think we agree here. It makes no sense to label people as anti-Semitic because they disagree and/or detest the actions and values of Benjamin Netanyahu or Paul Wolfowitz and assume that they hate jews. It's a rather sickening epidemic of labeling people with legitimate disagreements with certain individuals as being racist or whatever. Detesting Israel killing 1300 Palestinians and being called anti-semitic is like detesting Al-Sharpton for being a manipulative charlatan and being called racist.

While I agree, it is, unfortunately, a greater problem of being white and not rolling out the red carpet for anyone not labeled "white" (even if they've the skin-tone for it).  In this context, it's more of a political ingroup/outgroup polarization tool.  The racism meme just conveniently fits the bill.

QuoteBtw, I find it to be complete bullshit when Noam Chomsky is considered a self-hating jew because of his analysis of Israeli/Middle Eastern political history.

Yeah.  I remember a youtube video of him (I think) telling a girl off for trying to silence him based solely on "my grandmother was in a concentration camp".  Give it a fucking rest.  Your grandmother was, you weren't; please stop pretending you didn't grow up a spoiled brat in an American suburb.

QuoteIn case you didn't understand, I was saying that "I hate the jews" mockingly from the perspective of the people who do this sort of labeling.

Irony doesn't print well.  It's even less apparent as your status when reading a thread about pie.