Ground Zero: Mosque; or No Mosque

[QueEx]

1. I understand "sidelineless" or whatever term you are trying to use. You are creating an argument for the board's sake. What I don't understand is, why put the constitution in this if I, nor anyone remotely against this, have made it a constitutional issue. Funny that Obama did the same thing YOU did earlier in this post.

You're right, I brought up the Constitution before the President did. Some people would think that if a former con-law professor (the President) thinks that a constitional issue might be raised, whether you understand it or not, there is a pretty good chance there is a constitutional issue at stake.

The Establishment Clause is embedded in the First Amendment which has been held to mean that government should not establish or create a religion or show preference, one religion over another or prevent the free exercise of religion. If, as you would seem to have it, government prevents Muslims from doing the same thing that Christians are permitted to do, all things being equal, i.e., build a place of worship on a piece of ground, then government would be doing what it is by the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidden to do. Wouldn't it ???

2. This goes to my radio comment. I was just using that as an example of the fact that you *and Obama* tried to deflect the situation into a constitutional issue when it is certainly NOT one.

No response necessary. If you can't see the Constitutional issue by now, you will never ever see it.

3. I guess we can't agree that the Mosque on ground zero is disrespectful to the survivors WHO holds resentment to that religion right? Just like it would be disrespectful for the Klan to build a monument right next to MLK's memorial. Can we at least agree on that?

Whether locating a Mosque near ground zero is disrespectful to some, is just NOT the issue. I admit that some will be offended. I am not happy. But those emotions are irrelevant to the First Amendment, hence, as I alluded to you earlier, if you want emotions, instead of the rule of law to rule, you would have to repeal the First Amendment.

BTW, is the Klan a religion ?

If the Klan can purchase property next to a MLK memorial, I can't think of a reason why it should not be permitted to erect a similar monument to one of their heros', all things being equal.

QueEx

 

[actinanass]

You're right, I brought up the Constitution before the President did. Some people would think that if a former con-law professor (the President) thinks that a constitional issue might be raised, whether you understand it or not, there is a pretty good chance there is a constitutional issue at stake.

The Establishment Clause is embedded in the First Amendment which has been held to mean that government should not establish or create a religion or show preference, one religion over another or prevent the free exercise of religion. If, as you would seem to have it, government prevents Muslims from doing the same thing that Christians are permitted to do, all things being equal, i.e., build a place of worship on a piece of ground, then government would be doing what it is by the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidden to do. Wouldn't it ???




No response necessary. If you can't see the Constitutional issue by now, you will never ever see it.



Whether locating a Mosque near ground zero is disrespectful to some, is just NOT the issue. I admit that some will be offended. I am not happy. But those emotions are irrelevant to the First Amendment, hence, as I alluded to you earlier, if you want emotions, instead of the rule of law to rule, you would have to repeal the First Amendment.

BTW, is the Klan a religion ?

If the Klan can purchase property next to a MLK memorial, I can't think of a reason why it should not be permitted to erect a similar monument to one of their heros', all things being equal.

QueEx

1. To answer the klan religion question, there are white supremacy groups that uses the cloak of religion to practice their hate speech.

2. Ok, so you and Obama wanted to cancel the constitutional talk before it started. Its cool, but in reality, this became the straw man argument Upgrade surely didn't point out.... *funny how that happens sometimes...*

3. I should add that it wouldn't be distasteful if it wasn't for the group who is leading the charge for this mosque. We should have more discussions about the group instead of the mosque itself.

 

[QueEx]

1. To answer the klan religion question, there are white supremacy groups that uses the cloak of religion to practice their hate speech.

And you're cloaking with these responses.

2. Ok, so you and Obama wanted to cancel the constitutional talk before it started. Its cool, but in reality, this became the straw man argument Upgrade surely didn't point out.... *funny how that happens sometimes...*

No. I just think you fail to understand the argument and its nuances. If you allow emotions to trump the Constitution, in this case, the Muslims lose today, but tomorrow, we could suffer the same fate.

3. I should add that it wouldn't be distasteful if it wasn't for the group who is leading the charge for this mosque. We should have more discussions about the group instead of the mosque itself.

Maybe you should educate us.


QueEx

 

[Alaskanredman]

3. I guess we can't agree that the Mosque on ground zero is disrespectful to the survivors WHO holds resentment to that religion right? Just like it would be disrespectful for the Klan to build a monument right next to MLK's memorial. Can we at least agree on that?

You are an idiot. The Klan is a racist organization there is no debate about its members' motivation. Most Muslims aren't terrorist.

Some of the survivors or family of victims are blinded by what happened, but they don't own that property and have no control over what happens there. So fuck their opinions. To use you argument, did black people have any control over the south when the Feds started to enforce Civil Rights? Shit some states proudly have the confederate flag on capital sites and black people have to deal with it.

 

[cbm_redux]

I don't believe that there is any legal reason why this Mosque shouldn't be built in its planned location.

However, it shouldn't be built in its planned location. It's a thinnly veiled FUCK YOU to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It's also likely to foment increased anti-muslim hatred... as if there were enough reasons to hate them. They should just keep a low profile. This isn't France. We'll round motherfuckers up in these parts. Finally, this issue will be the nail in the coffin of President Obama's one-term presidency. The republicans are going to have a field day with this in 2012.

 

[nittie]

We have freedom of speech but it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded bldg if there isn't one. Circumstances are factors in applying the law. Building a mosque on that site is going to start a riot is it worth it.

 

[African Herbsman]

There's already a mosque around the corner from the WTC. This entire situation is a distraction.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I don't believe that there is any legal reason why this Mosque shouldn't be built in its planned location.

However, it shouldn't be built in its planned location. It's a thinnly veiled FUCK YOU to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It's also likely to foment increased anti-muslim hatred... as if there were enough reasons to hate them. They should just keep a low profile. This isn't France. We'll round motherfuckers up in these parts. Finally, this issue will be the nail in the coffin of President Obama's one-term presidency. The republicans are going to have a field day with this in 2012.

Does that include the 300 Muslims killed on Sept. 11? Is this a F U to them too? And what about the families that see nothing wrong with this? Should they're voices be drowned out by ones who disagree?
No one will be rounding up Muslims. We didn't do it 9 yrs ago and we're not doing it now or later.
The Republicans will be fortunate if this will be an issue come Nov much, much less Fall 2012. The American atttention span isn't that great and our own individual self interests are. Have the job indicators going in the right direction come 2012 and one or both wars ended, the Republicans would need the perfect candidate to unseat an incumbent.

We have freedom of speech but it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded bldg if there isn't one. Circumstances are factors in applying the law. Building a mosque on that site is going to start a riot is it worth it.

It's not a mosque, it's a cultural center that will include a mosque.
Even if there was a riot, as highly unlikely as that is, the violent tendencies of bigots is not a reason to not do something. I shouldn't be hampered in doing something lawful because someone else might do something illegal.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Has any one of the political opportunists like Palin and Gingrich proposed how to stop this building from being built. The organization is moving forward, there hasn't been a real reason to stop the city of NY from giving them the green light so what do the "conservatives" suggest should happen next?

 

[nittie]

It's not a mosque, it's a cultural center that will include a mosque.
Even if there was a riot, as highly unlikely as that is, the violent tendencies of bigots is not a reason to not do something. I shouldn't be hampered in doing something lawful because someone else might do something illegal.

Someone is going to get hurt if they build a Muslim cultural center on that site. Is it worth one death when they can build it somewhere else. This has got to be the only country in history who would invade 2 Muslim nations and allow Muslims to build a cultural center in our largest city. Another case of when keeping it liberal goes wrong.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Someone is going to get hurt if they build a Muslim cultural center on that site. Is it worth one death when they can build it somewhere else. This has got to be the only country in history who would invade 2 Muslim nations and allow Muslims to build a cultural center in our largest city. Another case of when keeping it liberal goes wrong.

Not only is that not wrong, it's a huge positive and gives some truth to the story of American pluralism and religious freedom.

When's the last time there was a riot in this country over anything? The cultural center isn't even scheduled to open until 2014. Do you know how hard it will be to maintain some of this animosity that long, especially with some much of it being manufactured by non-NYers who shit on NY every other time they talk?

 

[nittie]

Not only is that not wrong, it's a huge positive and gives some truth to the story of American pluralism and religious freedom.

When's the last time there was a riot in this country over anything? The cultural center isn't even scheduled to open until 2014. Do you know how hard it will be to maintain some of this animosity that long, especially with some much of it being manufactured by non-NYers who shit on NY every other time they talk?

US report predicts nuclear or biological attack by 2013

The six-month inquiry singles out Pakistan as one of the likeliest sources of such an attack


A congressional investigation into weapons of mass destruction today offered a chilling prediction of terrorists mounting an attack using biological or nuclear weapons within the next five years.

The six-month inquiry singles out Pakistan as one of the likeliest sources of such an attack. The target could be the US or some other part of the world.

The report, by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, concludes that "unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013".

It adds that "terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon".

President George Bush welcomed the report, saying the threat posed was the greatest facing the US and was "dangerously real". He said that after the 9/11 attacks, he had put in place policies tackling the threat and he was leaving a good foundation for his successor.

The incoming Barack Obama administration, which is to make proliferation of weapons of mass destruction a priority, was briefed on Capitol Hill today about the findings in the 132-page report.

The commission, which was led by the former Democratic senator Bob Graham and by former Democratic senator Jim Talent, was given six months to complete the report. It follows on from the work of the commission that investigated the 9/11 attack.

Graham told reporters at the press conference that a biological or nuclear attack within the next five years was not inevitable and the commission's reports included a series of recommendations, that if implemented, could diminish the threat. Recommendations include creation of a White House post focusing on proliferation and more emphasis on diplomatic efforts.

This a dangerous idea. Not only will it outrage a lot of Americans, it could encourage terrorist. I'm not against Muslims building a cultural center on that site personally. Realistically speaking though I think building a Muslim center there is a bad idea, a case of liberal idealism thats gotten out of hand. There will be a wmd attack on American soil.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This a dangerous idea. Not only will it outrage a lot of Americans, it could encourage terrorist. I'm not against Muslims building a cultural center on that site personally. Realistically speaking though I think building a Muslim center there is a bad idea, a case of liberal idealism thats gotten out of hand. There will be a wmd attack on American soil.

There well may be but that's completely unrelated to Muslim-run cultural center on that location.
Outrage fades, just like every other emotion. Once the media finds something else to talk about, we'll be on to the next one (how's that oil spill thing going?).
And there's nothing "liberal" about this, if anything this is should be a moment for true conservatives to step up and defend the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

 

[Race Harley]

The real question should be where is the money coming from to build the mosque? That gray area needs to be qualified before anything else.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The real question should be where is the money coming from to build the mosque? That gray area needs to be qualified before anything else.

Why? If they receive funding from illicit sources, somebody will find out. The US gov't and others have been monitoring Muslim and/or Arab groups for a while now. Anything is possible and something could come up later but if there was a real problem with this group, it would have been revealed. I didn't see anyone check out the facts before they linked Hakeem Olajuwan with extremist groups a couple years ago.

 

[nittie]

Why? If they receive funding from illicit sources, somebody will find out. The US gov't and others have been monitoring Muslim and/or Arab groups for a while now. Anything is possible and something could come up later but if there was a real problem with this group, it would have been revealed. I didn't see anyone check out the facts before they linked Hakeem Olajuwan with extremist groups a couple years ago.

This philosophy is a potentially deadly mix of blind faith in a bankrupt govt and liberal idealism. Nobody discovered the 9-11 plot. No one discovered the guy who killed those people on the army base in Texas etc..etc. If the center is built by private citizens who want nothing to do with terrorism that doesn't mean others feel the same. Why expose the country to something like this when the center can be built somewhere else. Muslims will get over it, Americans won't have that luxury if another 9-11 happens on that site.

 

[Alaskanredman]

This philosophy is a potentially deadly mix of blind faith in a bankrupt govt and liberal idealism. Nobody discovered the 9-11 plot. No one discovered the guy who killed those people on the army base in Texas etc..etc. If the center is built by private citizens who want nothing to do with terrorism that doesn't mean others feel the same. Why expose the country to something like this when the center can be built somewhere else. Muslims will get over it, Americans won't have that luxury if another 9-11 happens on that site.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This philosophy is a potentially deadly mix of blind faith in a bankrupt govt and liberal idealism. Nobody discovered the 9-11 plot. No one discovered the guy who killed those people on the army base in Texas etc..etc. If the center is built by private citizens who want nothing to do with terrorism that doesn't mean others feel the same. Why expose the country to something like this when the center can be built somewhere else. Muslims will get over it, Americans won't have that luxury if another 9-11 happens on that site.

So what would it matter if it happened 3, 4, or 5 blocks further away? Wouldn't it still be a horrific event? The only way to prevent what you're talking about is to shut down all mosques and gathering places of Muslims, including private homes.

Stop that, I'm trying to talk to him.

 

[Alaskanredman]

So what would it matter if it happened 3, 4, or 5 blocks further away? Wouldn't it still be a horrific event? The only way to prevent what you're talking about is to shut down all mosques and gathering places of Muslims, including private homes.



Stop that, I'm trying to talk to him.

Dude is stupid. 9-11 already happened again just not on the same scale. A white guy flew his plane into an IRS building, but the media tried to make him seem like he had legit reasons or that it wasn't a big deal.

We should gather up the white people.

 

[nittie]

Dude is stupid. 9-11 already happened again just not on the same scale. A white guy flew his plane into an IRS building, but the media try to make him seem like he had legit reasons or that it was a big deal.

We should gather up the white people.

This is what I'm talking about, a mix of idealism, blind faith and a touch of plain ol stupidity .

 

[nittie]

So what would it matter if it happened 3, 4, or 5 blocks further away? Wouldn't it still be a horrific event? The only way to prevent what you're talking about is to shut down all mosques and gathering places of Muslims, including private homes.

Cmon you know that site is different 3,000 Americans were killed there by Muslim extremist. The deadliest attack on our soil. It's a smaller scale but putting a mosque there is like putting a Jewish state in the middle of Muslim homeland we see how that turned out.

 

[Alaskanredman]

This is what I'm talking about, a mix of idealism, blind faith and a touch of plain ol stupidity .

One day you will realize that you have been brain washed into your own down fall. It will be "we need to protect ourselves from them because they are all a like", then one day it will be "we need to protect ourselves from you".

 

[nittie]

One day you will realize that you have been brain washed into your own down fall. It will be "we need to protect ourselves from them because they are all a like", then one day it will be "we need to protect ourselves from you".

And the hits just keep on coming lol. Call me butter cause I'm on a roll baby. lol. I'm in tha zone. lol

 

[Alaskanredman]

Cmon you know that site is different 3,000 Americans were killed there by Muslim extremist. The deadliest attack on our soil. It's a smaller scale but putting a mosque there is like putting a Jewish state in the middle of Muslim homeland we see how that turned out.

That's right. Muslim's acquiring the right to build a center lawfully is the same as stealing land. It worked out for the Jew's like it worked out for white people. The Jews at least have the humanity not to go down the path of semi-genocide and white washing Arab culture after the 6 day war, but then again that's what stop the natives here.

 

[thoughtone]

Maybe you should educate us.


QueEx

That's theoretically impossible, he can't educate himself.

 

[thoughtone]

There's already a mosque around the corner from the WTC. This entire situation is a distraction.

...from the economy, GW capital gains tax lapsing, the WTO Euro ruling, Afghanistan...

The republicans have nothing to run on.

 

[Lamarr]

...from the economy

The republicans have nothing to run on.

Like Obama fixed it

All the Repubs gotta do is Shut The F*ck Up!

Immigration, this mosque sh*t, a healthcare mandate, 2 Wars, 9.5% unemployment, a false stimulus etc

Poll: Majority Now Disapprove of Obama's Job Performance

 

[QueEx]

Like Obama fixed it

All the Repubs gotta do is Shut The F*ck Up!

Immigration, this mosque sh*t, a healthcare mandate, 2 Wars, 9.5% unemployment, a false stimulus etc

Poll: Majority Now Disapprove of Obama's Job Performance

You know, that might be an excellent idea. If they STFU, maybe that would:

• help to halt erroding consumer confidence which most agree is negatively affecting the economy;

• help to tone down the race-based politics which are merely designed to create divisions along fault-lines to undermine the person/party in office and enhance the likelihood of another person/party taking office; and

• help people to better see and understand the legal and constitutional issues raised by the Mosque issue -- instead of using rhetoric and fanning the flames of hatred, to embarass those in power with hopes that it will help another group come into power.

In fact, is it not the point of all the noise to discredit the person/party in power for the sole purpose of getting the electorate to put another guy/gal/party, in power? And yeah, democrats, republicans and librarians (or however you spell or say libertarians) are equally guilty of such selfish politics, to detriment of the nation in general.

While you personally grovel over headlines like, Poll: Majority Now Disapprove of Obama's Job Performance, do you take any solace in knowing that the Limbaugh, et al., led "he must fail" machine is busy 24/7 to bring about just such headlines -- again -- for the sole purpose of discrediting the people in office to get the people they want in office, at the expense of everything else, including the economy, foreign policy, the people and anything else that supposedly, matters.

And, do you take any solace knowing that no sooner than the people/party that you want in office get there, the next moment, those then out-of-power will commence their version of selfish politics to discredit/unseat them?

. . . and people wonder why nothing gets done.

Maybe more people should work in environments, like I do, where the Pledge of Allegiance precedes every meeting. Maybe they would pause, like I do sometimes, at hollowness of the phrase, "one nation" . . .




QueEx

 

[charlie dark]

The irony is that the 9/11 attacks were because of the American presence, (including military) in 'muslim' countries.
Now peaceful US muslims want to build a place to serve the community as well as a place of worship and Americans are all up in arms......

 

[Alaskanredman]

Can someone explain to me why people are intent on having Rep back in office?

I understand why the racist want this, but what about everybody else? What was so good about the Bush years?

I know tax cuts will end for the upper class/rich but is that it? Has those tax cuts made everything else better?

Nothing has changed for the Anti-abortion/gay marriage people during the Bush years or with Obama so wtf?

 

[Alaskanredman]

The irony is that the 9/11 attacks were because of the American presence, (including military) in 'muslim' countries.
Now peaceful US muslims want to build a place to serve the community as well as a place of worship and Americans are all up in arms......

If there is some sinister motive behind this whole thing that is it. To show Americans that they are hypocrites and that the insanity in the middle east is justified because he nuts here are the same as the nuts over there. Especially when it is built and the loons here attack the Muslims there or blow the building up. The sad part is Americans are to stupid to see it.

 

[QueEx]

The irony is that the 9/11 attacks were because of the American presence, (including military) in 'muslim' countries.

Now peaceful US muslims want to build a place to serve the community as well as a place of worship and Americans are all up in arms......

Charlie, thats not exactly true though. Your point is certainly well taken -- but to say that the 911 attacks were precipitated by American presence in Muslim countries is not exactly accurate.

At the time of the attacks, those reputed to be responsible, Al Qaeda, were not in charge of any Muslim nation save, perhaps, one, Afghanistan -- where there were no Americans. Even there, ironically, it was American presence that had helped propel them to power.

Nevertheless, in the countries where there was an American presence, Americans were there at the invitation and acquiesence of the host governments, none of which were headed by Al Qaeda. Hence, it would be more accurate to say that the American Presence rationale is more Al Qaeda propaganda and rallying-cry than cause of 911.

QueEx

 

[charlie dark]

Charlie, thats not exactly true though. Your point is certainly well taken -- but to say that the 911 attacks were precipitated by American presence in Muslim countries is not exactly accurate.

At the time of the attacks, those reputed to be responsible, Al Qaeda, were not in charge of any Muslim nation save, perhaps, one, Afghanistan -- where there were no Americans. Even there, ironically, it was American presence that had helped propel them to power.

Nevertheless, in the countries where there was an American presence, Americans were there at the invitation and acquiesence of the host governments, none of which were headed by Al Qaeda. Hence, it would be more accurate to say that the American Presence rationale is more Al Qaeda propaganda and rallying-cry than cause of 911.

QueEx

Al Qaeda have never really been in control of any nation, they are by definition a terrorist organisation, whose mandate amongst others was the removal of US presense from the Middle East, whether there by invitation or not. They had grievances with the Saudi administration as well for permitting US presence..

 

[Alaskanredman]

Charlie, thats not exactly true though. Your point is certainly well taken -- but to say that the 911 attacks were precipitated by American presence in Muslim countries is not exactly accurate.

At the time of the attacks, those reputed to be responsible, Al Qaeda, were not in charge of any Muslim nation save, perhaps, one, Afghanistan -- where there were no Americans. Even there, ironically, it was American presence that had helped propel them to power.

Nevertheless, in the countries where there was an American presence, Americans were there at the invitation and acquiesence of the host governments, none of which were headed by Al Qaeda. Hence, it would be more accurate to say that the American Presence rationale is more Al Qaeda propaganda and rallying-cry than cause of 911.

QueEx

It was a number of things but mainly it was due to Americans getting in the middle Middle East affairs than it was topped off by their presence

 

[QueEx]

Al Qaeda have never really been in control of any nation, they are by definition a terrorist organisation, whose mandate amongst others was the removal of US presense from the Middle East, whether there by invitation or not. They had grievances with the Saudi administration as well for permitting US presence..

We are in substantial agreement. They have never really been in control of any Muslim nation and I believe it can be safely said that they don't represent the majority of Muslim opinion on the "presence" issue. Now, irrespective of whether it is classified as a terrorist organization (looking back, that label could be placed on a lot of, shall we say, revolutionary movements), there probably is a "presence argument" -- just not the way Al Qaeda has propaganized it.

That is: to the extent that Al Qaeda represents a brand and branch of radical Islam which has as its professed ultimate goal the creation or re-establishment of a caliphate through which it would be the care-taker of the Muslim World and it views American interest as standing between it and those goals, there exist, as I see it, the "American Presence" argument. Mind you, however, that "presence" did not and does not have to be "on Muslim lands." So long as Al Qaeda views American interest as somehow in the way of or contrary to the accomplishment of its goals, no matter where Americans or American philosophy might physically be, there would be an interferring American presence. Hence, even if Americans are not physically on any Muslim lands, there is a serious question whether peace can cohabit with Al Qaeda philosophy, though it may with Muslims.


QueEx