Mosque at Ground Zero

[Davin]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

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.

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.

[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?

[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.

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?

[Davin]

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.

[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?

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.

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?

[humblesmurph]

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

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

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

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

[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.

[deekayfry]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I'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.

I don't know any people who hate Muslims.

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

I 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.

 

but 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.

 

I 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.

Doesn'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.

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.

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.

It'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.

[pinkocommie]

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.  

[KDbeads]

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

It was implied in contrast.

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

It's a public discussion.  

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?

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?

[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.

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.

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

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.

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

I'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.

I don't know any people who hate Muslims.

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

I 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.

 

but 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.

 

I 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.

Doesn'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.

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.

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.

It'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.

[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.

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

It's a public discussion.  

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?

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.

[Recusant]

I was unaware of such a suit.  Could you link to it?

This 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.)

The 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.