Obama supports the Constitutional Right of Mosque being built near WTC

[werepossum]

Wow, did you stop taking your meds? Or take other mind-altering substances? Because that is way way way out there far beyond this thing called reality.

The President should have spoken up, because a large part of the country was acting like an ignorant ass, and he needed to speak up and defend their right to build. He is the President, he is supposed to uphold the laws of this country. He isn't there to defend peoples feelings, especially bigots.

Your parents probably corrected you when you were making an ass of yourself, the President had to do the same thing on a larger scale.

And you forget that Bush specifically stated several times that his was was not against all of Islam, and he did this to make sure people heard that from the President. That is the exact same thing Obama did. Now why am I not surprised that you didn't complain when Bush did it?

Sometimes I forget that liberals think of the president as new and improved Daddy, complete with allowance expectations. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Sometimes I forget that liberals think of the president as new and improved Daddy, complete with allowance expectations. Thanks for reminding me.

Ah, typical argument of someone who can't argue facts. Who said I'm a liberal? You fail on that point alone. I love that around here, anyone that disagrees is labeled a liberal. Think torture is illegal? Liberal. Believe in following the law? Liberal. Is that the only thing you know how to say?

It may blow your mind, but not everyone thinks like you, thank god, and that doesn't make us all liberals.

Obviously you don't believe in standing up for the laws and concepts of this country, and give in instead to partisanship hatred and bigotry. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Craig234]

Sometimes I forget that liberals think of the president as new and improved Daddy, complete with allowance expectations. Thanks for reminding me.

What an idiotic post. The President is the political leader of the nation, and he is a symbol of the nation and we do want him to say things that represent the nation.

That doesn't mean we agree with everything he says, but if he goes out talking about what porn he likes and telling dirty jokes, it's not very 'presidential'.

You just don't get what society is, what leadership is, what culture is, to name a few.

No doubt you also don't get why so many were embarrassed or worse about Bush.

And allowance expectations - more idiotic propaganda. Why don't you not drive on public roads, get medical care from unlicensed people, not use public schools, give up any protection from the police force, defend yourself from foreign invasion, test your own drugs for safety, use unregulated merchants?

You have a terribly ignorant view of the role of government and helping people in society. With your policies, the country would move a long way downhill.

 

[manimal]

I wish Charles Krauthammer would post on AT.... Wish we could challenge his positions in an open forum.... This issue specifically..


Dont you just love it when people start a sentence with the words "will of the people"....

 

[Fear No Evil]

I wish Charles Krauthammer would post on AT.... Wish we could challenge his positions in an open forum.... This issue specifically..


Dont you just love it when people start a sentence with the words "will of the people"....

Wasn't 'Will of the people' sprayed around like crazy after Obama was elected?

 

[Harvey]

Wasn't 'Will of the people' sprayed around like crazy after Obama was elected?

Constitutionally protected rights are an imperative that are not subject to the will of the majority of voters. A major function of the Federal courts is to protect the Constitutional rights of minorities against any tyranny of a majority that would deny them those rights.

If you support the Constitution of the United States of America, stand up and support the rights of ALL peaceful Americans of all faiths and stop the biggots who would deny others the rights they claim for themselves. You never know when you may need the same judicial protection of YOUR rights from some majority that would strip them from you.

 

[Craig234]

*shrug*

I have no issues with saying it's defending them because their rights are being assaulted. It is not my intention to imply it's right for people to have the position that land can be made sacred against a group of people and I don't read the statement that way. IMO it's not 'in the way' but merely doing what it was intended to do

You missed my point.

It's one thing to say 'well, that group is despicable, but they still have constitutional rights' - you're still calling them despicable - and another to say 'that group is wrongly being attacks as despicable, and they also have constitutional rights'. You are responding to the attacks that Muslims should not be able to build because it's implicated they're somehow despicable as affiliated with the attacks, by ignoring the smearing of them as despicable and only saying 'but they have rights'.

Leaving it as 'the community center may be letting the friends of the 9/11 attackers disrespect the US and 9/11 victims, but they have the right to do it' is wrong.

 

[daishi5]

You're right, the ones who turned a blind eye are responsible too. Note that the imam here didn't turn a blind eye, he's been trying to fight radicalization of Muslims.


I'm not trying to draw a parallel between the church and Nazis, I'm drawing a parallel between the moderate Muslims who want to build the mosque and Catholics.

The connection between Nazis and Catholics is about the same as between terrorists and moderate Muslims. What do you think is bin Laden's opinion on Imam Rauf? Probably about the same as Hitler's opinion on Catholics.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views

I know this is old, but I just got back from a real vacation (not the mod imposed form). You chose a strange comparison, because it was earlier pointed out that some Catholics did try to build near a concentration camp, and people complained in almost the same way, and eventually the pope stepped in and asked them to move. He asked them to move because it offended people, not because it was wrong.

 

[Harvey]

I know this is old, but I just got back from a real vacation (not the mod imposed form). You chose a strange comparison, because it was earlier pointed out that some Catholics did try to build near a concentration camp, and people complained in almost the same way, and eventually the pope stepped in and asked them to move. He asked them to move because it offended people, not because it was wrong.

That was Poland. This is the United States of America. The rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution apply to all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, and the pope is not a recognized legal authority.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That was Poland. This is the United States of America. The rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution apply to all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, and the pope is not a recognized legal authority.

He isn't the legal authority in Poland either so what is your point again?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

He isn't the legal authority in Poland either so what is your point again?

You really are fucked up in your brain so much that you cannot understand the words you read and even quote?

The US isn't Poland.

There short and sweet for your extremly stupid arse.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So we've seen the Salon timeline. Care to provide some evidence of any demonstrations or lawsuits prior to May 2010? I mean if it received front page NYT treatment in 2009, surely there demonstrations that week? Or that month? Or the next? Or the next? Or the next?

Please provide some proof or admit that it was a total non-issue until a very vocal right wing minority started crying wolf.

Still waiting on nobodyknows to actually show some real proof (as opposed to him just making random made up posts) about all the outrage 6-8 months ago, given the FACTUAL time line of the article I posted.

Also waiting on some proof from him on how he can claim "many in the faith" thought 9/11 was worthy.

Sounds like more made-up BS from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, and who refuses to show proof because they know they have none.

 

[Harvey]

That was Poland. This is the United States of America. The rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution apply to all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, and the pope is not a recognized legal authority.

He isn't the legal authority in Poland either so what is your point again?

My friend, JOS said it in far fewer words than I would have used. :thumbsup:

You really are fucked up in your brain so much that you cannot understand the words you read and even quote?

The US isn't Poland.

There short and sweet for your extremly stupid arse.

What was your question, again?

 

[nobodyknows]

So we've seen the Salon timeline. Care to provide some evidence of any demonstrations or lawsuits prior to May 2010? I mean if it received front page NYT treatment in 2009, surely there demonstrations that week? Or that month? Or the next? Or the next? Or the next?

Please provide some proof or admit that it was a total non-issue until a very vocal right wing minority started crying wolf.

Please provide proof it wasn't.


DUHHHH!!

 

[nobodyknows]

nobodyknows has really shown himself to be a dishonest loudmouth with his made-up attack and running away when you asked him to back it up. Disgraceful.

Speaking of sanctimonious fools!!


Can you prove that? LOL, I didn't think so Mr. Honesty and Integrity.

 

[nobodyknows]

The problem with asking them to move is that you're implicitly supporting the idea that the people building the community center, and by extension all Muslims, are symbolic of Islamic terrorism, particularly on 9/11. I don't know about you, but in their place I'd be reluctant to claim responsibility for an event and a movement I have absolutely nothing to do with...particularly when the group and even in question are so universally despised.

I really don't think people understand what moving the community center would mean. It would be saying that the people equating the imam in charge of the project with murderers who fly planes into buildings are right, that Islam is offensive by its very presence, that ANY Muslim building is emblematic of terrorism. Do you really not understand the point being argued here?

I don't believe for a second that not wanting to build a Mosque so close to the site of the WTC tragedy is trying to infer that all Muslims are terrorists. I just think that particular act of terror embedded itself so deep into the American pysche that it's exrtemely poor judgement to do so.

I remember when people realized that EVERYBODY knew where they were and what they were doing when they learned that JFK had been shot. I don't think we realized how that had affected us as a country.

I think that the same holds true for the WTC tragedy and so building a mosque ther is a bad idea, not only for the surviors and friends of the people killed there, but the whole country, even including the regular, nor radical, non-violent Muslims.

The supporters say they want to promote peace and understanding by building there, but when it will continually remind people of who perpretrated the tragedy and IMO keep the wound open. I don't see how it helps either side and particularly don't see how it's going to promote any goodwill?

Maybe I'm wrong, but to date I haven't seen any facts/arguments that change my mind.

 

[L00PY]

Please provide proof it wasn't.

But I'm not the one either making unsubstantiated claims or outright lying. You're the one who first made a claim that it was a story all along. You claimed, "[t]here are plenty of people in NYC who have a problem with it. They had demonstrations and lawsuits over it. That's how it got the attention that spread and became noticed nationally, how it got it's "legs" so to speak."

I live less than two miles away from where Park 51's going to be built. In addition to reading the NYT occasionally both in print and online, I also follow a NYC blog and a neighborhood blog. I didn't hear of any demonstrations and lawsuits over it. None of my friends were talking about it before it was noticed nationally by the bigots and fear mongers.

Beyond my anecdotal evidence, the Salon timeline offers plenty of proof countering your claims. You've offered nothing to support your claims.

 

[daishi5]

That was Poland. This is the United States of America. The rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution apply to all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, and the pope is not a recognized legal authority.

The pope should be an example of how you build bridges. The Catholics at the concentration camp also had the right to build there, the government did not force them out, and our government should not force this community center out. The Pope asked them to leave, because people were hurt by it, and at the same time asked them to bear the suffering. That has two things I think make the comparison very good, and a good object lesson. The sisters and the muslims are both innocent, and there is no good reason they should not be able to build there, and the people who want to force them out are driven by emotion and no supportable reason. The Popes request for the sisters to move was the right decision and it worked well. I think it shows how the Imam could build bridges, by moving even though there is no good reason he should move, except that some people are "offended."

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Please provide proof it wasn't.


DUHHHH!!

Duh, the journalist that wrote the article did the research, and didn't find any.

So put up some proof or admit you are wrong.

And we are still waiting on the proof about how most Muslims thought 9/11 was a worthy cause, another one of your fact-free posts.

But you will continue to ignore this, since you have no evidence or facts to back up your bullshits statements, which just goes to show you really don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

 

[Craig234]

The pope should be an example of how you build bridges. The Catholics at the concentration camp also had the right to build there, the government did not force them out, and our government should not force this community center out. The Pope asked them to leave, because people were hurt by it, and at the same time asked them to bear the suffering. That has two things I think make the comparison very good, and a good object lesson. The sisters and the muslims are both innocent, and there is no good reason they should not be able to build there, and the people who want to force them out are driven by emotion and no supportable reason. The Popes request for the sisters to move was the right decision and it worked well. I think it shows how the Imam could build bridges, by moving even though there is no good reason he should move, except that some people are "offended."

There's no comparison.

Ya, both might involve 'giving in to people who don't want it', but there are many differences.

For one, we're talking about a retail district that's run down and unrented with a strip club and other shops blocks and a fiften of a mile from the WTC, not 'at the camp'.

Second, we're talking about a lot of people who misguidedly blame the Muslims, who were the TARGET of Al Queda, for the attacks, and moving the location reinforces those wrong views.

IMO, moving it would do nothing to 'build bridges', quite the opposite it would say to the people that they are right to blame Muslims, and encourage them to further oppose Muslims.

This project was not controversial before right-wing political movements grabbed it for election cycle exploitation - yes, picking up some misguided non-Republican support.

 

[Pens1566]

Oh, and Laura Ingram was for it before she was against it ...

 

[Craig234]

I remember when people realized that EVERYBODY knew where they were and what they were doing when they learned that JFK had been shot. I don't think we realized how that had affected us as a country.

Seems not very relevant, but I agree; I think most still don't realize the impact on the country.
JFK was a very unusual president who could have kept the country going a better direction.

The supporters say they want to promote peace and understanding by building there, but when it will continually remind people of who perpretrated the tragedy and IMO keep the wound open.

This shows where you get it wrong - that a Muslims mosque will 'remind people of who perpetrated 9/11'.

Muslims were the TARGET of 9/11, the perpetrators were Al Queda attacking the Muslims, trying to get the Muslims attacked by the US for their own interests in creating conflict.

You obviously have not understood who was behind 9/11 and who was not behind it, and the reasons to embrace the innocent Muslims' freedoms and rights Al Queda wants you to oppose.

As I've said before, you are making about as much as sense as those who would not let a black buy OJ Simpson's house because it would remind them of who commited a murder.

 

[Harvey]

Here is an analogy.

I am apart of a group and some of the members go to your neighbor's house and kill them and one of your immediate family members. Then a few years later I show up and buy the place. And you find out that I am apart of the same group. Let me guess, you be inviting me over for tea....................................

As an analogist, you are an epic failure. :thumbsdown:

Here's an analogy to your analogy.

An Afro-American gang pulls a home invasion robbery in a nice, up scale neighborhood and kills the family living in the house. A few years later, you show up looking at homes in the neighborhood, and though you happen to be Afro-American, you had nothing to do with the robbery, nor do you have any gang affiliation, whatsoever.

Your prospective neighbors don't know who you are or anything about your life, your work, your social affiliations or that you happen to run a charitable foundation dedicated to funding college educations for underpriviledged, gifted children of all races. All they know is that you're Afro-American so you LOOK LIKE the home invasion robbers.

Would you want your new neighbors to invite you over for tea, or would you prefer that they shoot first and only later lament having killed you because they believed that any Afro-American, including you, must be a home invasion robber?

But wait... There's more...

You buy the house, and you and your family move in. After a few years, a gay couple looking at homes in the neighborhood, and though they happen to be gay, they are a loving, devoted couple who have never been in trouble with the law, let alone having anything to do with the previous robbery or any gang affiliation, whatsoever. In fact, they happen to run a charitable foundation dedicated to promoting the arts and improving living conditions throughout the city.

Would you invite your new neighbors over for tea, or would you rant to your neighbors about their "un-Christian" ways to scare up homophobia and do whatever else you could to make their lives miserable?

Your ignorance is astounding, the hate you express is appalling, and the damage you are willing to inflict on others in that ignorance is frightening and tragic. :'(

 

[Homerboy]

<snip> :'(

Is that post too long for a signature?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Still waiting on nobodyknows to defend his unfounded assertions.

Why these same people, time and time again, post unfounded BS, without any shred of evidence, and then just run away and forget the their discussion when asked to show proof?

Do they at some level know they are just making stuff up, and don't want to admit to themselves that they are wrong?