- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 17, 2010 at 1:14 am #595984
CarsonParticipantCongress 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.
Its interesting how the right is attacking Obama for defending this first and most basic right granted. As much as I detest what happened on 9-11, I wasn’t aware the Constitution has been changed to prohibit a house of worship close to ground zero.
Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag and burn the Constitution. Liberals wrap themselves in the Constitution and burn the flag.
August 17, 2010 at 1:25 am #701587
DPMemberCarson: Thanks for bringing this issue up. Frankly, I was afraid to, because I suspect that my opinion on this won’t be very popular.
Anyway, that can wait . . . What I’d like to speak to now is the issue you raise about constitutionality. As I see it, this is a political issue, not a legal one. And as far as I can tell, no one’s saying otherwise. Are they?
If Obama and Bloomberg say build the mosque there, they’re really just saying they think it’s a good idea for the symbolic value. They’re not weighing in on whether it’s legal to build it or not, because no one’s even questioning that. It is legal.
Conversely, if 9-11 families (and New Yorkers generally) are saying don’t build the mosque there they’re just saying they think it’s a bad idea, not that it should be outlawed.
Correct me if I’m wrong, which I could well be.
Thanks again for breaking the ice.
–David
August 17, 2010 at 3:06 am #701588
DOCMemberCarson, I may be very wrong on this, but this is what I understood. Obama agrees that the mosque should be built there because it legally can, but may or may not agree with the morality of it. I think most New Yorkers are wanting to stop the building of it there through legal means, essentially saying “you can’t legally build that there”.
Frankly, I agree with Obama. I believe that it has every right to be built there, regardless of whether or no I agree or not. Either way, there are Mosques all over the city, including 4 blocks from the WTC site.
Most people who don’t want it built there, don’t want it there because it is a muslim building and they don’t want muslims there (IMHO). I see it as them ignoring the constitution to serve out their own prejudice. A small group of fanatics destroyed the WTC, not the other 1 Billion. It would be like saying no more churches in Kansas because Fred Phelps lives in Topeka. Although I would like to see him and his family dead frankly…
August 17, 2010 at 3:20 am #701589
CarsonParticipantDOC, you are dead right, and several Republican members of Congress seem to think they (Muslims) don’t have the right to build a house of worship on private property and have been questioning Obama’s support of the 1st Amendment. Personally, I am far more offended by American Priests molesting American children. The children trusted the priests, we have never really trusted foreign Muslims and knew the day was going to come eventually.
August 17, 2010 at 3:24 am #701590
RAKParticipantI believe the President defended the right without comment on the judgment. Personally, I think the judgment is questionable but the right is absolute in the USA. My goodness, not all Muslims are terrorists (though I think some of their practices are weird). Christians and Jews have an equal criminal, terrorist history.
August 17, 2010 at 4:17 am #701591
JoBParticipantit’s a church…
the muslim faith didn’t bring the towers down
fanatics did..
fanatics who may have used faith as an excuse.
August 17, 2010 at 4:19 am #701592
CarolPBMemberthe KKK claim to be Christians, after all….not my God
August 17, 2010 at 4:37 am #701593
DPMemberHere’s a link to a transcript of what President Obama said about the mosque.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obamas-remarks-about-ground-ze.html
From this, I think you could make the case that Obama was in favor of the mosque being built near GZ. That is certainly the way the news services played it, anyway. (The Reuters headline went: “Obama backs controversial NW mosque project.”)
Since then, the President has “clarified” his remarks, but he probably figured on having to do that all along. He seems to be trying to have it both ways on this. (I wish him luck with that.)
In any case, DOC is correct that Obama does not speak directly to the issue of whether building a mosque in this particular locale is “moral.” In fact, I think it is moral. —How can it not be moral for any group that bases its moral code on faith in a deity to build a temple to that deity?
Having said that, I still think the proposed mosque project shows bad judgment and that it will not come to a good end. There are plenty of other places that mosque could have been built that wouldn’t have bruised the feelings of New Yorkers. Why do they need to build it so close? Frankly, it seems like a provocation.
Of course it’s easy for us Seattle-ites to urge tolerance and understanding on the people of New York, since we haven’t experienced their pain. I just wonder if we would be as tolerant if the roles were reversed.
August 17, 2010 at 4:49 am #701594
DOCMemberI love the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. You should just check out these two clips for a pretty good argument.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-update—ground-zero-mosque
August 17, 2010 at 5:57 am #701595
rockhillsMemberThanks, Doc, I needed that!
August 17, 2010 at 6:26 am #701596
HMC RichParticipantIt is two blocks from Ground Zero. A little close but not on Ground Zero. A former coat factory. Hmmm.
Carson started out with a quote about separation of church and state. Why then does USAID send people and money to help build or rebuild religious institututions? Just asking since some think religion is so bad.
I find it Ironic that the “Cordoba House” will be named after the church that was conquered by Islam in Spain and turned into a mosque.
Most disconcerting is why the President even said something and then backed away?
Carson, maybe you should try to start an outreach program for Republicans.
RAK, please look up how many conflicts are in the world currently and who is involved. Islam is involved are most of the conflicts. There is a high percentage of Christians involved in War. Jews not so much. I wish the Arabs would leave them alone, but they never will.
The KKK…Robert Byrds former club? Not wanted, not accepted.
I have wasted too much time on this thread. This is silly.
August 17, 2010 at 6:27 am #701597
dobroParticipantThis commentary from Keith Olbermann lists the facts which pretty much obliterate another ginned-up controversy designed to stoke fear and hatred and give Republicans something to talk about other than their lack of ideas to help America’s recovery…check it out.
August 17, 2010 at 7:26 am #701598
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
pssst…
fighting on the other side of those islam conflicts you allude to are … christians…
and when it comes to the big ones..
we invaded them :(
August 17, 2010 at 9:43 am #701599
KenParticipantOlbermann excerpt for those who can’t access videos:
What was that about Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq? To free the world, and especially Iraq’s citizens of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That’s its supporters defense of the Iraq invasion of this hour. Well who lives in Iraq? Muslims. I hate to reveal this to anybody on the right who doesn’t know this but when they say Iraq is 65% Shia and 32% Sunni you do know that Shia and Sunni are forms of the Muslim religion, right?
We sacrificed 4,415 of our military personnel in Iraq to save Muslims, and there are thousands of us still there tonight to protect Muslims, but we don’t want Muslims to open a combination culinary school and prayer space
in Manhattan.
From the beginning of this nation we have fought prejudice and religious intolerance and our greatest enemy stupidity exploited by rapacious politicians. It is only 50 years now, this month since Americans publicly and urgently warned their countryman not to support a presidential candidate because he was Roman Catholic. He would bow to the will not of the American people, but of the Pope. He would be a papist. He would be the agent of a foreign state. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Despite the nobility of our founding and the indefatigable efforts of all of our generations, there have always been those who would happily sacrifice our freedoms, our principals to ward off the latest unprecedented threat, the latest unbeatable “outsiders”. But once again at 45 Park Place, we are being told to sell our birth right. To feed the maw of xenophobia and vengeance and mob rule.
The terrorists who destroyed the buildings from which you could only see 45 Park Place as a dot on the ground, wanted to force us to change our country, to become more like the ones (they) knew. What better way could we honor the dead at the World Trade Center than to do the terrorists heavy lifting for them.
Do you think 45 Park Place is where it ends? The moment this monstrous betrayal of our America gained the slightest traction, the next goal was unveiled. “No more building permits for any Mosques in this country” brayed the man from the euphemistically named American Families Association. Of course, he said maybe the permits could be granted if the congregation was “willing to publicly denounce the Koran.”
They came first for the building permits….
August 17, 2010 at 5:13 pm #701600
YardvarkMemberI’d like to think the Dems would fight the good fight on this one.
Unforunately, Harry Reid seemed to announce the other day that he’d like to be a bigot too, as long as it helps him keep his job. And then Obama added to the insult by stating that even though he isn’t a bigot, he isn’t not a bigot either, to be precise.
I might be paraphrasing.
Either way, I think this type of issue points out that we appear to have very few genuine leaders in this country. Most folks are actually just following poll numbers.
So sad and dissapointing.
August 17, 2010 at 7:05 pm #701601
DPMemberKeith Olbermann is doing that thing where you don’t quite call your opponents Nazis, but you do put them squarely on the Nazi continuum.
Olbermann: They came first for the building permits . . .
A few months ago, someone on this very forum tried to characterize people who supported a state income tax as being on the Nazi track, too. Remember that?
So let me try to get this straight now . . .
People who want an income tax are well on the way to becoming Nazis. —Right?
And people who don’t want a monument to religion near a religious-inspired massacre are Nazis-in-training, too. —Right?
So . . . um . . . at this point I’d like everyone who’s not a Nazi to leave the room.
No doubt, some bigots are exploiting this GZ mosque brouhaha to bash Muslims, and we should stand together against that.
(Let me think for a second, here. Yup. I’m against that.)
In the meantime, though, other questions are still open. Questions like:
- Is it really a good idea to build a mosque right there?
- Are there alternative locations for the mosque part of this project? Locations that won’t piss off half the country?
— and —
Think of the mosque proposal as analogous to a Japanese cultural group wanting to build a Japanese military history museum within view of the Pearl Harbor Memorial. Or an American energy consortium proposing to hold a nuclear power exposition outside the “atomic dome” in Hiroshima.
Legal? —Maybe.
Insensitive? —Probably.
Foolish? —Definitely.
I’m going to make a prediction. I predict this thing will roil on for several more months, until everyone’s had a chance to sound off about it one way or the other.
In the end, the developer, one Mr. Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is an otherwise sensible and fairminded man, will either drop the project all together or just the mosque part of it (what Rauf calls a “prayer room”).
Rauf is not doing Islam or his fellow Muslims any good by pushing this thing, and I think he’ll eventually realize that.
Coming up next: Who gets to say what Tom’s religion means to Dick.
—Is it Harry? Or what?
Peace Out!
-D.P.
August 17, 2010 at 7:10 pm #701602
CarsonParticipantDP,
There is no legal basis for the right to build a Japanese Museum close to Pearl Harbor. A Buddhist Temple yes. Should they build a Mosque so close to ground zero? No. Can they? Yes.
August 17, 2010 at 7:17 pm #701603
JanSParticipantDP…I think you’re stretching that just a bit. He is not calling anyone Nazi’s…he’s using a familiar quote that is used in many instances – not just to accuse people of being Nazis. I agree with him…you can’t have it all ways. They own the property…they should be allowed to build what they want there, within the bounds of zoning and laws. Monument to religion? It would be an education center, too. There is a smaller mosque only 4 blocks away…should that one be torn down?
I just don’t understand people who stretch things like you are to inflame the discussion. You know very well what he was saying. Again…not all Muslims are terrorists. The ones who brought these buildings down had incredibly skewed views of what they believe.
August 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm #701604
mpentoParticipantI just don’t think that Obama is that stupid (I could be wrong). All this election stuff going on and he dangled a carrot infront of the republicans and they jumped on it. Also I was surprised that the “popular” media seemed to agree that he was stating that he is in favor of the mosque being built when he is obviously just stating they have the legal right. Fear the mosque instead of fearing the economy is going down the toilet. One just produces religious war the other will bring an end to the world as we know it!
August 17, 2010 at 9:44 pm #701605
dhgParticipantTHERE IS a shinto temple close to Pearl Harbor. There is a giant US military base within 20 miles of Hiroshma. There are many muslims working in lower Manhattan. They want to worship in a converted Burlington Coat Factory. Good for them.
One thing I’ve recently sussed is that the Republicans are really good at taking a NON-ISSUE (i.e. burning the flag!!!!!!!!!!!!) and turning it into a referendum on patriotism. Who cares if they give all the breaks to the uber-rich and the middle-class loses. We’re patriots!
August 17, 2010 at 10:32 pm #701606
JoBParticipantpatriotism would seem to consist of defending what this country actually stands for..
freedom of religion is one of those things this country stands for.
August 18, 2010 at 4:52 am #701607
dobroParticipantThe phony issue will be dragged out by the corporate media/Republican echo chamber as long as possible because they got nothin’. no ideas, no willingness to work together to help america’s recovery from their thievery and treason,nothing but hate and fear.
If you consider yourself an American and actually believe in the constitution and Bill of Rights, there’s no issue here at all.
August 18, 2010 at 5:45 am #701608
waterworldParticipantWay back at post 11, HMC Rich asked “Why then does USAID send people and money to help build or rebuild religious institutions?” apparently in reference to Carson’s quoting the language of the First Amendment. I didn’t know that USAID funded religious institutions, so I thought I’d look into that. Turns out, this goes back to President Bush’s efforts to expand the availability of government money to religious organizations.
.
In 2001 and 2002, Bush issued Executive Orders 13198, 13279, and 13280, which collectively directed a number of federal agencies to “identify and eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and community organizations in the provision of social services by their Departments,” and “to ensure equal protection of laws for faith-based and community groups that apply for funds to meet and administer social service programs domestically and abroad.” In other words, let’s give religious institutions an equal opportunity to apply for federal funding to support humanitarian projects.
.
I’m a little bit baffled, and very disappointed, that so many people condemn the notion of opening an Islamic center a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero. Such condemnation is inconsistent with our history and constitutional commitment to religious freedom and tolerance. And I agree with everyone who’s already pointed out that Islam didn’t attack us, a group of extreme, violent radicals who purport to embody the principles of Islam attacked us. Muslims died in the attacks on September 11. Muslims fight in our nation’s war against Al Qaida alongside people of other faiths. Muslims live and work in Lower Manhattan and have the same interests in providing services to the community as people of any other faith. And considering the Bush Administration’s policy of equal-access to federal financial aid (which has not been reversed by the Obama Administration), it would seem that an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan would not only be legal, as everyone seems to recognize, but would be eligible to compete for federal funds for humanitarian programs, just like all the other non-profits in the area.
August 18, 2010 at 3:05 pm #701609
JoBParticipantwaterworld… well stated.
August 18, 2010 at 7:48 pm #701610
dobroParticipantHere’s another statement on this issue by a person who apparently understands the Bill of Rights, attorney Ted Olson. I made this a tinyURL cuz it was long. It links to a video hosted at Talking Points Memo, a news aggregation site.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.