I was being sarcastic. I've had some annoying (admittedly unrelated) cases recently were people didn't listen/read all of what I was saying, but took parts of it and misinterpreted it.Wasn't me, since you pretty much proved with your last post that I was interpreting you correctly. :)

I was saying that in this one very specific case, and ONLY this case alone, we make one exception to the rule.
...
That's not to say, conveniently ignore the document whenever we want. I only advocate one exception alone.


The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".

Thank you for clarifying. I respectfully disagree, and at this point that's all I have to say without repeating myself.

That's fair enough.

I will say one thing though, I'm going to geuss you're a christian here.

If the Iranian government were to block Churchs from being built in Iran (whatever the circumstances) would you think they'd be entitled to do that? :raise:

The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".

Honestly, that can apply to any person in the world.

The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".
True enough, I suppose. I won't contest this point any further.
I will say one thing though, I'm going to geuss you're a christian here.
Sort of. I am actually half-Catholic, half-Buddhist with Jewish ancestry. Also, I am not an active church-goer, as I'm somewhat more individualist about my faith at the present.
If the Iranian government were to block Churchs from being built in Iran (whatever the circumstances) would you think they'd be entitled to do that? :raise:
Well, I'm guessing that they already have that sort of power already. Would it be deserved? I don't know, as I am forming my view by circumstance.
Wasn't me, since you pretty much proved with your last post that I was interpreting you correctly. :)
...

No comment.

So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? I disagree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :confused:

[...]and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on? *sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy, at least as a weapon against total ignorance... I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK *(obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" ) commenting about the name of the town (ok maybe it was after a few beers and a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something - the same idiocy could have easily come out of the mouth of some Canadian fellow countryman - but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing).


So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?
Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...


I suppose that makes me a heretic according to the mainstream view of American law, but I was under the impression that we tolerated all views.
Done so, along with the entire Constitution, the Amendments, the Federalist Papers, and a few other gifts for our law makers. Admittedly my memory is not the best, so I admittedly forget the exact wording of certain amendments on occasion..
I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitute hater against some people who do nothing wrong.

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. the constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.

I am not saying against Muslims or Mosques in general, just THIS MOSQUE.I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?

We haven't even built the Freedom Tower yet, and they're already considering supporting the finances of an act that is very much against the interests and happiness of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.Aren't there any Muslims among the "American people" too? (So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? We've done some good there, and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?

Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.


Those who have died for laws, honor, and principles died not so that we'd just have laws, honor, and principles, but so that we'd have them for the benefit of the people.No, it was also meant to be a safeguard against some mass extremist/stupid moves and guarantee some freedoms and rights tominorites despite that (protect them against the "tyranny" of the majority). Obviously we did not visit the same countries and neither did we read the same history books.

I disagree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :confused:
I presented examples of the US military improving the lives of foreign communities. You wrote:
This is one of the most arrogant and uninformed statement I've read on these boards...at least it's just words...
Therefore, out of slight irritation I assumed that you are implying that the US military is only responsible for heinous acts.

Please excuse me, I'm slightly tired of debating about seven people at the same time, having to re-clarify my views for each one, etc..
*sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy, at least as a weapon against total ignorance... I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK *(obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" ) commenting about the name of the town (ok maybe it was after a few beers and a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something - the same idiocy could have easily come out of the mouth of some Canadian fellow countryman - but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing).
Again, this label of ignorance....
Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...
As in, the ability to make a rational exception to a law based upon the situation of the law, the spirit of the law, and some common sense.
I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitute hater against some people who do nothing wrong.

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. the constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.
I understand what constitutionality means and how it works. What I am saying is that such a system may not always be functional. When this happens, we should reevaluate.
I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?
Here's the thing: I am establishing my opinion on this matter purely on a situational basis. I am not arguing for a principle that should be applied to all scenarios, my only concern in this debate is the potential Mosque at Ground Zero.
Aren't there any Muslims among the "American people" too? (
Yes, and I am not denying that there aren't. I don't know why people keep bringing this up, as I have no problem with Muslims in the US celebrating their faith. I never had. I welcome them to do so. Just not at Ground Zero. Hell, they can feel free to build one in my town and I'll visit sometime.
Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.
Again, this label of "total ignorance". Maybe I happen to have a different view and set of sources on this issue?
I disaggree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :clueless:

*sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy (I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK - obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" - comenting about the name of the town (ok maybe after a few beers a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing)... at least as a weapon against total ignorance...


[quote]So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?[`/quote]
Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...

I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitue hater against some groups of people who do nothing wrong.

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. The constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.
I'm guessing this a copy of your earlier arguments.
No, it was also meant to be a safeguard against some mass extremist/stupid moves and guarantee some freedoms and rights tominorites despite that (protect them against the "tyranny" of the majority). Obviously we did not visit the same countries and neither did we read the same history books.
I agree with the latter statement.
I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should the majority of reasonable people pay for some extremists? (I'm saying this as a Christian too)
I believe this is also copy of an earlier part of your post. :)

I presented examples of the US military improving the lives of foreign communities.

Therefore, out of slight irritation I assumed that you are implying that the US military is only responsible for heinous acts.

It was my understanding that you see as improving lives of foreign communities as imposing a certain type of view/way of doing things without regard to the particulars such as history/culture/people/local politics, needs, groups, etc... Did it ever cross your mind that what may be suitable to one may not be fit for the other? That it might just create a huge mess, amongst others? The IMF policies were already very biased...

*Please excuse me, I'm slightly tired of debating about seven people at the same time, having to re-clarify my views for each one, etc... So we all are.


Again, this label of ignorance...... Hmmm don't you submit to the majority's views?

As in, the ability to make a rational exception to a law based upon the situation of the law, the spirit of the law, and some common sense.And this rationale comes from?
If I understand your previous argument, majority = automatic common sense even if it makes no sense and if people are uninformed/misinformed? (sorry for the non-sense but how can one answer to such an absurd situation late at night other than by more non-sense...hum...that was not meant to be a question but a mere comment.) Constitution = safeguard.


I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?]
Here's the thing: I am establishing my opinion on this matter purely on a situational basis. I am not arguing for a principle that should be applied to all scenarios, my only concern in this debate is the potential Mosque at Ground Zero....And the answer is???



Yes, and I am not denying that there aren't. I don't know why people keep bringing this up, as I have no problem with Muslims in the US celebrating their faith. I never had. I welcome them to do so. Just not at Ground Zero. Hell, they can feel free to build one in my town and I'll visit sometime.So why not at ground Zero, then?

Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.]
Again, this label of "total ignorance". Maybe I happen to have a different view and set of sources on this issue?.
Obviously ( I watch them in four languages)...I also watch Fox news once in while but I still don't know if I do it for laughs or cries though.

I believe this is also copy of an earlier part of your post. :) Right! At least we agree on something!

Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.Is this meant to be poetry or some type of heroic statement? :confused:

And we don't know for a fact that the mujahedeen would have shut down after their war with the Soviets if we had supplied them money. It may be perfectly possible that they would have used it to take over as they did anyway (admittedly after much infighting leading to the rule of the even more extremist Taliban).
Obviously they wouldn't have shut down - because they wouldn't have been getting the money in the first place. Afghanistan after the Soviet War did not have a government in place to receive the aid, what it needed was a secure government with sound infrastructure and a complete disbanding of the mujahedeen.

So we must follow the Constitution to the absolute letter or we'll become a military junta?
Following a constitution to the letter happens to be why most of those are written. Violating them, one by one, in the interest of the People, has resulted in totalitarianism.

France is actually considering a ban on the burka in order to protect women's rights. Will they automatically become a totalitarian state as a result?
I don't support France's burqa law in the first place, but if it came into place (or has come into place, I don't remember), then it could very well be on that path. Switzerland, IIRC, passed a bizarre bill banning minarets in the country. So much for direct democracy.

I suppose, but you'll have to have more or less 24/7 surveillance around the thing, and that could just provoke an even stronger outcry. There are already extremist elements in the Right that could use this as further justification of their views (which are essentially that the Administration supports our enemies).
Actually, police protection and (indirect) 24/7 surveillance happens to be how we secure high-risk areas here. You can let the Right exercise their free speech as much as they like.

Though if worst comes to shove the Swiss Guard would be extremely effective....
Usually, the worst comes to worst, and push comes to shove, but if that happened, then yes, only the Swiss Guard can help.

This is true, but our representatives are supposed to act on our interests. I know that doesn't usually happen (I've seen the opposite in many cases) because politicians either have to make judgment calls on an issue or they had less pure interests in mind.
Exactly, and so we can bunk the sensationalist "democracy is rule by the people for the people" and make it "democracy is rule by people-elected representatives, for the people", or Anthro̱poi-eklegmenoekprуso̱pocracy.

Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.
I think I've lost the whole argument here, now - what unforeseeable problems are being caused because of the law, again?

My point is that I doubt one exception will lead to the transformation of the United States into a fascist dictatorship, military junta, communist oligarchy, or any such totalitarian state. Hitler's Reich, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc., did not occur over night. They were gradual changes caused by a COMPLETE elimination of the previous law.
Applicable to Mao to some extent, and Lenin; Hitler on the other hand, gradually wrested control from the Weimar Republic by instating laws that favoured his philosophy and seamlessly converting a republic into a totalitarian dictatorship. The Germans didn't notice and they didn't care, they went with the flow because it was favourable to them at the given moment.

It's purely dependent on what ideology or religion we are talking about. The idea is to oppose validating the goals of whatever extremists have assaulted this country, be it Muslim, Christian, communist, fascist, etc..
And what exactly are the goals of anti-American extremists? It isn't promotion of Islam - that is manageable. It's dismantling the United States - plain and simple. They hate everything there is about America, from the hubris and the decadency, to the imperialism and worlds-police attitude. They want to see the most powerful country in the world razed down to the ground just like the countries the US has razed to the ground. I don't think the Mosque is going to do that.

It was my understanding that you see as improving lives of foreign communities as imposing a certain type of view/way of doing things without regard to the particulars such as history/culture/people/local politics, needs, groups, etc...
Incorrect. The only action I support in those countries are:
1) The removal of oppressive governments (the Taliban and Saddam's police state).
2) The reconstruction of those countries (as in public serves like roads, hospitals, etc.).
I do not support any manipulation of foreign cultures.
Did it ever cross your mind that what may be suitable to one may not be fit for the other? That it might just create a huge mess, amongst others? The IMF policies were already very biased...
Yes it crossed my mind. It crosses my mind on multiple occasions, and is often a subject of contemplation for me.
Hmmm don't you submit to the majority's views?
No I don't, but I try to respect those views rather than completely disregard them altogether. That's the point of what I am saying: I am not arguing any notion of "Muslims should conform to American ideals". I am arguing that "we should all respect each others ideals and situation, and our laws should reflect that".
If I understand your previous argument, majority = automatic common sense even if it makes no sense and if people are uninformed/misinformed? (sorry for the non-sense but how can one answer to such an absurd situation late at night other than by more non-sense...hum...that was not meant to be a question but a mere comment.) Constitution = safeguard.
Incorrect. Here's how it works: A culture creates a law to regulate its behavior. Those laws are made by men and are limited in quality by how capable man is. The culture creates amendments to those laws to adapt the laws to situations that culture faces. At some point, a culture may face a scenario where those laws, due to their limitations, are more harmful than good.

And the Constitution may be a safeguard, but it can only work so well. It's not perfect or divine, it is a piece of paper with laws written on it. Those laws may be very well-conceived, but they were conceived by limited humans nonetheless.
And the answer is???
As I've said, my answer is to build the Mosque somewhere else so that the interests of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are not supported.
So why not at ground Zero, then?
Because the goal of those terrorists is to institute a global caliphate, and to build a Mosque there is a symbolic victory for them.
Obviously ( I watch them in four languages)...I also watch Fox news once in while but I still don't know if I do it for laughs or cries though.
What does Fox News have to do with anything? I don't watch television news anyway (I still read the news online and sometimes in the local newspaper).
Is this meant to be poetry or some type of heroic statement? :confused:
Neither, just an observation. For example, we abolished alcohol in the US at one point, and the result was that the alcohol industry was driven underground and created a massive economic boost for the crime world.
Obviously they wouldn't have shut down - because they wouldn't have been getting the money in the first place. Afghanistan after the Soviet War did not have a government in place to receive the aid, what it needed was a secure government with sound infrastructure and a complete disbanding of the mujahedeen.
From my understanding the mujahedeen more or less became the government anyway. They were the counter-revolution to the Soviet-backed government that replaced Afghanistan's monarchy.
Following a constitution to the letter happens to be why most of those are written. Violating them, one by one, in the interest of the People, has resulted in totalitarianism.
And always will, no matter what happens?
I don't support France's burqa law in the first place, but if it came into place (or has come into place, I don't remember), then it could very well be on that path. Switzerland, IIRC, passed a bizarre bill banning minarets in the country. So much for direct democracy.
And the various states of America have arbitrary bans as state law (I don't have the list in front of me unfortunately). In the end, they have not made the country totalitarian, people just go about their daily lives and nothing really changes.
Actually, police protection and (indirect) 24/7 surveillance happens to be how we secure high-risk areas here. You can let the Right exercise their free speech as much as they like.

Usually, the worst comes to worst, and push comes to shove, but if that happened, then yes, only the Swiss Guard can help.
I suppose if it got to that point, the US would probably just end up in civil war, but that's another thread altogether.
Exactly, and so we can bunk the sensationalist "democracy is rule by the people for the people" and make it "democracy is rule by people-elected representatives, for the people", or Anthro̱poi-eklegmenoekpróso̱pocracy.
I'm guessing you are fluent in Greek.
Applicable to Mao to some extent, and Lenin; Hitler on the other hand, gradually wrested control from the Weimar Republic by instating laws that favoured his philosophy and seamlessly converting a republic into a totalitarian dictatorship. The Germans didn't notice and they didn't care, they went with the flow because it was favourable to them at the given moment.
They didn't care, but I think they did notice. Admittedly, the Germans didn't get a very good deal with the Treaty of Versailles, but that's a discussion for later.
And what exactly are the goals of anti-American extremists? It isn't promotion of Islam - that is manageable. It's dismantling the United States - plain and simple. They hate everything there is about America, from the hubris and the decadency, to the imperialism and worlds-police attitude. They want to see the most powerful country in the world razed down to the ground just like the countries the US has razed to the ground. I don't think the Mosque is going to do that.
No it won't. However, it will be a symbolic victory that will empower them, and the fact that our government is supporting its construction does not help with the relationship between the people and their leaders.

American here.

I don't give two $*#* about where the Mosque is. I don't care if it's at Ground Zero. I don't care if it's a million miles away. Our country's values are such that anyone has the right to express their religious views, without persecution, wherever they damn well please. Building a Mosque at the former WTC site is a good thing since it shows that we as a people can move on and still adhere to our original principles instead of blatant fearmongering.

I say build it.

@LOH- I find your argument....inconsistent. You claim you don't have any problem with Muslims being Muslim, yet you say building a Mosque near GZ is letting the terrorists win. You do realize that there are American citizens who are Muslim who want to practice their religion as is their right under our Constitution, don't you? You do realize that non-Muslims may want to check the Mosque out to gain an appreciation of a different and oft-slandered culture, yes? How does allowing private citizens to buy space and build a Mosque, as is their right, let the terrorists win? (also, who gives a crap whether they do or don't, the threat has been blown seriously out of proportion)

By NOT allowing the Mosque to be built there, not only is that blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, but you are essentially telling a not-insignificant section of our citizenry that the majority of the country fears them, hates them, doesn't want to see them, and wants nothing to do with them. That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear. Hate begets hate. Treating American Muslims as second class citizens only breeds hatred and resentment, which lead a few misguided idiots to become terrorists.

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not read "Congress shall make.....grievances, unless they are of Middle Eastern descent, are brown, and/or are followers of Islam."

Treating the First Amendment as if it does read as such is letting the terrorists win. I don't consider a handful of pissed off Muslims to be a threat to our nation. That would be the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, since they actually vote in elections.

Build the Mosque, give ignorant idiots the finger.

@LOH- I find your argument....inconsistent. You claim you don't have any problem with Muslims being Muslim, yet you say building a Mosque near GZ is letting the terrorists win. You do realize that there are American citizens who are Muslim who want to practice their religion as is their right under our Constitution, don't you?
Yes.
You do realize that non-Muslims may want to check the Mosque out to gain an appreciation of a different and oft-slandered culture, yes?
Yes.
How does allowing private citizens to buy space and build a Mosque, as is their right, let the terrorists win? (also, who gives a crap whether they do or don't, the threat has been blown seriously out of proportion)
1) In this case, it empowers their moral and helps give their existence meaning. The symbolic act of their goals being achieved.
2) I respectfully disagree that this threat is entirely out of proportion. Currently, we are facing the full might of the Taliban (allies and sponsors of Al-Qaeda,) an organization that spans both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are a guerrilla army that is causing significant casualties to the ISAF. Meanwhile, the Iran Revolutionary Guard has provided significant training and finances to other significant terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as many Shiite militant groups in Iraq.
By NOT allowing the Mosque to be built there, not only is that blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, but you are essentially telling a not-insignificant section of our citizenry that the majority of the country fears them, hates them, doesn't want to see them, and wants nothing to do with them.
Yes that may be the case, but on the other hand by allowing the Mosque to be built there you tell the majority of the country that their government doesn't respect their wishes and supports that not-insignificant section of our citizenry over them.

I personally identify with neither group, but rather with the whole of the country. I support everyone's right to be here, enjoy the rights of this Constitution, and live out their lives and express their cultures however they want.

I am also starting to believe that whether this mosque is built or not, we will be further divided by the event.
That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear. Hate begets hate. Treating American Muslims as second class citizens only breeds hatred and resentment, which lead a few misguided idiots to become terrorists.
And unfortunately, if we ignore the larger part of American citizens, they will become hateful and resentful, and a large number of them will become militants.

Ironic, no?
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not read "Congress shall make.....grievances, unless they are of Middle Eastern descent, are brown, and/or are followers of Islam."
I never said that, nor do I support such a notion.
Treating the First Amendment as if it does read as such is letting the terrorists win. I don't consider a handful of pissed off Muslims to be a threat to our nation. That would be the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, since they actually vote in elections.
Unfortunately, BOTH pissed off Muslims and pissed off Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians are a problem.

Pissed off Muslims oppress innocents, kill innocents, not to mention use them as human shields to kill US soldiers.

Pissed off Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians can do about the same.

At the moment, however, the world has more pissed off Muslims. As much as I would like to avoid having an increase in either, this situation can create such depending on who wins.
Build the Mosque, give ignorant idiots the finger.
Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.

From my stand point, we have a foreign war on our hands. We do not need violent civil unrest on top of that, nor do our troops out on the battlefield.

Granted, we could call in the Swiss Guard as Sabretooth suggests, but they'll be dealing with one big and possibly well-armed mob.

Remember when I said that denying the construction of the mosque would probably incite more Islamic terrorism than building the mosque in the first place? Well, I don't want to say "I told you so" (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/30/taliban-using-mosque-controversy-to-recruit.html), but...

America’s enemies in Afghanistan are delighted by the vehement public opposition to the proposed “Ground Zero mosque.” The backlash against the project has drawn the heaviest e-mail response ever on jihadi Web sites, Zabihullah claims—far bigger even than France’s ban on burqas earlier this year. (That was big, he recalls: “We received many e-mails asking for advice on how Muslims should react to the hijab ban, and how they can punish France.”) This time the target is America itself. “We are getting even more messages of support and solidarity on the mosque issue and questions about how to fight back against this outrage.”

Meh, doesn't seem like it takes much to stoke the pre-provked.

LOH:

Your pissed off Muslims are on the other side of the ocean and they do things in the name of Allah but in fact know nothing about the meaning of the words of Allah. The pissed off Muslims here are people like you and me who want to worship as they please peacefully but are not allowed to.

Need I remind you that this proposed mosque is NOT at the WTC site but like two blocks away in a building that has already been in use as a prayer center for Muslims?

Heck I don't need to give a lesson on sacrilege since the Christians have been doing that since the Inquisition. Oops I should say Catholics since it was first the Spaniards who sacked and nearly wiped out whole Native American populations with disease and war in search of gold and then to add insult to injury build churches on top of temples that can't be excavated because of a holy issue. OH and let's not forget the forcing upon Catholicism on native groups. Then there were the Indian boarding schools...

I tell ya the United States has a long history of discrimination against minorities. A convient forgetting in these modern time.

Of course it does not take much to provoke Extremist Terrorist. They hate us and want to kill us. Build the Mosque, don’t build the Mosque, it really does not matter if your only goal is to placate the terrorist. It isn’t going to work. They already think we are the great Satan and that isn’t going to change with a few kind words and some trinkets. Either way (allow it to be built, or not) they will use the propaganda to recruit others to their goals. Either way, they will attempt to attack our citizens and infrastructure in the future. It is a no win situation, pure and simple. To call it anything differently is disingenuous.

So why do I support it being built.

1. It is legal and more importantly it is their right.

2. I’m not worried about pleasing or displeasing the extremists. Like I already wrote they hate us now matter what we do. What I’m worried about our actions pushing the moderates into the extremist category. Violating our own laws and beliefs, falls right in line with the Extremist propaganda of us being at war with all Muslims. It also makes our own propaganda of bringing freedom to the Middle East moot.

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.

Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(

I'm Not American, so This only effects me in the way that People are Dead, Killing, committing suicide/genocide, Arguing, spending Millions on Media and "Place of Worship" building, falling out in Star Wars Forums, and generally wasting life on it... So the first thing we need to do in this century is Stop making such life or death mass media decisions Based on Religion, Then we can Start worrying about building a 16 million Dollar Mosque in the Name of Allah two Blocks away from the site 3 thousand people died in the name of Allah... well... I guess if those decisions stop being made we wouldn't be in this mess.

Like Mimartin said, whether you build it or not, The extremists are still gonna want to Kill you.

Again, not American, and i've not really been engaged by this whole debate (although even if I were interested, I probably wouldn't care that much either way), but...

That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear.

That was my thought, as well.

Surely, by violating the Constitution to prevent the construction of the Mosque, that would grant the extremists an even bigger 'victory' than if the Mosque were to be built?

To me it feels pretty...provocative. I don't think it should be built so close-by, but that's just me.

And since it rubs people off so much why not relocate it? why feed the fire?

To me it feels pretty...provocative. I don't think it should be built so close-by, but that's just me.

And since it rubs people off so much why not relocate it? why feed the fire?
Because in actuality, it doesn't matter where this is built... someone is going to have a problem with its very existence if it's anywhere near a place where it can be identified as any kind of Muslim gathering place and get pissy about it.

The only thing they got wrong by planning to build their community centre so close to "Ground Zero" (btw, that's such a lame name)... is that they should've figured it would obviously make some people go nuts. But, like I said, it doesn't have to be near "Ground Zero" for people to react... it just has to be anywhere where people can identify it and someone will gather up their little squad of protesters and start marching.

LOH:

Your pissed off Muslims are on the other side of the ocean and they do things in the name of Allah but in fact know nothing about the meaning of the words of Allah. The pissed off Muslims here are people like you and me who want to worship as they please peacefully but are not allowed to.
And who is preventing them from doing so? Mostly each other, due to the cultural war between Sunni and Shia.
Need I remind you that this proposed mosque is NOT at the WTC site but like two blocks away in a building that has already been in use as a prayer center for Muslims?
No, you don't. But the fact is that a full on Mosque so close to Ground Zero would provoke an extremely powerful reactionary movement within the United States that would further culturally divide us.
Heck I don't need to give a lesson on sacrilege since the Christians have been doing that since the Inquisition. Oops I should say Catholics since it was first the Spaniards who sacked and nearly wiped out whole Native American populations with disease and war in search of gold and then to add insult to injury build churches on top of temples that can't be excavated because of a holy issue. OH and let's not forget the forcing upon Catholicism on native groups. Then there were the Indian boarding schools...

I tell ya the United States has a long history of discrimination against minorities. A convient forgetting in these modern time.
It is equally convenient to forget that the US has a history of defending individual liberty and well-being. You merely have to look at history differently.

The US is neither the perfect shining beacon of light nor a nest of ignorant bigots. It is an active attempt at balancing the interests of many cultures.
Of course it does not take much to provoke Extremist Terrorist. They hate us and want to kill us. Build the Mosque, don’t build the Mosque, it really does not matter if your only goal is to placate the terrorist. It isn’t going to work. They already think we are the great Satan and that isn’t going to change with a few kind words and some trinkets. Either way (allow it to be built, or not) they will use the propaganda to recruit others to their goals. Either way, they will attempt to attack our citizens and infrastructure in the future. It is a no win situation, pure and simple. To call it anything differently is disingenuous.
All the more reason why it would be preferable to not provoke an extremist uprising within our own country on top of that external threat.
So why do I support it being built.

1. It is legal and more importantly it is their right.

2. I’m not worried about pleasing or displeasing the extremists. Like I already wrote they hate us now matter what we do. What I’m worried about our actions pushing the moderates into the extremist category. Violating our own laws and beliefs, falls right in line with the Extremist propaganda of us being at war with all Muslims. It also makes our own propaganda of bringing freedom to the Middle East moot.

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.
I'll leave these arguments for another time, as we've already debated the principles behind them rather thoroughly. :)
I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(
I just figured four is a solid, even number that is far enough to be away from the site. Your radius is not invalid
Surely, by violating the Constitution to prevent the construction of the Mosque, that would grant the extremists an even bigger 'victory' than if the Mosque were to be built?
At this point, it can be argued that either will be a victory of equal magnitude.
Because in actuality, it doesn't matter where this is built... someone is going to have a problem with its very existence if it's anywhere near a place where it can be identified as any kind of Muslim gathering place and get pissy about it.

The only thing they got wrong by planning to build their community centre so close to "Ground Zero" (btw, that's such a lame name)... is that they should've figured it would obviously make some people go nuts. But, like I said, it doesn't have to be near "Ground Zero" for people to react... it just has to be anywhere where people can identify it and someone will gather up their little squad of protesters and start marching.
That assumes that the American people fundamentally have a problem with Muslims. Granted such a segment of our society exists, but its size is overestimated.

That assumes that the American people fundamentally have a problem with Muslims. Granted such a segment of our society exists, but its size is overestimated.
No, it doesn't assume that at all. But as you've just said, there's only a small group who actually would be feel that way, but then I think we've all learned pretty clearly that it only takes a few to blow up a situation... ;)

You missed the only part of my post directed at you

Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.
I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(
I know you must have just overlooked it because you wrote this earlier.
At this point, I'm only posting because people reply to me and I do not like to leave posts unanswered.

Seems to me that if they moved the mosque/convention center elsewhere in NY that it will remove the bulk of the protestors on the issue and mollify them. You'll never get rid of all people that protest, but America is full of protesters on a wide list of issues. So far as I've seen to this point, most of those are vs the current proposed location, not the existence of mosques or muslims in general. There are >1000 mosques throughout the US and >3+ million muslims as well. If the city of NY wants to be evenhanded in it's approach to the center, perhaps it shouldn't be dragging its ass on the Greek Orthodox church either. That one has had to wait since the attacks to be rebuilt b/c of govt red tape. Meanwhile, till someone can prove that mosques US wide are being shut down wholesale, the mantra that muslims are being denied their right to pray and observe their "first amendment rights" is nothing more than overheated rhetoric aimed at inflaming the issue......which is the location of Rauf's proposed building.

No, it doesn't assume that at all. But as you've just said, there's only a small group who actually would be feel that way, but then I think we've all learned pretty clearly that it only takes a few to blow up a situation... ;)
Yes, and do we need to give those few fire?
You missed the only part of my post directed at you
Actually, I replied:
I just figured four is a solid, even number that is far enough to be away from the site. Your radius is not invalid
And I think the most moderate elements of that 70% will be satisfied if the Mosque is moved about that much.
Seems to me that if they moved the mosque/convention center elsewhere in NY that it will remove the bulk of the protestors on the issue and mollify them. You'll never get rid of all people that protest, but America is full of protesters on a wide list of issues. So far as I've seen to this point, most of those are vs the current proposed location, not the existence of mosques or muslims in general. There are >1000 mosques throughout the US and >3+ million muslims as well. If the city of NY wants to be evenhanded in it's approach to the center, perhaps it shouldn't be dragging its ass on the Greek Orthodox church either. That one has had to wait since the attacks to be rebuilt b/c of govt red tape. Meanwhile, till someone can prove that mosques US wide are being shut down wholesale, the mantra that muslims are being denied their right to pray and observe their "first amendment rights" is nothing more than overheated rhetoric aimed at inflaming the issue......which is the location of Rauf's proposed building.
THIS!

Thank you, Totenkopf. :)

Actually, I replied:
Now you did, you did not answer the question before. :)

Now you answered at it, but still did not answer it, but enough for me to understand that even you know 70% would not just accept your 4 miles mark.

Perhaps someone should commision a national poll (perhaps on Novs ballot) to see just how many people who are opposed to the location of the proposed building would be content to see it moved a mere 2-3 miles from the current proposed site. I suspect that the majority of those believed to constitute the ~70% would be content w/even 2-3 miles (maybe even only 1 mile) from "ground zero". But given that this 70% has ONLY stated that they are opposed to the current proposed site, it's really reaching to assert that they would NOT be content with a mere 4 miles. It might also gauge more accurately just HOW opposed these people are to the mosque/center even being built.

I’d be more interested to know how many of the 70%, knowing the facts, are merely opposed to the Mosque being built near ground zero and how many actually expect the federal government to stop it from being built because of their opposition. I mean how many actually understand that it is not a Federal Issue.

Oh, and it is not reaching to say not all 70% of the 70% opposed to the site would accept the 4 mile mark. :rolleyes: Especially when you consider people now call the Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque and it is 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.


*nitpick* You missed D. Equal protection.

Arguing to change the constitution in any way to meet your desires is the same thing the Liberals had been doing WRT the Second Amendment. I don't like that anymore than changing the First. The moment we decide the BILL OF RIGHTS is flexible, the rights granted in them are no longer rights.

I personally do not like the fact that they are putting it there. BUT the fact remains that the Federal government CANNOT interfere. I would MUCH prefer that IF a religious site were to be built there, that it were an interfaith site. That would do more to help heal the rifts between the Muslim Christian and Jewish elements within this country. BUT AGAIN, it is their RIGHT to build whatever they want there. They bought the property. It is theirs to do whatever they want with it. The government cannot and should not deprive them of their property.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I’d be more interested to know how many of the 70%, knowing the facts, are merely opposed to the Mosque being built near ground zero and how many actually expect the federal government to stop it from being built because of their opposition. I mean how many actually understand that it is not a Federal Issue.

Oh, and it is not reaching to say not all 70% of the 70% opposed to the site would accept the 4 mile mark. :rolleyes: Especially when you consider people now call the Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque and it is 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

Well, given the lack of any actual data on that view, it's pure speculation. Two blocks and four miles aren't exactly "kissing cousins". ;)

Originally Posted by portion of 5th amendment
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Which, according to the recent Kelo decision by the USSC, the city or state of NY could legally "seize" the property and compensate the developers for their out-of-pocket investment.

Which, according to the recent Kelo decision by the USSC, the city or state of NY could legally "seize" the property and compensate the developers for their out-of-pocket investment.

Only if the city or state built something there in the publics interest. They could not resale the property to another developer to build office buildings. Since nothing is planned at this time. May run back into ex post facto again.

Actually, that's pretty much what Kelo allowed for in the first place. The land was owned by someone else, but a developer promised the New London officials more revenue if they got the property....and they did. The original owner was forced to sell and it was upheld by the USSC. Of course, the development failed to secure funding and ended up an empty lot in the end.

Of course, the development failed to secure funding and ended up an empty lot in the end.Which is all that may happen now as they do not have the funding for the center now and the reports I've read said it will be 2014 or later before they build the center.

This smells an awful lot like a PR stunt. Kinda musky...

1) In this case, it empowers their moral and helps give their existence meaning. The symbolic act of their goals being achieved.
2) I respectfully disagree that this threat is entirely out of proportion. Currently, we are facing the full might of the Taliban (allies and sponsors of Al-Qaeda,) an organization that spans both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are a guerrilla army that is causing significant casualties to the ISAF. Meanwhile, the Iran Revolutionary Guard has provided significant training and finances to other significant terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as many Shiite militant groups in Iraq. All facts, all true, and all irrelevant. Not only are they way the hell away, but constantly worrying about what they might/might not/are/are not doing just gives them credibility. Ignoring them and not giving a crap about them is a better strategy-- you can't fight philosophy. If the mosque is built there, you suggest they will view that as a victory. WHO CARES?!?

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject. They don't have the ability to wage all-out war. All they are capable of is terrorism, which is their ability to cause others to fear them. They've succeeded in your case- you're so afraid of what they may think or do that you're willing to trample all over your own civil rights just to appease them. That is the only way they can possibly win. Building a mosque two blocks away.....who cares if they view it as a symbolic victory? It's absolutely meaningless.

Yes that may be the case, but on the other hand by allowing the Mosque to be built there you tell the majority of the country that their government doesn't respect their wishes and supports that not-insignificant section of our citizenry over them.

I personally identify with neither group, but rather with the whole of the country. I support everyone's right to be here, enjoy the rights of this Constitution, and live out their lives and express their cultures however they want.

I am also starting to believe that whether this mosque is built or not, we will be further divided by the event.

And unfortunately, if we ignore the larger part of American citizens, they will become hateful and resentful, and a large number of them will become militants.

No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many. That principle has been enshrined in that document and our legal system since, well, 1789. The Constitution applies even when a significant number of Americans want something else to be true. Take the civil rights struggle from 1865 to the present. The Constitution was amended to prevent slavery, give blacks the right to vote, and to give anyone born on US soil citizenship (originally designed to keep pissed off Southerners from keeping Blacks from voting). This is an example of how the Constitution protects the rights of the few from the masses. Same with freedom of religion-- do you worship Hitler? That's messed up, but your legal right. Same with free speech-- do you think Obama is a Muslim born in Indonesia? Well, you're a giant idiot, but such is your right. Same with the right to bear arms-- do you like guns? Congrats, you can own them to arm yourself. Do I need to go on? (NB-- this is the same reason Prop 8 just got overturned.)

Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."

I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics? I'm not that old, dammit!

All facts, all true, and all irrelevant. Not only are they way the hell away, but constantly worrying about what they might/might not/are/are not doing just gives them credibility. Ignoring them and not giving a crap about them is a better strategy-- you can't fight philosophy. If the mosque is built there, you suggest they will view that as a victory. WHO CARES?!?

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject. They don't have the ability to wage all-out war. All they are capable of is terrorism, which is their ability to cause others to fear them. They've succeeded in your case- you're so afraid of what they may think or do that you're willing to trample all over your own civil rights just to appease them. That is the only way they can possibly win. Building a mosque two blocks away.....who cares if they view it as a symbolic victory? It's absolutely meaningless.
So you are implying that I am afraid of the terrorists? Well yes, I am afraid of innocent civilians dying due to a criminal network of psychopathic maniacs. I am afraid of my loved ones visiting a major city and turning on the news to find out that their plane, train, subway, etc. was blown up. I am afraid of a part of our symbolic heritage such as the Statue of Liberty being knocked down by an airliner. Hell, I'm also afraid of an ideological US civil war that could destabilize the economy and collapse world civilization as a result of our current political division.

Now am I constantly afraid of this sort of thing? No, I am not kept up awake at night by these sort of thoughts, nor are they on my mind often. But I do know that this threat is very real, and there is no point in pretending like it is not.

And as for civil rights, again I keep trying to make it clear that I only support this abridgment of the law in this one case and not as a practice. Nor do I support any form of discrimination.
No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many. That principle has been enshrined in that document and our legal system since, well, 1789. The Constitution applies even when a significant number of Americans want something else to be true. Take the civil rights struggle from 1865 to the present. The Constitution was amended to prevent slavery, give blacks the right to vote, and to give anyone born on US soil citizenship (originally designed to keep pissed off Southerners from keeping Blacks from voting). This is an example of how the Constitution protects the rights of the few from the masses. Same with freedom of religion-- do you worship Hitler? That's messed up, but your legal right. Same with free speech-- do you think Obama is a Muslim born in Indonesia? Well, you're a giant idiot, but such is your right. Same with the right to bear arms-- do you like guns? Congrats, you can own them to arm yourself. Do I need to go on? (NB-- this is the same reason Prop 8 just got overturned.)
No offense, but that is bull. The Constitution is not merely a document based on minority protection. It does protect civil rights and such as part of amendments, but that is not the intent. The Founding Fathers did not write this document saying, "Let's give white middle-class men the finger and enshrine the privileges of minority groups!". Hell, these guys were white middle-class men, some of which were owners of slaves. Their intent was to create a compromise of values between major political factions and allow for civil rights to be added through amendments (one of the reasons we have those clauses).

No, the Constitution is a primarily document that underlies the balancing of government authority, including Federal Government branches and their balancing with State Governments. Of course, we have failed miserably to uphold those balances, but life goes on I guess....
Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."
Why are you bringing Sarah Palin into this? Attempting to invalidate the political right does not validate your argument, especially when I identify with no political ideology. My views are purely my own.
I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics? I'm not that old, dammit!
Obviously they are being taught to label anyone who disagrees with their views as uneducated. :raise:

The only way they can possibly win their idea of a war is to get the US to kowtow to their wishes by making it PC to tiptoe around any Muslim-sensitive subject.

If that's the case, they've already won. ;) That is how many in the media treat the subject of islamism and radical muslim terrorism in the US (and probably much of the west in general). Hell, even "big sis" and the BO in general bend over backwards to use euphemisms to refer to such acts. That idiot Bloomberg tried to run a "it's probably someone upset w/the healthcare postion of the administration" when Faisal Shahzad attempted to car bomb NY.


No. The point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few against the demands of the many.

Not quite. A big part of the Constitution was to protect the people from a potentially tyrannical govt (hence the first 10 amendments alone being mainly aimed at restricting the govts power over the individual). In the case of the south and blacks, the 14th amendment was to prevent state govts from oppressing the newly released slaves. As Obama himself observed (bitched, actually), the Constitutiuon is basically a negative charter of govt rights vs the people.


Just because a significant proportion of Americans mate with vegetables and think the Mosque is the worst idea since Sarah Palin does not mean the Constitution is invalid and paranoia wins over civil rights. The people wanting to build a Mosque have every right to, and even if I don't agree I'll defend their right to the end. That is the principle this country was founded on, not "Majority Rules Alwayz, Screw the Little Guy."

Again, as demonstrated by the Kelo-New London decision (as well as a bunch of federal and other govt regs), just possessing private property doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want with your land. Eminent domain is NOT a new concept, but it has been expanded to unreasonable lengths w/that decision.


I seriously wonder what the hell is being taught in schools these days, how can people be so unbelievably uneducated in our Government, Legal System, and Civics?

How to put on a condomn, probably. :xp:

Nor do I support any form of discrimination.
You do mean you do not support any form of discrimination, except in this one particular case. Right? :rolleyes: Because how else would you describe adamantly wanting the federal government (when it is something outside the Federal Governments jurisdiction) to stop one specific group (that was not involve in illegal activity) from building a Religious building at Ground Zero (which is not at ground zero, but two blocks away)?
unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender.

I spoke to a Muslim friend of mine, and he couldn't care less if the mosque is built or not... Because non Muslims have such a lack of understanding of Islam, and its separation from such atrocities carried out by these terroists... He thinks we are beyond help if we (non Muslims, obviously not YOU if you are) would but him and Osama in the same sentence.

I honestly cannot believe that a conservative voice would be so adamant about disallowing this mosque that they actually propose ignoring the constitution, "just this one time." That would open up the flood gates to more "just this one time" situations. Do you realize there are enough credible threats to security that they could "just this one time" us into totalitarianism?

lots and lots and lots of wordsy words

I'll go further than DI, and much more directly.

Please bugger off from arguments beyond your experiential ability to grasp.

Again, young man, you have no real experience in the real world. That is a fact undeniable, despite any objection you might raise. You are a 19 year old boy, and your steadfast refusal to consider the multitude of objections you face without a thought of concession here or point given there drives that boyness all the way home.

There is nothing wrong with being a boy. I was one once. Lasted until I was about 28~29. You outgrow it, and end up laughing at the crazy thoughts you held dearly, the immovable positions you once held so dearly that now barely color your thoughts...

I hope you soon find that day, because I cannot figure out a better way to deal with your presence than with laughter, as you refuse to lay down an argument you can't win.

I am laughing at your crazy undeveloped thoughts.

As to the thread topic.... America = freedom of religion = put a religious building wherever you want/can afford.

/thread

I honestly cannot believe that a conservative voice would be so adamant about disallowing this mosque that they actually propose ignoring the constitution, "just this one time." That would open up the flood gates to more "just this one time" situations. Do you realize there are enough credible threats to security that they could "just this one time" us into totalitarianism?

Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque. Just my 2 cents, as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

You do mean you do not support any form of discrimination, except in this one particular case. Right? :rolleyes: Because how else would you describe adamantly wanting the federal government (when it is something outside the Federal Governments jurisdiction) to stop one specific group (that was not involve in illegal activity) from building a Religious building at Ground Zero (which is not at ground zero, but two blocks away)?
National security? Avoiding civil unrest? Respecting the dead?

And as Totenkopf so kindly put it, this has to do with location. A Mosque is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built on the site of a Muslim Extremist terrorist attack is a problem.
I'll go further than DI, and much more directly.

Please bugger off from arguments beyond your experiential ability to grasp.

Again, young man, you have no real experience in the real world. That is a fact undeniable, despite any objection you might raise. You are a 19 year old boy, and your steadfast refusal to consider the multitude of objections you face without a thought of concession here or point given there drives that boyness all the way home.

There is nothing wrong with being a boy. I was one once. Lasted until I was about 28~29. You outgrow it, and end up laughing at the crazy thoughts you held dearly, the immovable positions you once held so dearly that now barely color your thoughts...

I hope you soon find that day, because I cannot figure out a better way to deal with your presence than with laughter, as you refuse to lay down an argument you can't win.

I am laughing at your crazy undeveloped thoughts.
Wow. And you have the right or qualifications to make these judgments about me? You don't even know me, or my life experiences.

And who said anything about winning? This is not a competition, this is a discussion.

Age does not define character. People already do that.
As to the thread topic.... America = freedom of religion = put a religious building wherever you want/can afford.

/thread
Qui-Gon Glenn has spoken.

Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque.

:rofl: Seriously, Ping. Perhaps if you had said "some" instead of implying "all"..... Most of the conservatives in this thread have agreed that they legally have a right to build a mosque/convention center on their property as long as there are no legal problems. :rolleyes: BO's postion has nothing to do with that sentiment.

...... as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

There is some legitimacy to this notion, but it also seems to imply that most issues find opposing parties disagreeing for the sake of disagreement and NOT b/c there might be principles involved.

Frankly, b/c it bears reiteration (and b/c BO's original 1/2 answer also bears it out), the argument is not over the right to place a religious "trophy" near the site of the former Twin Towers, but over the wisdom of that decision. Doing something b/c you're able and doing it b/c you should aren't axiomatically the same thing.

Actually, I can't help but wonder if conservatives are opposing it just because Obama happens to support the mosque. Just my 2 cents, as it's pretty typical for one side to oppose the other, regardless of the situation.

hmph. I happen to be a conservative. Quite frankly even most of the conservatives on talk radio oppose federal intervention(at least the ones I listen to... Maybe Rush Limbaugh is saying it, but I listen to him about once in a few months). MOST conservatives are saying the feds have no right to step in. And the most I heard was that Obama shouldn't have even weighed in at all.

Liberals in NY ALSO have a problem with the mosque. Unless you think that NY has suddenly become 70% conservative.

All this talk of "sensitivity to the Muslims" building the mosque while being insensitive to those who live there has done nothing to bridge the gap. Those who lost loved ones are split on the issue, but all of NYC were traumatized. So for them to rail about insensitivity, smacks of hypocrisy.

Many of those opposed have said it's not about the mosque in general. They would gladly accept it within 2 blocks of their home. They are not saying for the government to step in and stop it. Just that they don't want it.

Wow. And you have the right or qualifications to make these judgments about me? You don't even know me, or my life experiences.
I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.

And who said anything about winning? This is not a competition, this is a discussion.Right, that is why you have some of the smartest minds in the forum plugging away at your arguments, really quite effectively shredding them, yet you come back for more, and always with your smarmy condescension. You are either a troll, or you are irresistible troll-bait.

Qui-Gon Glenn has spoken.Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.

And as Totenkopf so kindly put it, this has to do with location. A Mosque is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built is not a problem. Allowing a Mosque to be built on the site of a Muslim Extremist terrorist attack is a problem.

And it has been said multiple times that the proposed site is nowhere on the WTC site. It is two blocks away in a building that had been in use as a prayer location for Muslims long before the events of September 11th.

I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.

I've heard this speech before and I totally agree. I'm only 26 and I'm still learning from my elders. I know that those that have come before me know more than I ever will yet the same happens vice versa where the old learn from the young. Glad you made that statement Qui-Gon.

Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.

Agreed there yet when people formulate their arguments regarding yes or no to building a mosque, they conveniently forget it. The same convenient forgetting that has occurred throughout US history.

And it has been said multiple times that the proposed site is nowhere on the WTC site. It is two blocks away in a building that had been in use as a prayer location for Muslims long before the events of September 11th.

Two things. First, in a city the size of NY, 2 blocks easily rates as "close". To say that it is "nowhere near" begs a definition of how elasticly terms are being used. As to the other, is that merely that a bunch of muslims are using the building to pray in unoffically or is some kind of permit involved that permits them to use it as an ersatz religious site? Afterall, people can pretty much pray wherever they like so long as they are not bothering anyone and the owners of the property don't object (hence no one claiming unlawful trespass for instance). Somehow I get the impression that if the current building were being used as is (or in a repaired state), we might not really be hearing about this. Afterall, no one is really pissing and moaning about all the little "street mosques" that can be found throughout NY.

totes what about the free market if the invisible hand didnt want that mosque there the mosque's builders would have been outbid for the land

Given this guys trouble raising funds, maybe it doesn't.