'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less provocative

[hrmwrm]

This from the guy who is a gold member of IHateChristians.org.

coming from a person who believes there are christians who aren't christians, you must be a platinum member.

 

[hrmwrm]

By creating this Mosque so close to Ground Zero they have set a trap
to invite and make trouble.
They know this is a provocation.
It's a symbolic thing that goes beyond those who live closest to it.

thanks for that nice little piece of conspiracy propaganda.
you should start a petition to ban them from a 10 block radius.

 

[cammerfe]

Sinclair Lewis was a socialist, and, by his writings and utterances, a nitwit.

KS

 

[fossten]

So now the Ground Zero imam is threatening the US:

Rauf said that if he knew how controversial the project would be, he “never would have done this – not have done something that would create more divisiveness.”

However, he said he is convinced he shouldn’t move the center now because “our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it and what we do.”…

“If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” Rauf said. “… If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.”

He said moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals’ ability to recruit followers and will increase violence against Americans.

 

[shagdrum]

So now the Ground Zero imam is threatening the US:

He is playing the multiculturalist sentiments in the MSM and the beltway elites masterfully.

 

[04SCTLS]

From the cartoonists

 

[TheDude]

Does "freedom of religion" include the right to worship wherever you want?

What is the scope of the "freedom of religion" in your view?

As long as it abides by local laws, yes.

EG, Does a Christian or Muslim have the right to break into my house and praise God, no.

 

[shagdrum]

As long as it abides by local laws, yes.

What about economic liberty; the right to property? Does someone have the right to worship at any place of business?

Or, if you want the more dramatic, does someone have the right to worship in a way that that worship involves human sacrifice?

Where do you get the notion that you have a right to worship where ever you want?

 

[fossten]

So, to sum up both threads:

Lefties say GZM is ok, burning Qur'an not ok.

Political correctness gone amok? Or simple cowardice?

So, let’s get this straight: On their side, they have the US flag burners, Islamic terrorists, Catholic nun and Jew killers, Iranian Islamics putting a bounty on American servicemen, and plans to raise a Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero.

On the US side, there are a few cartoonists, and a protestant pastor and 50 congregants threatening to go Fahrenheit 451 on a Qur'an — and he’s gonna make things worse for American troops?

Wake me when this joke of liberal idiocy is over.

 

[Calabrio]

Religion of peace...

Didn't you hear the world wide condemnation?

 

[Calabrio]

Religion of peace...

Didn't you hear the world wide condemnation?

 

[Calabrio]

What I am trying to say is that among the people who are near the mosque or are in the area the mosque will be serving, there is not real dissent. Why don't you visit the area and see how many people you can count protesting it, or poll people who work in the area and see how many are against it?

bout 50% of people in NYC are opposed to the building of the Cordoba Mosque, compared to the 35% that support it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/nyregion/03poll.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

The fact that you personally haven't seen people leaving their jobs in lower Manhattan to protest isn't even anecdotal evidence.

Most people aren't saying they oppose the construction of any mosque in New York City. There are about 200 mosques in NYC right now, and I think at least 30 have come to being since 9/11/2001.

I think the relationships of those associated with the mosque and how it will be funded should be cause of great concern.

 

[FIND]

bout 50% of people in NYC are opposed to the building of the Cordoba Mosque, compared to the 35% that support it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/nyregion/03poll.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

The fact that you personally haven't seen people leaving their jobs in lower Manhattan to protest isn't even anecdotal evidence.

Most people aren't saying they oppose the construction of any mosque in New York City. There are about 200 mosques in NYC right now, and I think at least 30 have come to being since 9/11/2001.

I think the relationships of those associated with the mosque and how it will be funded should be cause of great concern.

The statistics you are stating are misleading. A huge majority now is asking for the mosque to be moved further away due to the national outcry, this does not mean they are against the mosque for any personal reasons or that they don't believe it is right.

Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose building the project two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it.

Also, New York is a pretty big place. How about taking a poll of people that live or work near where this mosque is going?

Opposition is more intense in the boroughs outside Manhattan — for example, 54 percent in the Bronx — but it is even strong in Manhattan, considered a bastion of religious tolerance, where 41 percent are against it.

As you can see, there is NOT a majority in the area the mosque will be....

The poll was conducted Aug. 27 to 31 with 892 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

892 adults all over New York City? That would be like asking 3 guys on the street of Sarasota their opinion, and believing that it is representative of the whole city.

While a majority said politicians in New York should take a stand on the issue, most disapprove of those outside the city weighing in: Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among others, have tried to rally opposition to the center.

Unsurprisingly New Yorkers want the Faux News crowd to mind their own business....

Opponents offered differing opinions on how far the complex should be built from ground zero. One-fifth said at least 20 blocks, while almost the same number said at least 10 blocks. Seven percent said at least five blocks.

“Personally I would prefer it not be built at all, but if it is going to be built it should be at least 20 blocks away,” said Maria Misetzis, 30, of the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn.

Almost 2 miles away from ground zero? Wow. So, about 12 square miles of Manhattan should be off limits to Muslims because a terrorist picked that as a target?


When all is said and done, how is the mosque being at this location going to hurt anything anyways? Will it make it harder for you to go to the ground zero tittie bar, the ground zero McDonalds, ground zero chinese, or any of the ground zero bars?

 

[TheDude]

What about economic liberty; the right to property? Does someone have the right to worship at any place of business?

Or, if you want the more dramatic, does someone have the right to worship in a way that that worship involves human sacrifice?

Where do you get the notion that you have a right to worship where ever you want?

The hell, Strawman much? I said "if it's within local laws." Businesses have a right to not allow practices in the confines of their space. I certainly can't go into Safeway and sleep in aisle 17.

Human sacrifice would be against the law. See: Reynolds Vs The United States, a precedent was set.

Again, I clearly didn't say that as is. I said "within the law."

Anyhow, what are the legal reasons to not allow this gym/Mosque being built in NY? Because the angle on 'it's in bad taste, because some people think Islam attacked us on 9/11' doesn't supersede the 1st Amendment. There needs to be a legal reason to not allow this; can you name it? I can't.

 

[shagdrum]

The hell, Strawman much? I said "if it's within local laws."

The right to life and the right to property are both Natural Rights that are protected in the Constitution; meaning by the FEDERAL government. They have since been "incorporated" and applied to the states as well. This is not simply an issue of "local law" in the manner you are saying.

Human sacrifice would be against the law.

I know the precedent.

Why would it be against the law? What concern overrides the rights enshrined in the Free Exercise Clause?

Where do rights come from?

Simply saying "within the law" is not adequate unless rights come from the government.

Anyhow, what are the legal reasons to not allow this gym/Mosque being built in NY?

I never said their were legal reasons and never implied that the Mosque should be forcible stopped from being built through any means; legal or otherwise.

 

[TheDude]

The right to life and the right to property are both Natural Rights that are protected in the Constitution; meaning by the FEDERAL government. They have since been "incorporated" and applied to the states as well. This is not simply an issue of "local law" in the manner you are saying.



I know the precedent.

Why would it be against the law? What concern overrides the rights enshrined in the Free Exercise Clause?

Where do rights come from?

Simply saying "within the law" is not adequate unless rights come from the government.



I never said their were legal reasons and never implied that the Mosque should be forcible stopped from being built through any means; legal or otherwise.

Alright, take out "local", point still stands. "Within in law."

Why would human sacrifice be against the law, is this what you're asking? Confused.

Maybe I'm confused again, Freedom of Religion is in The Bill of Rights, if the government doesn't make and enforce laws that effectively give "us" these rights, what does?

Fair enough. So I take it you don't want it built for personal reasons?

 

[fossten]

if the government doesn't make and enforce laws that effectively give "us" these rights, what does?

BINGO! You've arrived at the $64,000,000 question.

 

[shagdrum]

Why would human sacrifice be against the law, is this what you're asking? Confused.

Maybe I'm confused again, Freedom of Religion is in The Bill of Rights, if the government doesn't make and enforce laws that effectively give "us" these rights, what does?

The two are related and tie into a very important point I was setting up.

Natural Rights are rights that transcend the material world. They are rights that are inherent in man because he is made in God's image (as the framers understood it). Since our rights come from a higher authority then any mere government, they cannot be taken away by any government (except through due process) and serve as an inherent restriction on that government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

Weather or not you agree with this idea, it is the idea that our nation and all it's governmental institutions (including the three branches of government) are founded on.

Simply because a majority of the country doesn't like that the Mosque is being built there, and think it is an intentional desecration of the site doesn't, in any way, authorize government to do anything about it.

That doesn't change the fact that most people don't want it there and find it offensive, but they are not generally looking to government to enforce their views. Despite all the claims to the contrary, their actions are the epitome of tolerance; properly understood.

Toleration is intentionally allowing, or refraining from preventing, actions which one dislikes or believes to be morally wrong.​

or, put more simply...

To tolerate is first to condemn and then to put up with​

Unfortunately, toleration has effectively been redefined in this society to mean the exact opposite of tolerance; indifference and active support.

 

[TheDude]

I'm aware of the jist of what's written in The Declaration of Independence, I've read it before.

I don't follow how you're tying it together here, considering our conversation started with me saying "Freedom of religion, just not here", implying that the people who are so against a gym/Mosque in that spot are a bit asinine, considering they're letting personal emotions rule them.

Your response implied that you believe otherwise, that the 1st Amendment had/has nothing to do with the Mosque issue.

 

[shagdrum]

I'm aware of the jist of what's written in the Declaration of Independence, I've read it before.

I don't follow how you're tying it together here, considering our conversation started with me saying "Freedom of religion, just not here", implying that the people who are so against a gym/Mosque in that spot are a bit asinine, considering they're letting personal emotions rule them.

I was simply expecting you to provide evidence and/or logical proof that "freedom of religion" include the right to worship wherever you want.

This necessitates an understanding of the nature of rights and of their limits. No right is absolute.

 

[TheDude]

I was simply expecting you to provide evidence and/or logical proof that "freedom of religion" include the right to worship wherever you want.

This necessitates an understanding of the nature of rights and of their limits. No right is absolute.

And again, I responded that I didn't say that (freedom to worship anywhere); the law would be a factor and gave you an example.

If you agree that this Mosque isn't in any violation then there shouldn't be a problem, barring personal issues against it, which are just that.

 

[shagdrum]

And again, I responded that I didn't say that (freedom to worship anywhere); the law would be a factor and gave you an example.

But if it is simply laws that are the limits of rights, then rights are completely arbitrary and meaningless. Legislators, judges, etc can define rights however they see fit and can exclude this Mosque from any 1st Amendment concerns if they are so inclined.

Rights have to come from an authority higher then the government; especially in our unique system. Otherwise, liberty is completely subjective and meaningless.

So, to simply point to laws as the limit of the scope of rights is missing the point. Laws only reflect the limits of rights.

If you agree that this Mosque isn't in any violation then there shouldn't be a problem, barring personal issues against it, which are just that.

So, finding fault with something is only legitimate if what you are finding fault with is illegal?

Name one advanced society that functions that way.

 

[lincolnx2]

I was listening to Sirius radio this AM, and heard the proposed place for the mosque is four blocks away from ground zero. Is this true?

 

[cammerfe]

Distance

I was listening to Sirius radio this AM, and heard the proposed place for the mosque is four blacks away from ground zero. Is this true?

Hey Linc---

Doesn't that depend on how tall the blacks are?

KS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as a comment on this whole building idea--Are you liberal/progressive America haters out there suggesting that a lack of laws regarding mosque building makes it impossible for me to object to the trophy-building of this affront to the US?

KS

 

[lincolnx2]

Hey Linc---

Doesn't that depend on how tall the blacks are?

KS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as a comment on this whole building idea--Are you liberal/progressive America haters out there suggesting that a lack of laws regarding mosque building makes it impossible for me to object to the trophy-building of this affront to the US?

KS

Really really really tall black men!