An essay from a thoughtful Christian about the controversy over building a mosque in Manhattan; Kinnamon notes some of the history that should be considered:
For thousands of families, Ground Zero in southern Manhattan is holy ground. Thousands lost someone they love in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and hundreds of thousands know someone who was directly or indirectly scarred by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The emotional investment in Ground Zero cannot be overestimated.
That is precisely why Ground Zero must be open to the religious expression of all people whose lives were scarred by the tragedy: Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, and more. And Muslims.
No one knows how many Muslims died on 9/11, but they number in the hundreds. One was Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New York City police cadet, emergency medical technician and medical student. When Salman disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials who knew of his Islamic faith sought him out among his family to question him about the attacks. His family lived with the onus of suspicion for six months until Salman’s body was identified. He was found near the North Tower with his EMT bag beside him, situated where he could help people in need.
The point of this now famous story is simple. Not every Muslim at Ground Zero was a terrorist, and not every Muslim was a hero. The vast majority were like thousands of others on September 11: victims of one of the most heinous events of our times.
But for the family of Salman Hamdani and millions of innocent Muslims, the tragedy has been exacerbated by the fact that so many of the rest of us have formed our opinions about them out of prejudice and ignorance of the Muslim faith.
It is that narrow-minded intolerance that has led to the outcry against the building of Cordoba House and Mosque near Ground Zero. It is the same ignorance that has led many to the outrageous conclusion that all Muslims advocate hatred and violence against non-Muslims. It is the same ignorance that has led to hate crimeand systematic discrimination against Muslims, and to calls to burn the Qur’an.
On the eve of Ramadan on August 11, the National Council of Churches, its Interfaith Relations Commission and Christian participants in the National Muslim-Christian Initiative, issued a strong call for respect for our Muslim neighbors.
“Christ calls us to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ (Matthew 22:39),” the statement said. “It is this commandment, more than the simple bonds of our common humanity, which is the basis for our relationship with Muslims around the world.”
The statement supported building Cordoba House “as a living monument to mark the tragedy of 9/11 through a community center dedicated to learning, compassion, and respect for all people.”
Now the National Council of Churches reaffirms that support and calls upon Christians and people of faith to join us in that affirmation.
The alternative to that support is to engage in a bigotry that will scar our generation in the same way as bigotry scarred our forebears.
Three-hundred years ago, European settlers came to these shores with a determination to conquer and settle at the expense of millions of indigenous peoples who were regarded as sub-human savages. Today, we can’t look back on that history without painful contrition.
One-hundred and fifty years ago, white Americans subjugated black Africans in a cruel slavery that was justified with Bible proof-texts and a belief that blacks were inferior to whites. Today, we look back on that history with agonized disbelief.
Sixty years ago, in a time of war and great fear, tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were deprived of their property and forced into detention camps because our grandparents feared everyone of Japanese ancestry. Today that decision is universally regarded as an unconscionable mistake and a blot on American history.
Today, millions of Muslims are subjected to thoughtless generalizations, open discrimination and outright hostility because of the actions of a tiny minority whose violent acts defy the teachings of Mohammed.
How will we explain our ignorance and our compliance to our grandchildren?
It’s time to turn away from ignorance and embrace again the words of Christ: Love your neighbor as yourself.
In that spirit, we welcome the building of Cordoba House and Mosque near Ground Zero.
Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches
The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, a Disciples of Christ minister who is the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.
The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) clergyman and a long-time educator and ecumenical leader, is the ninth General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.
The NCC is the ecumenical voice of America’s Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, historic African American, evangelical and traditional peace churches. These 36 communions have 45 million faithful members in 100,000 congregations in all 50 states.
More:
- Bob Cornwall also posted the essay at Ponderings on a Faith Journey
- Thin Places picked it up from Cornwall
- Story at the Minnesota Independent
- Story at Faith in Public Life
- DailyKos
- Big Stick weighs in (added 8-16-2010)
- NPR on the controversy, and how c0ntroversy lives on its own
- Washington Post “On Faith” blog — “The Great Ground Zero Mosque Hoax”
- Public relations issues, from MuslimMatters.com
Also, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Lower writes:
From the very beginning I’ve understood your claim that the mosque had a legal right to be built. I’ve never disputed that! And yet you keep chiding me again and again for wanting to trample religious freedom, even after I’ve clarified my position over and over. And now I’m to answer for it again??? What’s it going to take??
And you can say you understand that they have the legal right to build it and that you respect their rights to their religion all you want…but when you try and put yourself in a position of telling them to go somewhere else just because you don’t like them you are being hypocritical.
I have not misrepresented you once, Lower. I just don’t buy your bulldrek attempt to pretend that you’re all for religious tolerance when you’re trying to treat Muslims differently then you would treat Christians.
You write: You again say, “having the right to do so is the only thing that matters.” You completely side step my whole point of coming on here and saying that it’s not about what they CAN do but what they SHOULD do.
Well yeah it is the only thing that matters. New York City can not…I repeat…can not deny them a permit when they meet all the requirements for said permit just because a bunch of people object. NYC’s decision has to be based on the law..not on popular opinion. Hence my repeated saying “should” doesn’t matter.
Whether they do it or not is their choice…but you and the others are in effect trying to bully them into making that choice. Those who you’re defending, Lower, are the ones turning this into a hate Muslim fest. This has not been a rational or even an civil attempt to get them to reconsider by your side yet. Nor is there any indication from your side that if they choose not to do as you wish that your side would sit down, shut up and respect that choice.
And as for my saying you hate Muslims..well congratulations, consider that turnaround for you saying I hate the right. Since you apologize for that statement then I likewise apologize for what I said.
As for that bit about “freedom from a works religion” you are aware that is Christianity actually? Or did you somehow miss the lesson Jesus was teaching when He talked about the sheeps and the goats? Faith without works is nothing but empty words.
And as for my statement about the porn shops…curiously it was you that tried to claim that building the mosque there was an immoral thing. I only pointed out that you were blithely ignoring actual immoral things on the “sacred ground” of the area around the WTC site. I didn’t equate the mosque with porn shops but nice misrepresentation of what I said. However you are the one that equated a mosque with immorality. That building it is immoral.
You say you recognize their right to their religious beliefs and to build that mosque? Then live by what you claim you acknowledge. If you wouldn’t have tried pulling a double standard, Lower, I wouldn’t have jumped down your throat. You say you recognize their right to build that mosque? Then recognize that you have no valid grounds to oppose it. Recognize they are not beholden to obey your wish. And that if you expect them to move the mosque somewhere else then you better apply that same standard to other religions…including Christianity. You can start by acknowledging that just because they want to build that mosque there does not mean they’re trying to be offensive.
As for the bit about the Council of trent you’re right. It never has. But most Catholics don’t hold to that belief. And the Catholic church doesn’t run around condemnig Christians who aren’t Catholics. However I would point out for you there have been quite a few times when I’ve been told by protestant Christians that I’m not a real Christian because I’m Catholic. So you’ll forgive me but it seems to me that your side of Christianity is just as guilty of that particular stupidity as my denomination.
And Morgan’s rhetoric may be tamer..I really don’t care. I’m fed up with the absolute nonsense your side of the spectrum routinely engages in. And like I said before..I don’t treat ignorance, fear, hatred and stupidity with kid gloves. Though Ed can attest that actually I’ve gotten quite a bit tamer then how I used to be. But there Morgan sits making the stupid claim that liberals don’t believe in religious freedom, he provides no evidence to back that claim and I very much doubt you would have done anything but defended his statement if I hadn’t used it as an opportunity to prod you.
But considering that your side of the spectrum routinely uses insults, lies and such. Considering your side’s recent propensity for violent talk, hate talk and rampant fear mongering, sorry, I’m no longer interested in playing at diplomat. When your side calms down, finds its brain and starts acting like rational responsible adults then I’ll tamper down my rhetoric and give your side a chance to prove itself. Until then…well…to borrow from the fictional character of Bruno Gianelli: Because I’m tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I’m tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, “‘Liberal’ means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we’re gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn’t have to go to work if they don’t want to!” And instead of saying, “Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties…!”, we cowered in the corner, and said, “Please. Don’t. Hurt. Me.” No more. I really don’t care who’s right, who’s wrong. We’re both right. We’re both wrong. Let’s have two parties, huh? What do you say?
Or to put this more simply, lower, I am tired of the demons on your side of the spectrum, I am tired of them having power, I am tired of people on your side of the spectrum putting them in power. I am tired of people like you idly standing by while they destroy the party I used to be proud of being a member of.
I find it curious though, Lower, that you didn’t even attempt to address what I listed as the problems with the right.
LikeLike
See this:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/cat-and-mosque-at-dogboy-and-mr-dan/
And this:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/what-would-george-washington-say-and-do-about-a-mosque-in-manhattan/
LikeLike
Yes, Nick K, authoritarianism is a scary and very ugly phenomenon when it, to paraphrase ex 1/2 Governor Paylin, “raises its head” over this country. It is a belief system that is inherently anti-american, and yet it gains support by appealing to nationalism, patriotism, tribalism (“we are number one,” “we are exceptional,” “USA is the best,” “We have the best healthcare system in the world” (this lie is really offensive), and the religious right, where the bible and our constitution get mixed up in the small minds of the authoritarians.
The best hope for the United States is that, more and more, the young are not buying into hatred, prejudice, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc. Most young, socialized and halfway intelligent people in the US do not hate blacks, gays, Muslims, the “Other” and the French (for whom, as a people & country, I have tremendous respect – the TRUE best health care system in the world, very high on the “Happiness Index” where its citizens report great satisfaction with their lives and their society.)
The authoritarians have beliefs that are so contrary to American values. Religious freedom is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There is a reason for that. It is a bedrock principle in this country.
LikeLike
Seriously Nic, if you misunderstand and misrepresent my positions on a blog site where my words are just a few scrolls of the mouse away from yours, how do you expect to have any credibility in your understanding of Republicans or anything else for that matter?
From the very beginning I’ve understood your claim that the mosque had a legal right to be built. I’ve never disputed that! And yet you keep chiding me again and again for wanting to trample religious freedom, even after I’ve clarified my position over and over. And now I’m to answer for it again??? What’s it going to take??
You again say, “having the right to do so is the only thing that matters.” You completely side step my whole point of coming on here and saying that it’s not about what they CAN do but what they SHOULD do. Seriously, I can’t think of anything else to do but to throw my hands up and say, “I give up!” I can’t carry on a meaningful discussion with someone who refuses to accurately acknowledge the other’s position. It’s a fundamental principle in debate is to not misrepresent the other’s position.
That being said, I think I need to actually apologize if I have been guilty of that myself. I said that you “hate all things right.” That was obviously not an accurate statement so I apologize for misrepresenting your point of view.
You then go on to claim that I hate Muslims…WOW. If you really knew me you wouldn’t be saying that Nic. You have no idea what my wife and I have done for Muslims nor would you care if I told you. As a Christian, I hurt for Muslims (and any other faith that says you must DO to earn God’s approval) that believe that somehow they have to earn their way into God’s good graces by their own merits. Those who believe that somehow God’s approval is determined by their own good works is shackling them with an impossible demand. No one could ever measure up to perfection, which is where God stands. The most loving thing for Muslims is to meet their physical needs of food, water, shelter, and compassion, and share with them the love and forgiveness of Jesus and the freedom from a works based religion. That’s a message and a work that ironically will get your head chopped off in many countries, but it’s a message that is worth it. Do I hate Muslims? No. Does that mean I approve of everything they believe and stand for? No. Otherwise I’d be Muslim myself.
Funny that you are mad at Palin who agrees with you on several of your points against the Republicans. It is the conservatives that are upset with Republicans for being hypocrites by saying they are for financial responsibility and then completely ignoring it when in power. While some of your concerns are attacks against things that Republicans have always stood for (family values, defence of the innocent, personal responsibility vs. government entitlement, liberty, etc), some of the accusations are just ridiculous. Going back to a state religion? And you accuse me of fear mongering? Seriously!
You said, ” I have seen you claim that allowing a mosque is “immoral” while you don’t say a word about the porn shops or prostitutes or all the actual immorality near the WTC site.”
So now you’re equating a house of worship to a porn shop and prostitutes??? Are Muslims supposed to feel defended by that statement? Once again…sigh…building A mosque is not immoral, building a mosque 500-700 feet from the single worst act of murder in American history that was carried out by Muslim extremists? Just bad form.
Also, you make a mistake to assume that just because I haven’t said anything here that I’m actually defending porn shops and prostitutes? You know me better than that!
You said, “I have seen you say that you really dont think they should be allowed to build Mosques because “they haven’t come to Jesus””
I never said that. And I never said that they shouldn’t be allowed to build it. I said that they shouldn’t build it. Big difference.
You said, “you’re the one that conveniently forgot that the Catholic church used to say that Christians who weren’t Catholics werent really Christians, that they weren’t true followers of Jesus.”
That’s actually still the official Catholic Church doctrine though it’s not brought up much anymore – The Counsel of Trent has never been revoked that basically says if you don’t belong to the Catholic Church you are anathematized. Read your history. I’ve never said that Catholics aren’t Christians. I know some that are. The Bible never says that belonging to a church automatically makes you a Christian. I love the quote – “going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than sleeping in the garage makes you a car.” :-) Being Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Baptist, Non-demonimational, etc. does nothing to make one a Christian. According to the Bible, being a follower of Christ is about a personal relationship with Him through forgiveness of the cross. “Church” is a fellowship of believers, not a pathway to heaven.
You said, “You think NYC should walk itself into a multimillion dollar lawsuit over a mosque just because you think you have approval rights on where the mosque goes.”
Great example of stating something I never said. Good case in point of attacking something I’m not defending.
Morgan shouldn’t hate liberals. :-) Frustrated…I can understand that, but hatred? No. But Morgan’s rhetoric is seriously tame compared to yours though Nic.
LikeLike
So Ed, you and Nick are BOTH acknowledging what you were implying earlier was a false implication. “Permit” is a verb as well as a noun…if the application is sufficiently over-the-top, the approval is not necessarily a done deal, RLUIPA or no RLUIPA. “Religious freedom” — it’s adorable that liberals think this is sacred, suddenly, by the way — does not mean that the discussion cannot take place. And the outcome of such a discussion is not guaranteed, just because “free exercise” is guaranteed.
If you were consistent in this, you’d come to Dr. Laura’s defense.
You’d also come to the defense of anybody in America who was placed in the same situation as this guy. You’d have to come to the defense of all the right wing talk show hosts who are criticized by left wing politicians for “creating an atmosphere of violence.” Catholic and protestant clergy as they are sued for refusing to conduct gay wedding ceremonies — you’d have to be on their side, as well.
Thomas…
This hate Obama/hate Muslims thing has really gotten out of hand.
The hating-Republicans-and-conservatives thing has really gotten out of hand too, right?
LikeLike
Thomas, part of the core of what the Republican party is suffering from is the craven desire to be authoritarian.
They did it to Clinton and they’re now doing it to Obama. They are so incredibly angry that the American people decided to put the Democrats in charge that they’ve convinced themselves that it’s not the true will of the people. They’ve forgotten that living in a democratic Republic means that sometimes you lose.
They lost fairly so they want to win by cheating. Hence the blather about where Obama was born, the blather about secession and the states somehow magically nullifying federal law on whim. The threats of armed violence, that the people should rise up in arms against their own government. The nonsense racism. The “taking back our country” bulldrek. The calls for the military to stage a coup to “take care of the Obama problem.”
Hell even the “papers please” nonsense in Arizona and in other states is all tied up in that the Republicans are throwing a fit that they lost. And feeding into the latent racism being displayed by a bunch of white people who are scared to death that *gasp* within 20 years Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and other states that will not be majority white.
And even more..the Republicans are increasingly starting to eat their own.
LikeLike
This hate Obama/hate Muslims thing has really gotten out of hand. It was reported Thursday in two polls (Pew Research Center and a Time magazine/ABT SRBI poll) that around 25% believe that the president is a Muslim. In one poll, those saying they don’t know President Obama’s religion increased from 34% to 43% from a year ago.
So, from this we know that the Republican/Rovian disinformation/lie machine (Rove nearly perfected the “tell a lie often enough and repeat it over and over in the media” and some people begin to believe it, EVEN if they hear it reported as a lie)actually works on many people. Now that, in my view, is how the Republican right wing extremists such as Scarah “Death Panels” Paylin, Michelle Bachman, Susan Angle, Rush Limpballs, Glenda Beck and the rest of those nutcases, do garnish some support. Add to that the outlandish and out of the mainstream nature of their declarations and pontifications, and the MSM (including MSNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, etc.)following them and reporting the ignorance in all its gory detail and discussing the fringe beliefs as if they had any merit or merely as insane ramblings – no matter – some of those inclined to have their ignorant beliefs reinforced, look at that and say to themselves, “you see, others believe like I do, so I am not crazy after all.”
This can work only in a society where there are many ignorant, unsocialized and unsuspecting fools (such as the USA – which is my country and which I dearly love, by the way, and which I served to protect, by the way). I have seen in my lifetime, an erosion of the social contract and of the number of educated and sane people in this country that parallels the onset of Reagonomics, the acceptance by many of “the best government is no government” meme in the US, social conservatism, the Evangelical/Fundamentalist culture (or the religious right – a sorry bunch of humans if ever there was, if you ak me), the increasingly sad phenomenon of home schooling , and finally the Rovian/Bush/Cheney assault on the American people which resulted in the near crash of our entire economic system, the debacle of the Iraq war, the eight-year embarrassment of the American people by the mindless fool, George W. Bush, and the suffering of our working class beyond anything I could ever have imagined while growing up as the son of a proud Steelworkers’ Union member and a stay-at-home mother of five.
It is unbelievable what some Americans have come to accept as normal.
LikeLike
Oh, Lower, I trust you’re going to chide Morgan for his obvious hatred of liberals, right?
Or would that be expecting too much honesty from you?
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
The same First Amendment that guarantees free expression and religious freedom — and it’s a privilege, by the way, to be alive during this moment when liberals suddenly start believing in it — says you get to bring your concerns to a forum of public comment.
We liberals have always believed in it. Its you conservatives that loves to play fast and loose with it. The right to religious expression, the right to be free from a state religion is a liberal idea. If conservatives had their way there would be a state religion and those who weren’t members of that religion would be second class citizens.
LikeLike
Yeah Morgan, go find out the reasons that those churches were denied permits. Because some of those complaints by those churchs are probably valid…others aren’t.
Like the one who wanted to operate a commerical business inside their church. You are aware that there are restrictions on churches because of their tax exempt status? Seriously, the one church wanted to open up a dance studio and a fitness center and run it for profit. Or the couple who wanted to set up a church inside their home. Lets see…that couldn’t possibly be a scam in order to declare themselves tax exempt could it?
Sorry, cities do have the right to enforce their zoning laws.
Neither Ed nor me were saying that a city has to grant a permit to a church just because its a church or other place of worship. A church/other place of worship is subject to the same rules as everything else and can be denied permits for valid reasons. Churches aren’t above the law just because they’re churches.
But sorry, if a Christian church was being built on that spot in NYC you wouldn’t have a problem with it. But a mosque you do have a problem with. Sorry, that isn’t valid. You can’t deny to one what you would grant to another in the same exact circumstances.
I find it cute that you’re complaining about churches being denied permits but if you had your way you’d deny a permit to a mosque.
Hello hypocrisy.
Or should my town have gave my Catholic church the right to build a church right off County Road 19 in my town with just a driveway connecting it to the road? Or do you acknowledge that the fact that County Road 19 in my town which sees upwards of 50,000 cars on it every day might not be the best place to have a church just off it with only a drive way connecting it to the road? In other words, Morgan, some of those churches were denied permits because of too little parking, not sufficient enough space or, as in my example, creating a very big traffic hazard because the plans were not thought through.
Like I said, some of those churches probably have valid complaints. But you might want to bother to acknowledge the fact that there are valid reasons to deny permits too..even to churches.
LikeLike
Morgan, notice the first permit denial you cite is similar to the denial you urge in Manhattan — no good reason given — and that the ACLU has taken the case.
What was your point, again?
Where unjust, there are appeals pending. In most of those cases, the denial was based on existing zoning rules.
In Manhattan, the Cordoba House group has met all zoning rules.
Your analogies are off the mark, I think. It’s not finding a group of Christians whose pilots attacked the World Trade Center — since no Moslem from this group of American Moslems did that — but more similar to denying a permit to a Baptist church in Birmingham, Alabama, because the Catholic Black Shirts who supported Mussollini were thugs.
You forgot the misplaced accusations of violence. When we add that factor in, the hypotheticals look real silly, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Oh forgot one little part to my little..diatribe.
I have seen the Republicans throw a hissy fit at the fact that Keith Ellison, part of the Minnesota delegation to the US House, took the oath of office on the Quran and not the Bible.
Despite the fact that there is no requirement that the oath be taken on the Bible…or any other thing for that matter. A Representative can take the oath of office on this month’s copy of Playboy if they want. Or they can just simply take the oath on nothing. The decision is up to the Representative and that is how it should be. But there quite a few Republicans sat..being all offended because a Muslim dared to take the oath of office on the Quran. The Republicans…the party of “individual choice” sat there throwing a fit when an individual made a choice that they happened to not like.
LikeLike
Actually, Lower, I’m going to give you one last little lesson. Lets call it “Why Nick doesn’t like the Right.”
First off, for full disclosure, I’m a former Republican. I stopped being one in the early 90’s.
In the last 20-30 years I have seen the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt…hell even Reagan and George H Bush become the party of Gingrich, Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul and George W Bush and Dick Cheney. I have seen the party I grew up in march to the tune of arrogant hateful jack***** like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.
I have seen the party that treasured sound fiscal policy become the party of tax cuts at every cost, of wars despite the cost, of using the government to enrich their cronies. I have seen it become the party of profligate spending and massive debts/defecits. I have seen it then try and be the party of “Defecits are bad” and “spending is bad” the second the Democrats gain power. I have seen that despite the fact that most of the defecit/debt is the result of Republican decisions.
I have seen it become the party of racists, of ignorance, of fear, of hatred. I have seen it become the party of “papers please” because they think that US citizens and legal residents of this country who happen to be Latino should have to prove they belong here. I have seen it become the party of hysterical claims and rampant fearmongering regarding so called violence at the SW border despite the fact that according to the FBI violence along the border has gone down in the United States.
I have seen it become the party of Bachmann and Palin, both of whom can barely go a day without saying something so incredibly stupid and idiotic that no one in their rights minds should believe them. But there they sit, one is a member of Congress and the other nearly became Vice President.
I have seen the Republican party promote ignorance when it comes to the theory of evolution, promote ignorance when it comes to climate change, promote organized school prayer in the public schools. I have seen Republicans claim that the idea that teen girls should be vaccinated against HPV is actually “promoting promiscuity.” As if they’re saying that if our children are sexually active they deserve to get STD’s. I have seen Republicans insist that we teach only abstinence in sex ed classes despite the fact that doesn’t work.
I have seen the Republicans use the war against terroism as justification for tax cuts. I have seen Republicans use the war against terrorism as proof that anyone who opposes the Iraq war suddenly wasn’t American. I have seen the Republicans use the war to justify torture and the illegal and warantless wiretapping of US Citizens. I have seen them pull this line “If you’re innocent, you have nothing to hide.” I have seen Republicans go absolutely bonkers at the US Justice Department releasing a report about the dangers of right wing extremist groups despite the fact that the day before that the US Justice Department released a similar report about left wing extremist groups.
I have seen the Republicans manage to convince 1 in 5 Americans that the President is a Muslim. Despite the fact that even if he was it shouldn’t matter. I have seen the Republicans paint health care reform as “Naziesque” and “death panels” and “the government is going to kill grandma.” I have seen the Republicans paint everything the Democrats do as “socialist” which only goes to prove that very few Republicans actually know what socialism is.
I have seen the Birthers get enough power in the Republican party that there are members of Congress questioning the President’s place of birth on the US House floor.
I have seen Republicans attack people who are unemployed and are on unemployment assistance as “lazy” and “not real Americans.” I have seen them say that people should be fine living on wages barely above minimum wage. Oh wait..they want to get rid of minimum wage.
I have seen Rand Paul say that regulations on mines should be done on the local level and not by the federal government. Yeah…thats a good idea. The last time that happened was back in the 30’s and the mining companies owned the local governments and shot and killed the mine workers who demanded better working conditions. I have seen the Republicans constantly sell out the interests of the average American and the middle class out to the interests of the rich, the powerful. I have seen the Republicans sell out this country to the corporations no matter the cost.
I have seen the Republicans turn a blind eye to the fact that the richest 10% in this country have seen their incomes rise by 300% in the last 30 years while the middle class has barely seen its income rise 20% in the same time period. I have seen the Republicans cut the taxes on the rich by more then half..and then claim that the rich are still taxed too much. I have seen Republicans willing to toss programs designed to help the middle class and the poor just to save their precious tax cuts to the rich. I have seen the Republican wanting to privatize social security and medicare. Yeah..because what happened in the stock market the last few years is an example of the brilliance of that idea.
I have seen the Republican candidate for Minnesota governor propose to cut the wages of waiters and waitresses because he thinks they all make more then a hundred grand a year. But cutting the wages of the people that make 40 million dollars a year? Oh that’s socialism.
I have seen the Republicans strip away nearly all of the government’s ability to regulate businesses and then throw fits at the idea of reregulating those businesses despite ample evidence that getting rid of the regulations was a bad idea. The BP oil spill being a prime example.
I have seen the Republicans…the party of Lincoln..advocate secession, treason and armed violence if they don’t get their way. I have seen the Republicans do everything short of handing out weapons in order to stoke fear and hatred in this country. I have seen them do their damndest to split this country apart just to gain power.
I have seen Republicans attack education and educated people as “elitist” and not really American.
I have now seen the Republicans willing to toss out the 1st Admendment and the 14th Admendment just to score political points on the backs of Muslims and latinos. The party of “strict constitutionalists” wants to throw out part of the 14th Admendment and ignore the 1st Admendment giving equal rights to Muslims.
I have seen Republicans argue that giving gays the right to marry is giving them “special rights.” I have seen them argue that gay marriage will somehow threaten heterosexual marriage. I have seen them argue that gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage as if we heterosexuals havent already done that.
I have seen the Republicans turn a mosque in NYC and in other cities into a political football. If you think the Republican party gives a damn about the people who died in the attacks or their families then I want to sell you the Golden Gate bridge. I have seen them argue that a mosque two blocks away on private property can’t be allowed. Despite the fact that there’s other mosques nearby already. I’ve seen you, Lower, pull a double standard there. A new mosque is somehow “trampling on the dead” but you’re perfectly fine with the two mosques there already. I have seen you claim you support the Muslims right to their religious beliefs but then pretend that you are the one that gets to determine where they practice those beliefs. I have seen you and Morgan pull a standard with Muslims that you refuse to do to Christians. I have seen you and Morgan try and pretend that the entirety of Islam is to blame for what happened on 9-11 but you don’t blame the entire of Christianity for the violence that has been done in its name. I have seen you claim that allowing a mosque is “immoral” while you don’t say a word about the porn shops or prostitutes or all the actual immorality near the WTC site. I have seen you claim that the area around the WTC site is sacred but I have yet to see you show that. I have seen you say that you really dont think they should be allowed to build Mosques because “they haven’t come to Jesus” despite the fact that if a person of some other religion tried barring you from building a church because you didn’t follow their religion you would throw a fit. I have seen you lecture me about the history of the Catholic church but you’re the one that conveniently forgot that the Catholic church used to say that Christians who weren’t Catholics werent really Christians, that they weren’t true followers of Jesus. And there you sit parroting that same exact stance. Oh plus quite a few Protestant churches in the past..and even nowadays say the Catholic church really isn’t Christian. You seem to think that the Muslims right to their religious beliefs is dependent on your approval. But you’d be the first to flip out if your rights to your religious beliefs was dependent on someone elses approval. You think a Christian church is being snubbed because they’re Christian by NYC despite no evidence that’s what is going on. But you turn around and say NYC should snub a Mosque just because you don’t like them. You think NYC should walk itself into a multimillion dollar lawsuit over a mosque just because you think you have approval rights on where the mosque goes. A lawsuit that NYC would not have a chance in hell of winning. NYC has to make its decision according to the law…not according to the whims of the masses.
I have voted for Republicans in the past, Lower. I voted for Arne Carlson as Minnesota governor. I voted for Mark Kennedy when he was my representative. If McCain had been the Republican nominee for President in 2000 I would have probably voted for him because I liked him. The only thing that would have kept me from voting for him at that time is…well the rest of the Republican party. But then he sold his soul in 2008 to get the nomination. I didn’t vote for Bob Dole in 96 but I liked him. I would have voted for George H Bush in 1992 if I had been able to vote then. But I was 17 then.
If the Republican party would go back to how it was I would still be a Republican. But it has marched so far to the right and engaged in so much nonsense that, imo, the Republican party that exists today is not even worth the name.
But the Republican party, Lower…the right wing of the political spectrum has gone off the deep end. There are very few sane Republicans or sane people on the right. Until that is fixed they have my annoyance, they have my contempt, they have my disdain.
No, I don’t hate the right, Lower. I have family and friends who are Republicans. But they are true Republicans while the ones who run the Republican party today…are not even close. Why should I respect the fakes and the charlatans? Why should I respect people who act out of fear and hatred? Why should I respect people who are willing to throw out the ideals of this country because of 9-11? Why should I respect the people who are willing to throw the poor and the middle class under the bus just as long as the rich are protected and don’t have to pay for anything? Why should I respect a party that thinks just because the rich are better off that means everyone else is too? Why should I respect a party that is willing to let working class Americans get sick, get exploited and die just so companies can make more profit?
LikeLike
A short list of churches & religious organizations that have been denied the right to build…
Second Baptist Church is denied a permit in West Mifflin, PA
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-pa-files-discrimination-lawsuit-over-denial-zoning-permit-african-american-bapti
South Baton Rouge Presbyterian Church is denied a permit
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/property-law-real-property-zoning-land-use-planning/12679612-1.html
Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenos Nuevas Christian Church is denied a permit by the City of Yuma
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20146
New Life Worship Center is denied a permit in Rhode Island, sues under RLUIPA, and loses
http://findroom219.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/zoning-permit-denied-for-new-life-worship-center/
Chesapeake Church is shot down in Huntingtown, MD
http://www.somdnews.com/stories/07232010/recmor121926_32366.shtml
Kennewick, WA rejects the application of Cole and Julie Morgan to make a new church inside their home
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/06/25/1069160/kennewick-board-says-no-to-church.html
A Muslim group is denied a permit in DuPage County, near Naperville, IL
http://www.cairchicago.org/2010/04/20/naperville-sun-rejected-muslim-center-plan-still-alive-in-courts/
Much has been said to the effect that since we have a First Amendment, it’s game-set-match, wham-bam-thankya-ma’am, get the hammer and nails, the permit process is a mere formality. It does not appear that this is the case. Yes, there is RLUIPA, which is a weapon in the arsenal for lawyers in the justice department to go a-hunting. It is NOT a preliminary end to the permit process.
The same First Amendment that guarantees free expression and religious freedom — and it’s a privilege, by the way, to be alive during this moment when liberals suddenly start believing in it — says you get to bring your concerns to a forum of public comment. Maybe even gum up the works. Because none of us get to enjoy our First Amendment rights more than anybody else. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion does not mean everyone else has to shut up.
If it did, the list I put up there would not exist.
Hey Nick, Ed — I hear Dr. Laura is in some trouble for some insensitive comments she made. She’s supposed to have hurt someone’s feelings…and yet, she has an absolute right to speak her mind in public. You two are going to go to bat for her any minute now, right?
LikeLike
Lower, just one last thing.
I don’t think you’re in much position to chide me for supposedly misrepresenting what you’ve said…when you’ve been doing nothing but misrepresenting them.
You can claim I hate people on the right if you want…and some I do. But the fact is you hate Muslims. Which is why you want to treat them differently then you would treat anyone else.
So get over yourself, Lower.
LikeLike
Gee, Lower, my dad is a Republican and is to the right of me on the political spectrum. Most of my family is.
Are you saying I hate them?
But if you say I’m misrepresenting what you say then lets make this simple.
You acknowledge that they have the right to build that mosque, yes?
Because if you say yes to that then we can end this little argument because them having the right to do so is the only thing that matters. You can object if you want…but you have no actually legally valid grounds to do so. Meaning, Lower, you can not legally stop them.
That has been the point I’ve been trying to get you to understand. But you want to pretend that they are creating some gross immorality by building a mosque two blocks away from WTC…when that is not the case. The only gross immorality going on here is the thinking of some that they get to ignore the US Constitution when it comes to Muslims.
LikeLike
A friend sent this note on Facebook:
LikeLike
Nic, you’ll save yourself a lot of time writing if you stop attacking positions that no one here is defending.
LikeLike
Half of my time writing things in response to you Nic is unraveling and untwisting the positions that you give to me. What a waste of time when you misrepresent my positions so much! What baseless slander!
One thing that I should thank you for is that you have overwhelmingly proven my point of what happens to a person when virtue is taken off of the table. Your vile hatred of all things to the “right” and how far you distort my positions demonstrates my point better than I ever could. In one sense I say thank you and at the same time I’m broken hearted for you. You miss out on so much to live with such hatred. It is honestly frustrating to have to spend so much of my limited blog time in having to clarify and unravel things that I just plain didn’t say and don’t believe. So, instead of replying to your entire post since you would most likely twist my words and positions anyway, let me just write as plainly as possible what my position on the subject is. Frustrating to be doing this again…but perhaps the fault is mine that I was not sufficiently clear and somehow was mistaken.
Ok, do I believe that the mosque is illegal? No. Do I believe it should be forcibly stopped? No. Should this “congregation” be held liable because of 9/11? No – they didn’t do anything wrong that I’m aware of. Do I believe that even an olive branch could possibly be appropriate in this case for believers as was originally given in this thread? Cautiously yes. Do I believe that the Muslim’s who are building this have a responsibility to do the right thing? Yes. Do I believe they SHOULD be respectful to the 9/11 tragedy by moving the site, especially after getting offers to do so? I beleive that would be the most honorable thing to do in this case and I would applaud them for their sensitivity to the victim’s families and the country’s raw wound from 9/11. My call was for them to be self-governing to the effect that they recognize what is very real hurt to people whose innocent loved ones were killed in a gruesome and horrible manner. Are they asking what is helpful to a very sensitive situation or what they have a right to do? I think because of that, they should volunteer to move the mosque to a different location out of respect to the dead and their loved ones.
That’s not going to happen, so I guess we’re stuck, huh? It’s not going to be resolved on a blog anyway. I don’t think any imams are reading this who will be convinced to put pressure Rauf to move the mosque, so this is all moot anyway. My only point in all this is that it is highly inappropriate and bad form on their part. Stop saying that I blame the entire Islamic religion for the choices of a few. That’s absurd! But just to be clear, just in case it isn’t, if the situation were reversed where a radical “christian” sect decided Jesus wanted them to kill and so blew up the buildings, I would be calling for a church that sought to build near the location to move their site, just as I have called the unregenerates over at Westboro to stop giving Jesus a bad name and misrepresenting Christianity! Because what SHOULD happen and what CAN happen are often two different things.
And yes, I do blame “Christendom” for all the terrorist attacks carried out in Jesus’ name. What a profanity to Christ to use His name to carry out violence! There is no defence for it, only shame.
Am I to blame? I believe I am when I do not love my neighbor as I should. When I do not share Christ’s offer of forgiveness and love with others, I do them an injustice that is akin to hate by witholding love…to my shame. So while not directly in situations of violence, we are all to blame for perpetuating hatred and violence by witholding of the Mesage of grace and forgiveness that Jesus offers. Cutting people off in traffic, cheating on our spouses and taxes, lying, stealing, etc. all add to the chaos. I’m not exempt. Is anyone? Thank God for the forgivness of Jesus!
Regarding St. Nicholas, delay is one thing – a lack of communication is another. Their going to the news has gotten the ball rolling a bit, which is good. I don’t know if they want more money or not -it’s a he said they said situation. If they do, you can add that to the reasons I’m not Greek Orthodox. :-) But they have a right to be there AND should be there, especially since they were there before the attack.
Ed, Regarding Pearl Harbor, if it would take you 15 minutes to walk 500-700 ft. then you need to get out more. :-) To put that into perspective, it’s less distance from one side of Super Walmart to the other. That’s appropriate distance away?
In response to WWGD: I believe as president he would say that they have the right to build the mosque or would say nothing at all and allow the local governments to handle it as he believed in limited government. If he were the leader of the Muslim’s building the mosque, I think he would move it to another site…he was so gracious and humble. He only reluctantly became president because of people insisted. I believe both sides should be more like our founding president in this case. That’s unfortunately not what’s happening.
LikeLike
From: http://www.alan.com/2010/08/18/ted-olson-on-nyc-islamic-center-the-president-was-right-about-this/
Conservative lawyer Ted Olson, the Solicitor General in the Bush 43 administration who lost his wife Barbara on 9/11, believes the president is correct to defend the building of an Islamic center in lower Manhattan. (via Think Progress)
OLSON: I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices or structures, places of religious worship or study where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing. And that we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue. It shouldn’t be a Republican or Democrat issue either. I believe Governor Christie from New Jersey said it as well, that this should not be in that political partisan marketplace.
Come on, Lower, you going to be “sensitive” to what he says?
LikeLike
Just for you, Morgan, I asked a former mayor of my town whether permits can be blocked simply “because I don’t like you.”
He said that any town/city who did that would be walking itself into a lawsuit it can’t win. Permits can only be blocked for legally valid reasons. It can’t, for example, give a permit to a Catholic church while blocking a Lutheran church because its a Lutheran church. Which means NYC can’t block a mosque while allowing a Christian church.
Now in the interest of full disclosure, the former mayor of my town that I asked is my father. But also I’d point out he’s a lifelong Republican. Oh and when I say Republican I mean he’s actually a Republican. Unlike the fake Republicans that Palin, Gingrich and most of the so called Republican party are.
And perhaps you and Lower, since you think the WTC site is so sacred can answer me this question? If it’s sacred..why aren’t you protesting all the porn shops there?
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_a_sea_of_filth_near_ground_zer0_mosque_gets_all_the_press_but_porns_around_corne.html
For example, at the Thunder Lingerie and peep show where the marquee sports an American flag above a window display of sex toys and something called a “power pump.”
“In a walk of the streets within three blocks of Ground Zero, the Daily News counted 17 pizza shops, 18 bank branches, 11 bars, 10 shoe stores and 17 separate salons where a girl can get her lady parts groomed.”
And why should a Mosque be denied when, according to the NY Daily news there are “at least 10 churches in lower Manhattan south of Canal St., three synagogues, one Buddhist community center and a Hare Krishna facility.”
As for you, Lower, regarding St. Nicolas Church, as long as they meet all the same rules and whatever as the Mosque then I see no reason why they should be denied either. See, unlike you, this Christian isn’t dimwitted enough to think that every time a Christian is being denied something that means that Christian is being persecuted. Like my Church wasn’t being persecuted when my town made it pay for city water/sewer hookup when it built a new a church. Why? Because the city was charging all the other churches being built the same thing. Just as it would charge a Synagogue or a Mosque or a Hindu temple the same fees.
See also unlike you I want the rules applied the same to everyone. You, Lower, want the rules to apply to some, not applied to others and then special rules conjured that only apply to Muslims. And Morgan thinks Ed and me are the ones supporting special rights? Sorry, Morgan, your side of the political fence is the absolute king at supporting “special rights.”
Liberals support equal rights. Conservatives support special rights.
But I find it cute how often the right wing of the political spectrum thinks us Christians don’t have to obey the rules everyone else has to live by.
LikeLike
Morgan, if the Greek Orthodox Church (that Joe is so concerned about) is not rebuilt, the faithful Christians who attended there can just go to the First Baptist church down the street at 49 Broadway, right?
Or, maybe they could go to the Mormon Temple downtown, or the closer Mormon Ward House at 401 Broadway. It’s just a short cab ride.
All Moslems are interchangeable, like all Christians are interchangeable, right?
You did see this at the Washington Post, right?
So much for ecumenism in America.
Heck, since the Abrahamic faiths all worship the same God, maybe the Moslems could go to the Baptist church, too, yes?
(It’s about 12 blocks to the next mosque. Do you know whether that mosque is Sunni, Shiite, or something else? Do you know what sect this group at Cordoba House is?)
LikeLike
Hey here’s a question:
If the mosque at Ground Zero cannot go forward, then how far must the faithful Muslim travel to find another?
LikeLike
WWGWD? (George Washington, that is)
LikeLike
Morgan, despite your delusion to the contrary…permits can only be denied for legally viable reasons. As long as they meet all the requirements of the permit process, as long as they meet all city, state and federal laws/rules/statutes/ordinances then there is no viable grounds to deny them the permit.
Just because you don’t like them isn’t viable grounds to deny a permit. if you want to pretend otherwise then let me know what town you live in so i can move there, run for city office and proceed to screw you over six ways to sunday.
LikeLike
Oh and by the way, Lower, when you were being sneering of the fact that the Japanese cultural center is 10 miles from Pearl Harbor…you should have bothered to remember that there are two mosques within blocks of the WTC already.
Or did that fact escape your mind? And that the proposed mosque is supposed to give one of the…congregations (apologies to any Muslims, I don’t know the correct term) at one of those mosques more space since they’re running out of space? Did that fact escape your mind too?
Should my town have not charged my Catholic church for city water and city sewer fees when it built a new church, Lower? After all..that’s what quite a few Catholics in my town wanted the town to do. Does feeling and emotion trump the law there as well?
LikeLike
Sorry, Lower, you don’t get to whine about morality in this country when you’re committing a gross immorality in trying to blame the entirety of a religion for the actions of a few. You don’t get to claim morality when you’re the one trying to wholesale ignoring the US Constitution just because you don’t like something. A tyranny of the majority, Lower, is still a tyranny.
You have no proof that Imam or that mosque is radical. You have no proof whatsoever that they were involved in 9-11 in any way shape or form. And you are conveniently ignoring that in NYC two blocks is actually a greater distance then you think. You can’t even see the WTC site from that proposed mosque location. Or did you somehow forget that there are a bunch of really tall buildings in between?
Do the nitwits have the right to oppose the mosque? Yeah. However that doesn’t mean they have legal grounds to oppose the mosque. You whine about Westboro and them having to stay a “respectful distance” well guess what..two blocks is a respectful distance.
You write:
Again…if this Mosque is about religious tolerance to you Nic, why aren’t you mad that the Port Authority won’t authorize the St. Nicholas church that actually was destroyed in 9/11 to be rebuilt? It barely made the news and even Ed had never heard abotu it! Here’s a case where Christians are being snubbed and Muslems are given the fast tract. Again…Morgan’s point is validated.
Yeah convenient isn’t it that you don’t give the reason why St. Nicolas church hasn’t been given permission. Would you like to provide some actual verifiable evidence to back your claim? Or are you going to insist that Christians are being snubbed just because you say so? It’s also convenient of you to want St. Nicolas church to be approved…but not the mosque. So apparently it only concerns you when Christians are “snubbed” but you want Muslims to be snubbed. Thank you for proving my point. Last time I checked we Christians still have to obey the laws, ordinances and statues of city, state and federal government. Or are you saying we’re special and deserve special rights?
You get belittled by me, Lower, because so far you’ve done nothing but deserve it. You have no evidence, you have no logic. All you have is fear, hatred and ignorance. Sorry, Ed and me are two different people. He may choose not to call stupid, fearful and hateful people for what they are…I’m not so diplomatic. I see no reason to play nice with people who are doing their damndest to not deserve it.
Oh and by the way, Lower, this is what the NY Times says about the St. Nicolas Church:
But today, the church exists only on blueprints. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency overseeing reconstruction, has not finalized the exchange of land needed to provide the congregation with a new home near ground zero. Until that deal is completed, the authority cannot proceed with building the southern foundation wall for the entire site, and cannot draw up designs for a bomb screening center for buses and trucks that would go under the new church.
And because security is crucial, delays in the vehicle security center mean delays in other parts of the site.
Oopsie, oh look. They haven’t been snubbed, just that its been delayed. And oh oops..its been delayed for valid reasons.
Whereas you want the mosque blatantly rejected for invalid reasons.
As for the thing with Pearl Harbor, sorry, you’re being silly. Yeah it’s 10 miles..but the fact still is that it’s there. And again..the 1st Admendment does not say that after 9-11 the rules changed for Muslims.
So, you will apply the US Constitution equally…you have no choice. Your objection to that mosque meets no legal grounds. it’s as if a bunch of Catholics in my town objected to a lutheran church being built just because the Catholic church in my town was the only church in town for 100+ years.
You can pretend that “feelings and emotions” should trump the law if you want. I don’t subscribe to that right wing bullshit. The law is the only thing that matters…the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. If you don’t like that fact, Lower, then well…too bad.
Because sorry, I am not going to let this country fall to fascist fear mongering and hatred just because on 9-11 you and a bunch of others ****** your pants out of fear. You can say you are defending what is “right” and what is “moral” all you want, Lower, I’m quite sure the Nazi’s would say the same with what they did. But sorry, it is not right nor is it moral to deny a group of people their equality just because you don’t like them. And as for them needing to find Jesus…you need to find Jesus first. Because nothing of what you have said has indicated that you have found Jesus yet. In fact you’re doing an excellent job of proving that the one you’re following is the exact opposite of Jesus.
They have every right to build that mosque there and you have no legal grounds to oppose it…indeed you have no moral grounds either to oppose it. Fear and hatred do not constitute morality. They were not to blame so stop blaming them. If you want to blame them then also blame Christianity for all the terrorist and violent acts done in its name. Or would you like to admit your hypocrisy there?
They aren’t being disrespectful, Lower, except for in your mind. But you are being entirely disrespectful.
You are playing right into the terrorists hands, Lower. You are giving them exactly what they want.
And you count yourself a moral person? A person of intelligence? A person of Christ? Oh please you’re failing miserably on all three.
LikeLike
Joe argues it’s all a matter of distance.
So, what’s your formula? how do you determine that a 15-minute drive from a much larger site is less offensive than a 15-minute walk from a smaller site? All Krauthammer said is that a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor shouldn’t be allowed — and there it is, where it’s been for 40 years or so.
Moreover, it was founded by American citizen Japanese desdendants, similar to the American citizen, New York resident Moslems who want to put up their culture center in Manhattan. Why do you allow Japanese to build where Krauthammer says they shoudln’t, but not New Yorkers?
What is your real bias here?
LikeLike
Those men who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center also were not taught by their radical pastor to go kill people. They were recruited by Osama bin Laden, who is not a cleric, and who was trained in asymmetrical warfare against superpowers by the U.S. CIA.
We don’t know the reasons that one nut went on a rampage in McKinney. The two cases are similar in that there does not appear to be any clerical involvement in their terrorist training.
LikeLike
According to the Port Authority, there’s no reason that the congregation can’t start rebuilding their church tomorrow. The two cases are not alike in many ways, but are alike in many ways:
The Port Authority says the church is free to rebuild on their own property. The church has not started to rebuild because they hoped for a $20 million grant from the Port Authority, plus a new piece of property a hundred yards away from the old site.
In contrast, the Muslim group asks for no money from any government, and is even farther away from Ground Zero.
It’s unclear to me why you think the nation should be up in arms about the Greek Orthodox church. There is no restriction on rebuilding the church at all.
LikeLike
“Because its probably safe to assume that guy was a Christian.”
Nic, if he had been taught by a radical church pastor to go in and kill people and he did it in the name of Jesus then it would probably be bad form for a church to go in and build a church there. Did that happen? No…there’s just no comparison here.
LikeLike
I love mapquest. It just proved to me how asinine your argument for the Japanese cultural center in Honolulu was comparing it to the mosque in NY.
According to mapquest, the cultural center is 10.63 miles from Pearl Harbor taking appx. 16 minutes to get there. In NY, since Church street is a one way street, you’ll have to drive down to broadway and turn right, and then turn right again at Fulton St. How far to go ALL that way around to get to the WTC? .38 miles – est. time 1 minute drive (who knows exactly in NY). Actual distance from ground zero? Less than 500-750 ft.
Westboro has to be a minimum of 300 ft. away just to protest a funeral. 500-700 ft. is close!
LikeLike
Nic, thank you for proving Morgan’s point in a rather verbose way. It was helpful in understanding who I am dealing with when I talk with you. “Should doesn’t matter” and is “irrelevant.” Gotcha.
And we wonder what happened to morality in our country? Nic just demonstrated that what is right and wrong doesn’t really matter to some people. Just what is legal and what is not. Did anyone else catch it? Wow!
And it’s hypocritical too. You make a moral judgment about Westboro and then say it doesn’t matter with the location of the mosque. Why then is it right that Westboro be made to be a “respectful” distance from soldier’s funerals and then wrong (a moral jugment) to say that it is bad form for the Muslims to put the mosque so close to ground zero? It doesn’t have to be right on the property to be offensive – Westboro isn’t right at the funeral. It’s still wrong.
And yes, what is right and wrong DOES matter. I can think of no time when it does not matter.
Those who oppose mosques in all places are wrong. There, I made a judgment on SHOULD. You’re so hypocritical for saying that what SHOULD be doesn’t matter and then saying that people SHOULDN’T oppose mosques being built. You throw what should and shouldn’t happen out the door then you have no right to oppose those who oppose the mosque. They have a legal right to oppose the mosque. Got it? No
I believe there shouldn’t be any mosques anywhere either – but only because I believe that Muslim’s need to turn their hearts to Jesus, not because they’re forced to close up shop and be persecuted. Yeah, that’ll teach ’em the love of Jesus!
Again…if this Mosque is about religious tolerance to you Nic, why aren’t you mad that the Port Authority won’t authorize the St. Nicholas church that actually was destroyed in 9/11 to be rebuilt? It barely made the news and even Ed had never heard abotu it! Here’s a case where Christians are being snubbed and Muslems are given the fast tract. Again…Morgan’s point is validated.
Ed, I disagree for reasons already stated, but at least you answered the question and didn’t belittle it like Nic did. Thanks.
LikeLike
So, Lower and Morgan, you are going to say that there shouldn’t be a Christian church near the McKinny Public Safety building in McKinny Texas right?
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Patrick.Gray.Sharp.2.1864290.html
Because its probably safe to assume that guy was a Christian.
LikeLike
Lower, have fun:
Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai’i
2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, HI 96826-1502
Oh..and here’s a map in relation to Pearl Harbor:
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1c=Honolulu&1s=HI&1a=%5B1-99%5D+Arizona+Memorial+Dr&1z=96818&1y=US&1l=21.366425&1g=-157.93741&1v=BLOCK&2c=Honolulu&2s=HI&2a=2454+S+Beretania+St&2z=96826-1502&2y=US&2l=21.293822&2g=-157.823908&2v=ADDRESS
Oh even better, Lower, there are Shinto shrines near Pearl Harbor too. One of them is about 5 miles from Pearl Harbor. Also Buddhist temples as well.
You also might want to bother to remember that with Pearl Harbor we were at war with the entirety of Japan. We are not at war with the entirety of Islam.
You should also remember that George W Bush praised Imam Rauf. After he made that comment you tried condemning him with.
LikeLike
Joe, about Krauthammer:
There is a Japanese Chamber of Commerce in Honolulu.
The Hawaii Japanese School is at the Japanese Cultural center, less than five miles from Hickham Field, within view of the mouth of Pearl Harbor.
Let me suggest that, once again, Krauthammer doesn’t really know much of what he talks.
The Japanese Cultural Center and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce were founded by Nisei, Japanese-Americans who live in Honulu, some of whom had families in Hawaii for a couple of generations.
Similarly, New York Moslems should be allowed to build a meeting place with a chapel in Manhattan.
LikeLike
Lower, get this through your head.
The “Should” doesn’t matter. In fact you can’t claim it’s about the “should” since the mosque in NYC is hardly the only one being protested and objected to.
Or did you somehow miss the fact that nutjobs like Morgan are objecting to Mosques in Wisconsin, California, Tenneesee and other places? Sorry, this is not about “should.” Because last time I checked the US Constitution did not grant rights based on popular opinion.
The whole quesiton of “should” is completely irrelevent.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
But before you know it, they’re championing special rights, not equal rights.
That’s a cute claim coming from you, Morgan, because you’re the one arguing that every non-Muslim has “equal rights” but that the Muslims don’t.
You would have no problem if a church was built on that site..but a Mosque gets your panties in a bunch. That Christians have equal rights in this country but Muslims only have rights if the rest of us like them.
Sorry, little one, you are the one asking for special rights.
LikeLike
Lower, if I could I’d drop kick the Westboro idiots into next week.
But they have the right to their opinions and to express them as much as I don’t like it.
See, that’s what separates the United States from countries like Iran and Iraq and all the rest. Whereas you are trying to make us like Iran and Iraq and all the rest.
This mosque in NYC shouldn’t even be a controversy. THe only reason it is one is because certain members of the Right Wing are either so bent on distracting the people of the United States from the real problems facing this country because they know that once the people focus on those problems they’ll remember that it was the Republicans who caused those problems. Then there’s the idiots and the hate mongers who have surrendered to Al Qaeda and are trying with all their hearts to turn the war against terrorism into the war against Islam.
This is not a question of “what should be done.” This is a question of do the Muslims have the right to build that mosque there? And the answer is yes they do. Just as the Jews have the right to build a synagogue there, just as the Christians have the right to build a church there, just as every other religious group in the country has the right to build a place of worship there.
ANd the ones opposing it need to get their heads out of whatever orifices they have their heads stuck in, take a good long look in the mirror and figure out their real motivations and what they should be doing.
And despite what Mr. Krauthammer, that gaseous windbag, thinks…while the WTC site may be sacred…two blocks north of it is not. It’s kind of hard to claim an area is sacred when there is strip joints and prostitutes there. Or perhaps the “sacred” that Mr. Krauthammer wants to worship is something a bit more…well…physical.
Oh and as for the Disney park near Manassas…well unless it was actually on the battle field itself…sorry again a piece of property does not gain “sacredness” just because its near another site that can claim to be sacred. Else the fact that there is houses within one or two blocks of my town’s catholic church presents a problem. Are you going to say those people can’t live there, Lower?
Sorry, lower, there is a point where sentimentality is taken way too far.
By the way, Lower, the nunnery at Auschwitz was 1: actually on the grounds and 2: in the building that the Nazi’s stored the gas they were killing the Jews with.
Sorry, to compare that to a mosque that is not on the WTC site is stupidly inappropriate.
As for you saying this:
Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”
Oh this is the same Feisal Abdul Rauf that George W Bush praised? Oh and as for that accessory bit…are you going to say that about Glenn Beck? Because..guess what…he said the same exact thing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677
Watch Keith’s Worst Person’s of the World. You’re also ignoring the context in which Mr. Rauf said that. He was referring to our habit of allying ourselves with oppressive regimes and such. You can sit there like a dimwit and pretend the United States has never done anything wrong, Lower, but a little honesty is in order. Did we deserve what happened on 9-11? No. And thats not what Mr. Rauf said either. But a little acknowledgment that we have made decisions that those in the Middle East don’t like and weren’t the best decisions for them might be in order. Like…turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein killing his own people during the 80’s? Just for example.
Sorry, Lower, you’re not engaging in this “guilty until proven innocent” bulldrek either.
Find your brain, find your morality and quit defending hate mongering morons.
Oh and yeah..terrorism is a complicated thing. Would you like me to list all the times that the United States supported groups that we called “freedom fighters” and others called terrorists? Because…guess what..one of them was…wait for it…Osama bin Laden. Just like we supported Saddam Hussein because he made a convenient buffer against Iran.
Do you have actual legal grounds to oppose that mosque? No? Then shut up because without that you and your fellow jackanapes can claim whatever you want but it’s irrelevent.
If you want to surrender to the terrorists, Lower, kindly leave the country.
LikeLike
I can’t think of a good reason why it shouldn’t go in at the planned address at Park Avenue. Can you?
Unlike the poor taste protests of the Westboro Baptist folks, I see nothing fundamentally objectionable in that siting.
LikeLike
LL,
What you’re encountering here is the basic technique by which liberals declare what it is they loathe, and then systematically become it.
They defend these fundamental rights we “all” are supposed to have, and then champion the enjoyment of those rights among the “least” among us. The idea is supposed to be that if Westboro Baptist Church, for example, has the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble, then it is assured we will all have this right. But before you know it, they’re championing special rights, not equal rights. You want them to differentiate between the *can* and the *should*? Not gonna happen. Their goal is that the “can” is in fullest force when we are grappling with a “should NOT”; the theory being, if someone who shouldn’t do something, can do it, then it’s doubly assured that the guy who should do it will be able to do it.
But it doesn’t work out that way. Forces of decency are isolated, alienated from sympathy and support, while forces of indecency prosper. Witness the systematic deprivation of the Boy Scouts from United Way funding back in ’03, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Boy Scouts vs. Dale decision. My own question about the Christians building a site that somehow offends local sensibilities, on a level equivalent to the situation with the Ground Zero Mosque — it still goes unanswered.
Ed asked me to re-state the question. I did. That comment is still holding in moderation.
LikeLike
Here’s a good op ed article by Charles Krauthammer on the SHOULD, as quoted from the Washington Post.
Sacrilege at Ground Zero
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).
When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.
That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas –Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.” Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that
Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.
Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.
But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee that this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in — violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents — and exercise a veto over the mosque’s clergy?
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero.
Build it anywhere but there.
The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
LikeLike
Jim,
Good. Now we’re getting somewhere. Most Americans, like myself, agree with you on this point of rights and freedom. However, you’re defending the CAN, not the SHOULD. That’s the territory that people are upset about with the mosque. They understand that this mosque near ground zero is a sacrilege to an American tragedy in a similar way to a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor. No one has a problem with Germany or Japan anymore…but location is important because of a tragic event that happened in history. So, they wonder if there is anything they CAN do to stop it. The question though, is SHOULD it be stopped? If so, why? If not, why? The defense for it being there shouldn’t just be because of their rights to put it there. No one seriously disputes that a legal case can be made for their 1st ammendment rights, but they also resent being told to “shut up” because there is no real legal case at this point. They simply believe it is not about what the Muslim’s CAN do, it is what they SHOULD do in this particular situation. Doing some research on the subject, that’s where a lot of the comments are going in news articles and commentary – on the ethics of the situation, not the legality.
If someone wanted to put a strip club right next to a school, what would be the objection? It’s not appropriate – it SHOULDN’T go there. Sometimes local laws do stop things like this from happening. Why? Because they’re trying to limit people’s rights? No, because sometimes people want to do things that are simply inapropriate. SHOULD the mosque be so close to ground zero? That’s the question you haven’t answered.
Obama in some ways looked like he was answering that question – he said the mosque had the “right” to be built. He then backpedaled on what was taken as an apparent endorsement and said that he wasn’t commenting on the “wisdom” of the mosque, just on “fundamental religious freedoms.” Apparently, he was just commenting on the “CAN” which everyone knows already.
Harry Reid has come out and said that the mosque “should be built somewhere else.” Is he a fear mongerer who wants to end religious freedom as well? Come on guys – get real!
So, really, where do you guys stand on the SHOULD? Obama – refuse to comment on the should? Reid – shouldn’t? Pelosi and most other Democrats – it’s a local matter (yeah, that’s why the President of the USA commented on it! Hello!)? Most Republicans – can, but shouldnt?
Regarding your thoughts on Westboro: You know you just called them hateful and stupid? Should I call you an intollerant bigot? Fear mongerer?
LikeLike
Hi Lower!
I’m glad you brought up Westboro Baptist Church. I have always supported their Constitutional right to express their own stupidity and lack of theological understanding. I have always opposed legal attempts to prevent them from spewing their hate. (Presuming they cooperate with local ordinances and safety regulations…that is…getting permits, keeping at whatever distance is prescribed by local ordinance, etc.)
I also support the right of the Ku Klux Klan, the Christian Identity Movement and the various Hatriot Groups like the Hutaree Militia and the Tea Partiers to protest and gather.
I’m glad I live in a country where James Dobson, Fred Phelps and Gary North enjoy the right to worship and express themselves as they see fit. Aren’t you?
I’m also glad we live in a country where the Black Panthers, extremist Islamic groups and radical Communists can express themselves, too.
LikeLike
This is a big frustration with both the left AND the right – everyone wants to talk about what CAN be done, not many people want to engage in the discussion of what SHOULD be done. All you guys who are saying that it is hogwash, I’ll be looking for your posts defending Westboro Baptist next time people are upset with them picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, ok? My roots are Baptists but you would never catch people like me defending these nut jobs. Defending their liberty? Sure…but again, what CAN be done and what SHOULD be done are two different things. I’d just as soon defend the porn industry than defend them.
You want me to go away? Fine. I’ll take that as a consession that you agree with me and now want me to take my leave because you don’t want to talk about what constitutes virtue – you want to talk about what can and cannot happen legally and call people names. Be my guest, all of you. What a waste of time if what is right is not discussed. Why try to discuss an issue if when the right time to offend and when is it the wrong time to offend is not on the table. Like it or not, this mosque issue is simply a symptom of a much greater discussion that most people aren’t willing to have. Sorry to find that discussion not welcome on this blog by either side.
The fact that this discussion is going on – that the left and right are split even more on this issue – both are politicizing it, is an indication that those who desire to build the mosque do not have the county’s unity in mind. Both right and left are pointing to the other side saying “foul!” Both are trying to score political points. I say shame on both! Shame on Newt if he called for the freezing of the mosque until religious freedom is granted in Mecca. Shame on Obama for using it to score political points and stooping to beltway politics, and then going back on what he initially said! Whose fault is it? I blame both. Keep pointing fingers to the other side if you want…but you’re only contributing the problem and not working towards a real solution. Have fun in the mucky bathwater…
LikeLike
Ed,
I’m trying to pose a hypothetical about Christians placing themselves in the same situation as the people trying to build the Cordoba Center. There is difficulty involved in posing the hypothetical because we haven’t had any offshoots of Christianity resulting in nineteen Christian hijackers taking control of passenger jets and flying them into three buildings to kill 2,996 people. In living memory, something like this has not happened…so we’re going to have to wing it. You’re going to have to imagine
1) Some Timothy McVeigh type presents himself as following a Christian religion;
2) Offs himself, along with thousands of innocent people;
3) The Christian sect wants to erect a “fellowship center”;
4) It’s on private property;
5) It is sufficiently close to “ground zero” of the atrocity that many people think the center’s purpose is to gloat over the attack;
6) Because of 5, there is significant local opposition to building the center and there is difficulty involved in acquiring the permit as a result of this.
I want a straight answer to the question: Could the Christians count on your support? On Nick’s support?
It’s my way of calling bullshit on the whole “bringing people together” thing. I notice lots of social tinkering from the liberal side has this in common: In packaging/marketing, it’s all supposed to “heal divisions,” “find common ground,” “overcome our differences,” “build a society that works for everybody” — but in substance, it seems there’s always some bad guy who’s supposed to be told he has to learn to live with something insulting/destructive to him. Someone always has to be told to stick it up their ass…invariably, whichever group is perceived as being more affluent, more white, more male, more straight.
James Taranto said it more politely today:
If the intent of the Ground Zero mosque is “to bring Muslims and non-Muslims together,” it is already a failure on its own terms. But the Times betrays its own lack of interest in conciliation by urging the president to “push back hard.”
By using the metaphor of physical assault, the Times makes clear that it views the placement of the proposed mosque as an assault on the sensibilities of what Times columnist Ross Douthat calls “the second America”–and that it is eager to see those sensibilities assaulted.
Could these white, straight, male, hetero Christians, who very probably are affiliated with real terrorism, count on your support? As they march down to city hall to face off against your liberal, secularist friends who are convinced, and repeat often, that organized religion is the cause of ALL the world’s problems…
…or are the two of you going to join up with those who “are eager to see those sensibilities assaulted”?
I’ll be honest with you, Ed. The more I find out about this project, the more that seems to be what it’s about. You’re a big part of reinforcing that impression I have. People like me keep going on and on about how offensive this must be to the families of the slain; you keep responding with a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo about “they have the right” and everyone has to learn to deal with it because hey, it’s their right.
In situations like this, where the thing they want to do is so offensive, to so many, for such a good reason…it comes off like a great big ol’ Fuck You. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it isn’t a good foundational layer for a fellowship center. Not my idea of one, anyway.
For a number of years, I’ve been noticing this about The Left: They/you are, and have been for a very long time, exuberantly enthused about winning over the fifty-first percent but not the fifty-second. Every single election, just enough ballots to win…so that the remaining forty-nine percent can be told to piss up a rope. There’s a big difference between trying to win a majority and trying to win a consensus. I haven’t seen a liberal try to win a real consensus in a very long time. They just want to win. So they can start telling white male straight Christian people to go fuck themselves.
Nick, I’m not entirely sure how to respond to you. That semi-apocryphal quote from Napoleon continues to get in the way. And you’re doing a wonderful job of proving my point (see above). All these enemies you have, all this drive you have to beat people, to win. Now you’re even mixing up your replies & comment threads, because it seems you’ve been making a habit out of this…
I’m not going to answer. Just carry on. Keep telling people to choke on things. Continue proving my point.
Can someone in the thread give me a call when someone wants to build a real fellowship center?
LikeLike
Forgot to give the link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/243752/very-long-post-cordoba-house-josh-barro
LikeLike
And this is from Josh Barro who writes for the NRO:
A Very Long Post on Cordoba House
August 15, 2010 4:09 PM By Josh Barro
I complained last week about conservatives urging bureaucrats in New York City to throw up roadblocks to the construction of a mosque at 51 Park Place in the name of “historic preservation.” Landmark preservation schemes like the one that now covers 16% of Manhattan below 96th Street are an affront to property rights and should be used sparingly, if at all. The last thing we should want are new, pretextual landmark designations designed to serve political goals unrelated to preservation.
I disagree with the NR Editors’ conclusion that a boycott of mosque contractors is appropriate (more on that below) but I appreciate their statement that they will “not appeal to the official powers to use the machinery of government to stop this project.” Unfortunately, other conservative figures have continued to push creative ideas to throw red tape at the mosque.
Earlier this week it was discovered that the mosque’s developers do not technically own half the site they plan to develop. Instead, they hold a lease on the property that runs through 2071. They have a right to buy the property at current market value (as determined by an appraisal) and are exercising that right. They also, as I understand it, have the right under their lease to tear down the structure on the property. Development on ground leases, which can be preferable to fee simple ownership for tax or other reasons, is not uncommon in Manhattan.
The developers’ landlord is ConEdison, the power utility serving New York City. While ConEd is a private company, it is subject to regulation by New York’s Public Service Commission. Republican candidate for Governor Rick Lazio has pledged to appoint PSC members who would block the sale of the property.
Of course, a private firm should not ordinarily need approval from political appointees to sell its property. We accept greater regulation for utilities like ConEd because their monopoly position could allow them to exploit consumers—so the PSC is supposed to oversee ConEd with an eye toward protecting ratepayers. The goal is not French-style state capitalism where the regulated firms are used to achieve all kinds of policy goals.
Set aside the fact that ConEd appears to be contractually obligated to sell. A PSC decision to block the sale would not be about protecting ratepayers’ interests. (Indeed, the fact that ConEd agreed to a century-long lease on the property demonstrates that it is not essential to serving customers.)
Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner has run a couple of pieces promoting the idea that the federal government should act to prevent construction of the mosque, for example by “legislation to make Ground Zero a historic preservation site.”
It’s not clear to me exactly what this means. First of all, Ground Zero is a construction site. Four huge office towers are in development there. The general sentiment across the political spectrum seems to be that it’s taken too long to rebuild, not that the area should somehow be “preserved” (other than by construction of a memorial.) Indeed, the government has thrown a ton of money at financing the redevelopment, which had been stalled in part by weak demand for office space Downtown.
Second, the proposed mosque would not be located “at” Ground Zero, but two blocks north of it. So, any federal overlay that restricts development would have to cover not just Ground Zero but an area around it. Again, it is hard to come up with a policy rationale: this area is part of one of America’s busiest office districts, characterized by over a century of high-rise development and redevelopment, which we hope to see continue.
It’s hard to see a justification for “preservation” other than as a pretext to interfere with the mosque. But the use of allegedly broad zoning restrictions to prevent a single project is inconsistent with the rule of law. (Besides which, when zoning or similar restrictions are used as a pretext to block a religious institution, that violates the First Amendment.)
Conservatives rightly bristle at the federal government’s micromanagement of land in the American West, with the highest profile example being the closure of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. So why should we invite the feds into land use review in Manhattan? What New York allows to be built in its Financial District is not the federal government’s business.
What I find bizarre about some of the conservative response to Cordoba House is not just the objection to the construction of the mosque, but the conviction that it should be stopped by any means necessary—even if that means violating conservative principles about property rights, rule of law, and federalism.
Part of supporting limited government is understanding that sometimes, things you don’t like will happen, and the government (especially the federal government) won’t do anything about it. Getting to do what you want comes at the price of other people getting to do what they want—including build mosques where you’d prefer they didn’t.
As an aside, I think that some of the concern over this mosque, especially among people who do not live in New York City, is based on a misunderstanding of the geography of Lower Manhattan. This is an area that had significant high-rise development before New York imposed setback requirements and floor-area ratio maximums (limits on how many square feet of building you can put on a lot). As a result, the area is denser and more canyon-like than Midtown.
This means you can be two blocks away from something without any sense that you’re near it. City Hall is four blocks from Ground Zero, but you’d never stand there and think “I’m right near Ground Zero.” There is even a strip club three blocks south of Ground Zero, but nobody seems to have noticed that it is sullying the memory of the place.
In most cities, including Washington, 13 stories constitute a very tall building. But in the environment of Lower Manhattan, Cordoba House will be just another structure—which is not exactly consistent with the view that it is a Towering Monument to Jihad. In short, people are overestimating the extent to which this building will interact with, or be noticeable from, the World Trade Center site.
And this brings us to why I disagree not only with those who would use the power of government to stop the mosque, but also with the NR editors and others who urge private anti-mosque action. In general, my presumption is that it’s OK for people to build what they want on their property, with the burden on opponents to show why that’s such a bad thing. The proper question is not “Why here?” but “Why not here?”
So much of the complaint about the mosque has centered around the idea that, because hijackers acting in the name of Islam attacked the towers, Muslims should maintain a respectful distance. But the developers of Cordoba House (why do I even need to say this?) are not terrorists and did not attack the towers. Placing a burden on all Muslims to keep their institutions out of the Financial District is unfair.
Furthermore, since Islam has 1.2 billion adherents and is not going away, it is important to set reasonable guidelines that promote harmony with Western society—such as, it’s okay to build a mosque in the Financial District, and it’s not okay to blow up buildings in the Financial District. A general policy of exclusion is unworkable.
That said, I would be more open to location-specific objections to the mosque if I believed they were actually location-specific. But opposition to mosque development this year has not been contained to Lower Manhattan. Neighborhood activists in Staten Island were riled this June when they found out the local Catholic diocese planned to sell a vacant convent to a mosque developer.
While some protesters raised the usual pretextual concerns about parking and traffic, others were not so politic. “We just want to leave our neighborhood the way it is—Christian, Catholic,” declared one protester. Another alleged that “mosques breed terrorism” and a third that “the city has had enough terrorism and everything else.” The protest wrapped up with chants of “USA! USA!” The protesters were successful in convincing the Catholic Church to cancel the sale.
The expansion of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee became an animating issue in primary elections in that state. The Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee declared that he was unsure whether the First Amendment applies to Islam, which might be a cult or a nationality rather than a religion. Lower-profile mosque controversies have also been seen in California and Wisconsin.
If it were generally the case that Muslims are being welcomed into our communities, and allowed to build their houses of worship without public hostility, then it would be possible to condemn the Cordoba House’s site without worrying about alienating and excluding Muslims generally. But unfortunately the complaints about Cordoba House are just the highest-profile example of a wish that Muslims would stay out of our neighborhoods—the trouble being that everywhere is somebody’s neighborhood.
In addition to being morally objectionable, undermining the integration and acceptance of Muslims in American society is a huge strategic error. Newt Gingrich doesn’t want mosques in Lower Manhattan until churches are allowed in Mecca—making the bizarre case that our level of religious liberty is fine so long as it is no worse than in Saudi Arabia. But Cordoba House presents an opportunity to show how we are better than Saudis—and that it is no skin off our back when mosques are built in America, even in the Financial District of Manhattan.
LikeLike
Ignore the “To Beaten and the other right wing hatemongers, have fun arguing against the Cato Institute. Because last time I checked the Cato Institute was a right wing “libertarian” think tank” part. I copied the post from one I put on another blog and forgot to remove that part.
Oh. Okay. Alright.
LikeLike
Ignore the “To Beaten and the other right wing hatemongers, have fun arguing against the Cato Institute. Because last time I checked the Cato Institute was a right wing “libertarian” think tank” part. I copied the post from one I put on another blog and forgot to remove that part.
LikeLike
“It is the same ignorance that has led many to the outrageous conclusion that all Muslims advocate hatred and violence against non-Muslims.”
The majority of Muslims most likely don’t, even though there are verses in Qur’an and hadiths that suggest otherwise, which isn’t surprising as any religion intent on dominating for thousands of years has to choose either a stick or a carrot.
“Do they have the legal right? Yeah. SHOULD they do what they are doing? Absolutely not!”
Nonsense, especially if you are a proponent of political correctness standards often misguidedly imposed by the left. I have a saying, if someone said it before me, then great minds think alike. You can’t have everyone like you because some will hate you simply because others like you. Offending the sensibilities should never be a motivating factor for supporting something. I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of expression allows us to see many for what they truly are. As such, even if you think someone’s actions are offensive (with a caveat there is no physical or practically demonstrable harm), they should act in that manner rather than hide their true motives. If they are, in fact, in the right, their actions will be judged as such, perhaps in time, but almost certainly as such.
LikeLike
Oh and Morgan…do read the part where it says that George W Bush said that quite a number of Muslims died in the 9-11 attacks.
Oh and no…he wasn’t referring to the terrorists.
Lower, Morgan, this is only a provacation in your mind. You want to believe that the Muslims are doing it to be offensive and lo and behold…you think they’re doing it to be offensive. Despite there not being one shred of evidence to back that opinion.
Lower, if you acknowledge that the Muslims have the right to build that mosque…then its time for you to shut up. You’ve said your opinion, go away now.
LikeLike
Don’t you mean the right trying to capitalize on a religious matter?
Morgan, Lower, this is from the CATO Institute. Just in case you don’t know who they are…they’re a right wing “libertarian” think tank.
Have fun choking:
To Beaten and the other right wing hatemongers, have fun arguing against the Cato Institute. Because last time I checked the Cato Institute was a right wing “libertarian” think tank:
(Oh..have fun choking, btw)
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/16/the-gop-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/
By: Christopher Preble
Some leaders within the Republican Party seem to have fixed on a useful club with which to bludgeon the president and his fellow Democrats — Cordoba House, aka the “Ground Zero” Mosque. Over the weekend, Republican strategist Ed Rollins explained how the party would use the issue in the coming months:
ROLLINS: Intellectually, the president may be right, but this is an emotional issue, and people who lost kids, brothers, sisters, fathers, what have you, do not want that mosque in New York, and it’s going to be a big, big issue for Democrats across this country.
“Face the Nation” Host Bob SCHIEFFER: So you see it as an issue that’s going to continue?
ROLLINS: Absolutely. No question about it. Every candidate — every candidate who’s in the challenge districts are going to be asked, how do you feel about building the mosque on the Ground Zero sites?
This strategy, exploiting still-raw emotion and implicitly demonizing Muslims, threatens to trade short-term political gain for medium-term political harm to the party. And it most certainly will translate into long-term harm for the country at large.
Opposing the construction of a mosque near the Ground Zero site plays into al Qaeda’s narrative that the United States is engaged in a war with Islam, that bin Laden and his tiny band of followers represent something more than a pitiful group of murderers and thugs, and that all American Muslims are an incipient Fifth Column that must be either converted to Christianity or driven out of the country, else they will undermine American society from within.
It isn’t a political slam-dunk, either. Though 64 percent of Americans think a mosque near Ground Zero is ”inappropriate“, 60 percent of all respondents in the same survey, including 57 percent of Republicans, believe that the organizers have a right to build in that location, and presumably would not favor a government prohibition on this activity. (h/t Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight) If anyone were to show evidence that the parties building the center were in any way linked to the 9/11 terrorists, or funded by or funding these same terrorists, then the issues at stake would change. But they haven’t done so, and are unlikely to do so. In the meantime, those GOP leaders who oppose the mosque betray a basic inability to discern public attitudes, even as they propel this country on a ruinous course, headlong into a civilizational war which pits all Americans against all Muslims.
A number of public officials and commentators, not all of them Obama supporters, have staked out a position that walks this country back from that precipice. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s courageous and eloquent statementon this issue should be read by all, not just Republicans. But Bloomberg is unlikely to swing opinion within the GOP base. So too with Fareed Zakaria, who nonetheless deserves enormous credit for distancing himself from any organization that would adopt a public position of thinly veiled bigotry, especially one whose mission is “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” Dan Drezner’s take is aimed squarely at right-of-center readers, and sprinkled with a tone of sarcasm; but he is a pointy-headed intellectual, so he’ll have a hard time convincing the most skeptical of the lot.
A more convincing spokesman for sensible voices on the Right is former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who wisely opposes a short-sighted and cynical political strategy to exploit anti-Muslim sentiments. Likewise, Mark Halperin recognizes the political salience of an anti-mosque stance, but advises party leaders to steer clearof that position. Josh Barro at National Review Online renders a devastating refutation of all the dubious arguments erected to block the mosque.
Indeed, George W. Bush himself set the tone in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 atrocities, counseling against retaliation against innocent Muslims who had nothing to do with the attacks, and noting that a number of Muslims were killed on 9/11. Other conservative organizations and institutions took notice of Bush’s leadership, and wisely sacked the few voices who preached violence against all Muslims because nineteen of their coreligionists had perpetrated the attacks.
Not quite nine years later, we’ve come full-circle. With Bush enjoying retirement in Texas, who within the GOP will affirm the party’s position that declaring a war on Islam does not advance our nation’s security?
LikeLike
Please tell me again, simply, just what your question is.
LikeLike
So say your piece and move on. Since they have a legal right, there’s not much you can do that’s legal, right?
Gingrich and others are calling for illegal action against the permit. Why aren’t you concerned about that? Maybe I’m more sensitive because I grew up in areas where Mormons were numerous — but have you ever noticed that those who call for the restrictions of religious rights of others tend not to have the best interests of the suppressed in mind?
Right! How crude and wrong of Newt Gingrich to fail to support the reconstruction of St. Nicholas, and how rotten of him to draw attention away from that reconstruction.
Ask those, like Sarah Palin, who think it’s more important to say false and hateful things about Islam than to help the Eastern Orthodox rebuild. Why did Palin refuse to help out the Greek Orthodox? Ask her.
(I’ve never heard of the problem, Joe. Why do you assume that failure to know of a problem is a refusal to help? Why do you not blame those who distract from that problem, thereby preventing its solution?)
LikeLike
Oops – I hit “submit comment” :-)
Point three – if this really is about religious tolerance, etc. and not the left trying to capitalize on a religious matter, why isn’t anyone here upset on behalf of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed in 9/11 that still hasn’t been rebuilt? Why are they being ignored by the Port Authority, even though Bloomberg is trying to help them get things going? Almost nine years now and they can’t get their church rebuilt? Come on. Why are people defending the Mosque not outraged over this beaurocratic mess?
LikeLike
Three thoughts:
1) No one here on either side opposes religious freedom. It is false characterization to say that anyone here does. Please stop.
2) Even though Muslims have a legal right to do so, it does make it the right thing to do. Did anyone catch the news that Westboro Baptist Church won another lawsuit? Anyone here going to stand up and say that they support taking signs to soldier’s funerals saying “God Hates the USA” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”??? Do they have the legal right? Yeah. SHOULD they do what they are doing? Absolutely not!
LikeLike
No Ed, it’s an exercise in turning the question around in order to avoid it.
LikeLike
Isn’t this a direct answer to your query, Morgan?
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/michael-kinnamon-on-cordoba-house-and-mosque-at-ground-zero/#comment-103745
Maybe you’re right: Since the militant, “kill the Americans” Muslims agree that the mosque shouldn’t be there, how will Newt Gingrich change his position to reflect his condemnation of anything they may say?
LikeLike
Still no direct answers to my inquiry. We’re coming near to the point, if we’ve not passed it already, that this is all about targeting certain classes. There’s discrimination going on, yes, but it isn’t being done by the people opposing the mosque, it’s being done by the people in favor of it.
This is not an issue that has anything to do with religious liberty.
LikeLike
Good afternoon, Brett!
Thank you so much for making this point…>>”“…frightfully near…” I think that’s the point. Many right-wing talking heads seem to be fomenting fear. Why? Why should we be afraid of a mosque/comm center that is not even in sight of the WTC?”<<
You're spot on. It was the radical right that began referring to this as the "WTC Mosque". It's two friggin' blocks away from the WTC site.
To the others in this thread, I am sincerely heartened to hear you saying you are NOT opposed to the construction of new mosques in America per se. That puts you well ahead of Newt Gingrich, who continues to foment hate and bigotry by openly calling for a moratorium on ANY mosque or Islamic center construction anywhere in the United States.
Evidently, Newt definitely wants the U.S. to be as religiously bigoted as Saudi Arabia.
Hope we can all, regardless of varied positions on the NYC mosque, agree to condemn Gingrich's position on this issue.
LikeLike
You know, I was going to respond to Likwid’s stupidity but Thomas did it far better then me.
Though I’ll ask Likwid this question.
Where in the 1st Admendment and 14th Admendments does it say “This does not apply to Muslims”?
Oh and as for your claim that Islam was born in hate, Likwid…well that’s funny coming from you since you are demonstrating pure hatred.
LikeLike
Freedom of and from religion in the US is an absolute and it has been enshrined in our national conscience since we adopted our constitution. It is patently ridiculous to make a statement such as “…save the tolerance BS for those who earn it.” In the United States one is not required to earn tolerance or equality or justice. These are ours because of the rule of law and our constitution.
I served in the USAF and served honorably. I have been very proud of my country for many reasons over the years. I also have been ashamed of the wars of aggression, including Vietnam, but especially the immoral and illegal war against the people of Iraq, launched by Bush and his Neocon backers, in the name of the American people. The war mongers, when launching that war, played on fears and used patriotism and religion to stoke the fires of uber-nationalism to a shameful degree, in my view. They even lied about the real basis for the war.
Many right wing Americans lack understanding as to the historical context and the complexities of the issues surrounding religion vis a vis the state, in the US or elsewhere. European Social Democracies have generally developed that relationship in a thoughtful and sane manner. Religion exists for those who want its solace and comfort. Religion (any specific church)is not seen as an aggressive, driving force compelling its followers to proselytize and to “bring souls to jesus” as some American Evangelicals and Dominionists persist in doing. The state or nation is christian, they believe, and Their goal, and there are some on this thread, is to shatter separation of church and state in the US. They are not content to practice their religion or faith peacefully and in a manner that is respectful of others.
That is why so many right wing fundamentalist christians cannot begin to understand how a Mosque would not be a subversive and dangerous place. Honestly, and I was raised Roman Catholic and hold great love for the nuns and priests who taught me a compassionate and Liberal Catholic Theology, I am far more concerned about the anti-american activities of many Evangelicals/Dominionists in the US than I am about most who practice Islam here.
This controversy is political chicanery, fear mongering and playing to the base of the right wing conservatives in the US. They have gained power over recent decades. I think their peak is over and they are losing support in many circles. That is why they are becoming more shrill and louder. Their radical christianist beliefs and their refusal to accept the law of the land and separation of church and state, in addition to their opposition to social justice and equality for all, including gays and lesbians – all of those beliefs fly in the face of history evolving toward more inclusion and expansion of the rights of men and women, rather than regressing to more restriction and exclusion (a kind of tribalism).
The constitution cannot be read in any way as allowing a state religion (christianity, islam, roman catholicism) in the Uninted States. Some, with twisted minds and no sense of history or law may believe it does. It does not. Moreover, despite what some wish for and pray for, the US is not a Christian nation. When I served in the US miltiary there was absolute separation of church (religion) and state (USAF). Absolute. This was long before the rise of the right wing christians in the US. Chaplains were there for those who needed or wanted their help. However, there was zero tolerance for any intrusion of religion into the day to day functioning of the military mission. Since US Fundamentalists infiltrated the USAF Academy within the last two decades, there have been horror stories that indicated the lines were blurred and that separation was breached. Fortunately, a Jewish Airman has filed suit which is resulting in an end to that nonsense. One video I watched during the Iraq war showed US combat soldiers praying before going into battle – they prayed to avenge their “faith” and their country. They prayed for vengeance against the Muslims. It was disturbing
LikeLike
Islam was born in hatred (by Muhammed, noted child molester) and remains in hatred to this day. It preaches death to those who don’t believe and every single land that is under Muslim rule is a backwards bloodshedding wasteland.
It brings up the thought: maybe the supporters really hate America and New York City. Why ELSE would you invite such chicanery in?
And save the tolerance BS for those who earn it.
LikeLike
Isn’t it interesting that none of the critics wishes to address Dr. Kinnamon’s powerful arguments based on U.S. History?
LikeLike
It’s a sore for Islam that the U.S. State Department picks at constantly. The Saudi family argues, with great justification, that they could not contain the rebellion were they to grant religious freedom in contradiction to the mullahs of the Wahabi group — this is the same issue that puts the Egyptian government over a barrel.
You appear to assume the U.S. government has not already protested to the Saudis. Once again, the State Department is well ahead of you:
And, the government remains ahead of you. (See the formal report here.)
Which is not to say the U.S. has not brought it to the attention of the governments in that area, nor to promise action soon. One of the best things we can do is set an example. One more mosque in the U.S., to be overshadowed by the redevelopment of the WTC site, is no threat to us, but is instead the sort of example one would expect of the benevolent and superior form of government we have in the U.S., which we think others should emulate.
LikeLike
What a macabre standard for decision making.
Can we count on you to call for the Cathedral de Notre Dame to be torn down? (It was built on a pagan holy site, as were several of the great cathedrals of Europe). How about the destruction of the mine on Black Mesa, which is a Navajo holy site? What about the destruction of Bryan University, on the site of Clarence Darrow’s smiting of William Jennings Bryan? How about the destruction of Indiana Wesleyan University, in the town where the last Klan lynching in the north took place, Marion, Indiana?
And by your macabre standard, must we not hold Christianity to account for every Klan lynching, for isn’t all of Christianity to blame for the sins of the most militant and stupid arm?
Here’s a standard maybe you could live with. It makes as much sense as any you’ve proposed — which is to say, it makes no sense at all.
The greater the banned distance, the greater the avoidance of offense, right?
LikeLike
Nic,
1) Didn’t say the president wanted to get rid of religious freedom. Who is putting words in whose mouth? You’re a legend at it, my friend…
2) Didn’t say we should force the Muslims not to put up the mosque. My point – bad form on their part. Especially if they know how extremists will react to it…bad form. They could be much more sensitive to the situation if they were truly a religion of peace as Bush suggested. It certainly isn’t the “Christian” thing to do. :-) But hey…can’t expect them to be, can I?
3) Regarding the riots and church history: I’m not a Protestant…I don’t really belong to any denomination, though I am Baptistic in doctrine. If you combined the “Protestant” denominations (and included the Baptists) they would far outnumber Catholics. Also, the point was not to simply jab at Catholics but to point out what happens when any fallible humans gain all the power. Sorry, your church isn’t perfect…that title would belong to Jesus. That’s the beauty of our system – laws, checks and balances, etc. Lastly, regarding the riots, there is a far cry difference between something that happened over the period of a couple days by a mob and the official dictates of a religious ground that is killing in Jesus’ (or Allah’s or whoever’s) name.
4) Never said I was in favor of the mosque being built…just for difference reasons than Morgan. It’s not that we should force them not to build it, but that it’s bad form on the part of Islam. Very offensive, especially understanding how Islamic radicals will perceive it as a victory over the US. However, if our colective position really is based on religious freedom, be consistent and ask those who demand it of the US but refuse to give it to others to stop being so hypocritical!
5) You can’t force anyone to obey the US’s desires, but we could actually work towards energy independence so that we don’t have to keep our mouths shut at the atrocities that are taking place over there. We used to have sway in the world. We actually used to be a country that other nations wanted to be like and emulate…Not Obama’s fault, but this isn’t going to help at all, especially among the nations of Islam – it will unfortunately be perceived as weakness.
LikeLike
“…frightfully near…” I think that’s the point. Many right-wing talking heads seem to be fomenting fear. Why? Why should we be afraid of a mosque/comm center that is not even in sight of the WTC?
LikeLike
Hi, me again.
I’d just like to point out I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.
Can the Christians who are in exactly the same position, wanting to erect a monument to Christianity frightfully near some bulls-eye of Christian aggression, if you can find one — count on your support?
Just a straight yes or no from Ed and/or Nick, please. An up or a down.
All the rest is bullshit. But you didn’t need me to point that out. Thankew.
LikeLike
Wow, Lower, you sure did engage in a big fat round of delusion.
Tell me..where did the President say we need to get rid of religious freedom? Indeed it is your side that is arguing that one. It is your side that is arguing that “its okay if we block mosques from being built because other countries block churches from being built.”
What possible reason would you have to bring up what middle eastern countries do with regards to Christian churches if not “See, they do it too. We should do it to them”? Or have you missed the fact that there are those in this country who are indeed arguing that because those countries are not exactly tolerant towards Christians means the United States should be intolerant towards Muslims?
As for the history lesson about my church, Lower, I don’t need it. I am well aware of the history of my church..that is why I am so against the bullshit spouted by Morgan and his fellow right wingers with regards to that Mosque. I am also equally aware of the intolerance and violence conducted by Protestants against my Catholic church. Because I find it real curious that quite a few Protestants so love to harp about the misdeeds of the Catholic church in the past…but turn such a blind eye to the fact that their churches are equally guilty of that. Perhaps you should look up the Philadelphia Bible Riots of the 1860’s? You know..the ones where a bunch of protestants burned down two Catholic churches and a nunnery because they were ticked off that the Catholics objected to Bible instruction in the Philly public schools.
At any rate, stop blaming Obama for things you’re pretending about him.
I just love how you used this as an opportunity to say you’re for religious freedom..but then to turn around and use this topic to attack President Obama…who is on the same side as you if you’re actually for religious freedom. Or did you miss that he came out in support of that mosque?
And the United States does press for religious freedom in those countries, Lower. But the problem is that..well two fold now. 1: You can’t bully other countries into doing it. They’re not going to listen if they don’t want to and you can’t force them to obey. 2: Because of people like Morgan and their positions regarding those mosques those other countries can go “Why should we? You’re not.”
So perhaps next time you should lay off the stupid attacks against the President, yes? Because you just put words in the President’s mouth, Lower, and then tried attacking him based off the words you put in the President’s mouth.
The point, Lower, that I was making with my statement that unless Morgan is a Catholic in this country he is a member of the minority and therefor he should be real careful of pulling the argument that the majority can deny equal rights to the minority just because it is the majority. See, despite your delusion to the contrary, I really actually don’t want to use my being a member of the majority to drive Morgan’s church into the ground. But I am willing to use my membership in the majority in this country to teach Morgan a lesson about the warning “Be careful what you wish for…lest you receieve it.”
Or to put this another way..Morgan should pay more attention to the idea that “What is fair play to use against Muslims because they are the minority is fair play to use against minority groups that Morgan may belong to.”
LikeLike
jsojourner,
As I’ve said before on other posts, my preference would be that this would be a nation of Christians, not a “Christian nation.” I’m not in favor of a religious state by any stretch, though I’m not in favor of the state banning all things religious either (i.e. the Ten Commandments). If we (Christians) have to resort to just politics to advance our agenda of sharing Jesus’s good message, that means we’re losing the war for ideology and truth because we’ve lost our focus on where it needs to be. I don’t believe Christians should be excluded from politics, but I also don’t believe that just changing laws is the answer…only Jesus can really change people’s hearts and lives.
I do admit to wanting Jesus to be in charge of this country…but only because the country is full of people who have chosen to place their trust in Him. Big difference. Will that happen? Probably not anytime soon. But at least there are some who see that they need Him.
LikeLike
Nic,
Perhaps I’m radical here…but I was actually suggesting that more countries should be LIKE the US, rather than the other way around. Is that insulting to other countries? If they’re chopping off other people’s heads for their religious beliefs, then perhaps a strong offence should be in order! Perhaps religious freedom is part of the arrogance of the US that Obama believes we need to discard. What I was saying that instead of JUST defending the legality of this mosque, why not defend the rights of religious freedom to those who have none in Muslim controlled countries? “Everyone is given religious freedom here. Give it the minorities in your Muslim countries!” Muslims are demanding what they themselves do not give when they are allowed control. This is one sided and I would really like to be able to see people worship in Saudi Arabia without fear of death.
Nic, as a Catholic, you should remember your history that it wasn’t just Muslims that persecuted those of other faiths. It was the Catholic church that had political control over Europe for centuries and killed off those who were ‘heretics’ for believing in such radical concepts as having the Bible in your own language and teaching people to read, baptism occuring after beliving in Christ rather than just after birth, and singing to God in a different language than Latin. Even the Reformers were slow in learning religious freedom. Shoot, even in the New World Anglicans and Puritans persecuted Quakers and Baptists (thus you have the founding of Rhode Island). I say all that to say that no religion should be allowed to have political control of this country. It’s been demonstrated in history what happens and is demonstrated in Muslim/Hindu/communist and tyranical countries what happens when there is no religious freedom.
The platform of the constitution guarantees the right of religious freedom. I don’t think this mosque is smart…but I don’t know what the answer would be otherwise. What a wasted opportunity though to send a strong message to nations that surpress religious freedom: We will afford religious freedom in our country…even when it hurts. Instead…we are given a “well, I guess we have to because there’s no law that says they can’t. All faiths have a right to exist.” To me…what is happening spells radical Islamic victory rather than victory for freedom.
LikeLike
Evening, Lower!
In your post, you conclude…>>”while I am a huge supporter and a believer in protecting religious freedom, I also believe that this commitment comes with the obligation to protect our citizens from those who have us be under shariah law, which is the end game in the minds of radicals in Islam.”<<
Read much Gary North, David Chilton or Rousas Rushdoony? There are those who are every bit as eager to place under a Christian form of Sharian as the extremist Muslims you are (rightly) concerned about. My hope is that the moderate and loving Muslim voices — there are many — will drown out the militant ones.
I would love to believe the same would be true in Christian circles. I'm less than convinced. Fred Phelps may be a cartoon. But he is no abberration.
LikeLike
Oh and by the way, Lower, in this case what the law says is the only thing that matters.
Unless you or Morgan there can come up with an actually legal valid reason to oppose that mosque….none of your arguments mean a damn thing.
So…put up or shut up.
LikeLike
Lower writes:
You do realize that those countries aren’t the United States right? Or should we start acting like every other country on the planet? Weren’t we supposed to be better then them? I also wasn’t aware the US Constitution said “If other countries don’t follow this, neither do you.”
Besides if those other countries tried telling us what to do, Lower, you would be among the first to flip out.
Sorry, this “Mom! He hit me first defense” is nothing but childish bulldrek.
LikeLike
By the way, Morgan, the only thing we are “bullying”, and that is using the term at its broadest possible reason, you into is obeying the laws of the United States.
Whereas you and others are trying to bully a group of people because you don’t want to follow the laws much less the ideals of this country. Because you think if the “majority” whims it the majority can ignore the law and the US Constitution.
Sorry, this is not a pure democracy. We are a democratic Republic…the majority doesn’t get its way just because its the majority. The majority is bound to obey and respect the rights of the minority in this country.
Oh…and by the way…argumentum ad populum is an logical fallacy.
Want your rights to worship respected? Then respect the rights of others to worship how they please. Because I’ll point out, Morgan. In this country when it comes to religion…unless you are Catholic you are a member of a minority religious group. So if I were you I’d be real careful of trying to set up the precedent that the minority religious group has to get permission of the majority religious group before it can build a place of worship.
Because speaking as a Catholic I would have no problem in using my majority status to steamroll your particular brand of Christianity into the ground just to teach you an object lesson. I would consider it a warning to the next ten generations of right wing ********* to be careful what they ask for…lest they be the ones to pay the price for it.
LikeLike
I’m not going to get into a legal debate because I look at that as a moot point. What you CAN do legally and what you SHOULD do are sometimes two different things. Let me just put a couple religious/culture perspectives in view here of why I believe this is…well, just sad.
One, according to Time magazine, in Muslim controlled countries like Saudi Arabia, no Christian church is allowed to be errected…well, anywhere. If you are caught sharing the Gospel (or any other religion other than Islam) in Saudi Arabia…you’ve just signed your own death warrant (i.e. having your head chopped off in the Deera Square for blaspheming the ‘prophet’). Qatar didn’t have one church (at least legally) in it until 2008! Defending religious freedom is a huge priority for our country, so perhaps a request for freedom of religion in Muslim countries should be a priority for our country (and the Obama administration) rather than a one sided defence of their practically state controlled religion here.
Two, Muslims for centuries have errected mosques on the sites of military victories to celebrate triumph over their religious enemies. That’s why the Dome of the Rock was built over the site of the Temple in Jerusalem and why its existence is so offensive to Israel – it signifies victory over the Jews. The Ground Zero Mosque may not mean much here in the States more than just religious tolerance, but around the world it will be a loud rallying cry for radical muslims that 9/11 was a great victory over the evil USA. It will also signal that the US is soft, confused, and almost asking for another attack. Not smart on our part!
Three, while I am a huge supporter and a believer in protecting religious freedom, I also believe that this commitment comes with the obligation to protect our citizens from those who have us be under shariah law, which is the end game in the minds of radicals in Islam. This building of the mosque at ground zero will only embolden such teachings of hatred against the US.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
But let’s just call out what you’re trying to bully me into, directly: Permits for religious sites on public property must be granted, if said sites are meaningfully offensive to large
You’re forgetting one simple fact, Morgan.
That proposed mosque in NYC is proposed for a lot that is private…I repeat…private….not public property.
Furthermore, what then are the supposedly legitimate reasons for the opposition of mosques being built in other parts of the country. What is the reasons that are “logical” and “common sense” and “sensitive to people’s feelings.”
After all, to quote the New York Times:
In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.
In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.
In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.
Then there is this, quoting from the same article:
A smaller controversy is occurring in Temecula, about 60 miles north of San Diego, involving a typical stew of religion, politics and anti-immigrant sentiment. A Muslim community has been there for about 12 years and expanded to 150 families who have outgrown their makeshift worship space in a warehouse, said Mahmoud Harmoush, the imam, a lecturer at California State University, San Bernardino. The group wants to build a 25,000-square-foot center, with space for classrooms and a playground, on a lot it bought in 2000.
Mr. Harmoush said the Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council.
“We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.”
LikeLike
Yes. Religious organizations may not be forced to go elsewhere if they meet the zoning rules. Once a group, or a single person, has demonstrated that rules have been met, the permit is granted. If the permit does not issue, the person requesting it may sue for a writ of mandamus, and then the judge orders the zoning board or commission or whatever the body is, to issue the permit.
Building is not a majority vote sort of thing. Under U.S. zoning law, zoning boards set rules designed to prevent public nuisances. When those rules are met, the permit issues, no voting allowed.
You don’t want a WalMart in your town? Tough luck. You can’t vote it out. You don’t want your neighbor to have a nicer house than you? Tough luck. You don’t want a gas station in the small strip mall just 1,000 feet from your house? If it’s zoned for gas stations, you’re out of luck.
I noted those legal cases and the legal descriptions in a recent comment so you could get a crash course in zoning. I can’t force you to read the stuff, of course. But if you read it, you may bet a better understanding of why protests against the mosque are rather pointless, and why such protests, directed solely at one faith’s worship building, smack of bigotry.
Had you called for a ban on all religious buildings within two miles of ground zero, you’d at least be non-partisan, non-sectarian, and democratic. Nor would you run afoul of the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
It doesn’t matter how offended you are at Catholic torturings during the Spanish Inquisition, you don’t get to vote against a Catholic Church near Ground Zero. It doesn’t matter how offensive or illegal you think Baptist-backed lynchings were, you can’t oppose a Baptist church close to Ground Zero. Your views on Joseph Smith don’t allow you special heckling privileges against a Mormon ward house, your opinion of Mary Baker Eddy doesn’t allow you to oppose even a Christian Science Reading Room. Your contempt for Tom Cruise and all of his films don’t allow you to oppose a Scientology office near Ground Zero.
Got it yet?
Over the front door to the Supreme Court, on the West Portico, are engraved these words: “Equal Justice Under Law.” It doesn’t matter how much money one has, or whether one completely lacks money. It doesn’t matter whether you’re Jewish, Catholic, Zoroastrian, Protestant, Mormon, Seventh-Day Adventist, Buddhist, Taoist, Hundu, Sikh or Moslem — you still get a fair shake under U.S. law.
A few years back the people now protesting the mosque in Manhattan protested the City of Boerne, Texas, telling the local Catholic diocese they could not raze an historic chapel, and that case went to the Supreme Court. To make it clear that cities had to cut extra regard for all religions in such cases, Congress first passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and when part of that was struck down, the RLUIPA, which has survived contest. Curse those people who passed those laws.
Two years ago (or so) many of those same people complained when a Connecticut city condemned a few homes to make a complete parcel of land for economic development designed to help the city keep jobs and keep families together an in the city limits. So, many localities and a few states passed laws limiting governmental powers to condemn land to take that land away from rightful owners.
Now you have the gall to complain you were wrong before, but only in the case of Moslems? Green light hypocrites.
What is it you have against private property all of a sudden? Have you ever read the warnings of Hayek and von Mises about people who have a low regard for private property rights?
LikeLike
Oh and Morgan, as for your question of “Where’s the $100 mil coming from, anyway?”
Do you have any proof that its coming from anything other than legitimate sources?
Sorry, this is not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. In the United States the rule is “Innocent until proven guilty.”
Do bother to remember that next time.
LikeLike
I wrote:
masses against Islam just like the Nazi’s did to Jews to gain that party.
Sorry, that should be “..masses against Islam just like the Nazi’s did to Jews to gain that power.”
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Suffice it to say, after much discussion that has ensued, I do not have an answer to my question but I have lots of evaluations about my personal character, or lack thereof, from people who do not know me.
Tell me, Morgan, did the hypocrisy you were engaging in occur to you when you wrote that?
Or did the fact that you and your fellow members of the right wing hysteria fest were doing exactly that to…well…pretty much every Muslim in the entire country not occur to you? And especially the ones in New York City. There are citizens of this country who are Muslim..indeed there are members of our military who are Muslim. Do they not deserve the same rights and respects as the rest of us?
Part of what the terrorists like Al Qaeda want is to convince the west that the entirety of Islam is the enemy..that Islam is the enemy. They also want to convince their fellow Muslims that the West…and especially the United States hates Islam.
What would you call giving Al Qaeda exactly what they want if not “surrender” and “cowardly”? What would you call the actions of people who think that the right to religious expression only belongs to some and not to others if not bullying and fascist?
You say “this is an issue on which we nay-sayers are arguing not just from a position of logic and common sense, but of sensitivity to feelings as well.”
No..you are not arguing from logic or common sense at all. And as for “sensitivity to feelings” you’re rather forgetting one simple fact…not all of the families of the victims of 9-11 oppose that mosque. You’re also forgetting that there are two mosques there already, that it is not on the WTC site, that the site they want to build on is private property. You and yours are arguing from fear, from hatred and from paranoia. Because if you haven’t bothered to notice..the mosque in NYC isn’t the only one being opposed. Or are you going to say that the WTC site includes Wisconsin, New Jersey and Tennessee?
You and your party are doing this out of cold calculated desire to gain political power at any cost…even if you have to throw out the ideals of this country to do so. And your party is willing to whip up the masses against Islam just like the Nazi’s did to Jews to gain that party. You and your party don’t give a damn about the families of the victims of 9-11 or the people that rushed into the fire to save people. After all…your party just voted against funding health care for those people for the health problems they’ve developed because of 9-11.
Logic says the law is the law and that things are decided on the law and not public passion. Logic says everyone in this country has the same rights and is due the same protection under the law. This has nothing to do with logic for you. You are trying to punish an entire religious group for the actions of a few extremists. But I am perfectly willing to bet that if the WTC had been attacked by Christian terrorists you would be the absolute last person to object to there being a church near the WTC site.
If you were so “sensitive to feelings” then why aren’t you being sensitive to the feelings of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Muslims in this country who had nothing to do with 9-11?
Sorry, I am not willing to let this country become something akin to pre-WW2 Germany just because your side of the political spectrum wants to act like a bunch of hateful cowards and give in to the terrorists. Quit blaming the entirety of Islam just because on 9-11 you got scared. We’re supposed to be better then other countries. We’re supposed to be against paranoia, against fear, against bigotry, against prejudice, against tyrrany. Against the denial of rights to people just because they’re a minority.
Give into fear and cowardice or stand up for what this country stands for, Morgan. Make your choice.
Oh and by the way, I didn’t make up the claim about the two that bombed the Federal building being members of the Christian Identity movement. That is established fact. They were Christians and they were terrorists. Just like the guy who shot Dr. Tiller was Christian and a terrorist. Are you willing to subject Christianity to the same little rules you are oh so eager to subject Islam to?
Tell me, Morgan, where in the 1st Admendment or the 14th Admendment does it say “these rights don’t apply to Muslims”?
Pity that your side is so scared ******** that you’re willing to deny people their rights out of fear and hatred.
LikeLike
Projecting much?
From the House of Eratosthenes:
I noted that, statistically, that’s likely to be accurate. You said there’s a list of names somewhere (but you don’t say or indicate where), then you leap to the conclusion that someone should be able to accurately calculate the faiths of all the dead. Then you attack me for your assumption that it’s been done already, and I’m hiding it from you.
Oy.
LikeLike
[…] perfect example of this exists at Ed Darrell’s place. I took great exception to the statement so breezily included in a piece he embedded… No one […]
LikeLike
Under U.S. law in every state, no permit can be denied for “whatever reason.” Permits for development of private property must be handled within a reasonable period of time, and refusals must be for cause.
How relevant this would be, Ed, if this were a discussion about why the permit is about to be denied. But it isn’t; it is a discussion of why people would want to see the permit denied. It has been made into a discussion of that, by yourself and many others, who have insinuated nefarious and/or racist and/or hypocritical motives on the part of persons like me who see something wrong.
As you know, Ed, there is great error in confusing a discussion of what’s morally right, with a discussion of what the law does/doesn’t require. Why you persist in repeating this error is a mystery to me. But let’s just call out what you’re trying to bully me into, directly: Permits for religious sites on public property must be granted, if said sites are meaningfully offensive to large numbers of persons who are permanent fixtures in the surrounding community? There’s no precedent for such offense rising to the level of “cause,” none whatsoever, is that what you’re trying to say?
The problem with your argument, Morgan, is the WTC is not private property. Different rules apply regarding religious expression on public and private property. They want that cross there on the WTC site? Then they’re going to have to allow symbols from every other religion there. (blah blah blah)…So grow some balls for once.
Okay, then let’s adjust the hypothetical. The church wants the cross on private property a few feet away from the World Trade Center. You’re a bright fellow, Nick, I’m sure you could have made that adjustment on your own. Now why don’t you grow some balls and answer my query? You’d be for it?
In fact, it’s interesting neither of you — none of you — have directly answered it. You can’t be accused of being inconsistent because you won’t ‘fess up to what you really are. My critique about white-guilt-on-steroids may have been indelicate, but it seems to stand.
You know what I do see a whole lot of, here, though? I’m seeing a whole lot of excoriation, a whole lot of speculation about what is personally wrong with me, the effluence of those who do not personally know me. Bigoted, hypocritical, a whole lot of speculation about what I would do in my own hypothetical…more than interesting, since nobody has directly answered it.
All right. I’ll answer my own, since Ed’s worried I’m a hypocrite. But first, I’d like to point out what is not being said: “I have this opinion, but I can see how someone of adequate intelligence and fine character can have a different one.” Liberals, today, cannot do this. They are the reason we cannot discuss politics. They — you — have formed the proper opinions around the proper issues, to demonstrate what wonderful people they/you are; this means anyone who has a different opinion is a bad person. Such people must be silenced. Because they’re/we’re bad.
You don’t need to figure out what kind of person I am. You shouldn’t. If your argument were stronger, this wouldn’t be relevant. Grown-ups know that wonderful, decent, intelligent people have the wrong idea all the time; stupid rotten stinkers have the right idea quite often. It’s always better to debate the ideas. Liberals nowadays have to keep being reminded of this, and even when they’re reminded they don’t catch on. It’s an ugly trend we see, lately, and this is why I blame liberals for our incendiary discourse. Really, how can you have an enlightened discourse about anything if one side says “my position makes me morally superior and the other guy’s position makes him an awful person”?
Now, this is a difficult hypothetical to reverse since the situation doesn’t exist in the reverse — I cannot come up with a “Ground Zero” of some atrocity committed by Christians, in a current holy war, on which Christians would want to erect a great big cross. I would say then, that if there were some reason that others would be offended by such a display, some tangible reason as to why it would be construed by a meaningful representation of permanent fixtures in the community as an icon of Christian aggression — they should move the damn thing. Of a facility that is supposed to heal a divide, I would expect nothing less. I would expect they’d already be making plans to do this before I would suggest it.
So Ed, you’re saying you hate the smell of hypocrisy. I’m with ya.
You’re both beating around the bush that is the central issue: You can’t engage in the tired old leftist argument of “Here’s our rationalization of why your objections are irrelevant and you should just shut your mouth, now go away” — and then claim to be doing the work of outreach, fellowship, healing, more open communication, et al. The Cordoba center, if it proceeds, would have to be built on such a foundation. You cannot casually dismiss, and then claim to be healing a divide.
And you’re not casually dismissing just my objections. Not personally knowing anyone who perished on 9/11, I would not claim to be a superior representative of those who have the objections. And so, no, you have not given me any solid arguments that would nullify the objections those people, surviving friends & relatives, would have. The objections they would have, seem to me to be entirely legitimate and you haven’t given me a reason to think otherwise.
Maybe you’d care to try again. I’m not finding the sneering disdain, the rationalizations for condescending dismissal, terribly persuasive.
LikeLike
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dave (UBB) Hill, Alltop Education. Alltop Education said: Michael Kinnamon on Cordoba House and mosque at Ground Zero http://bit.ly/c12yKy […]
LikeLike
Gee, Nick — got any non-wishy-washy views? You might want to tone down the near-profanity a bit — we’re just a week away from the start of school, and kids are coming back to the site.
LikeLike
Under U.S. law in every state, no permit can be denied for “whatever reason.” Permits for development of private property must be handled within a reasonable period of time, and refusals must be for cause (and “just cause,” by law).
Plus, the RLUIPA gives religious bodies even greater rights against rejection by government permitting bodies.
Extensive law exists on this stuff; while it helps to spend a semester or more studying the law, you don’t have to go to law school to understand it. And while there might be reasons to fail to grant the permit, you’ve not come close to mentioning any that would be legal, or moral.
Consequently, that’s not an adequate answer to the question of on what basis you would deny a permit to build a mosque — anywhere.
LikeLike
The problem with your argument, Morgan, is the WTC is not private property. Different rules apply regarding religious expression on public and private property. They want that cross there on the WTC site? Then they’re going to have to allow symbols from every other religion there.
Whereas that proposed mosque is on private property two blocks away from the WTC site. Furthermore there is already two mosques within several blocks of the WTC site. the proposed one is just them wanting more space because the two mosques there already are little one room things. They also want space for community events.
And there you sit along with your fellow right wingers trying to pretend that a group doesn’t have the same rights as you because you don’t like them. Sorry, Morgan, despite your sides fervent wish to the contrary..this is not Nazi Germany and you don’t get to play favorites.
Furthermore what you are doing in effect is pissing your pants and acting like scared little children surrendering to the terrorists. Because above all else what they want is for the West to view all of Islam as the enemy..they want to turn this into a war against the entirety of Islam. And there you sit…giving them exactly what they want like a scared little child.
And there the right wing sits…once again thinking that they’ll protect the United States by giving up everything the United States says it stands for. Your side is a bunch of weak willed, unintelligent, xenophobic, fascistesque, scared shittless cowards, Morgan.
The worst thing you can do yourself to the terrorists, Morgan, is to refuse to give them what they want. To refuse to let them make this a war against the entirety of Islam. The worst thing you can do to them, Morgan, is to refuse to let what they did make you hate and fear 1 billion people for no reason other then they exist.
So grow some balls for once.
LikeLike
The issue with the permit process cuts to the very basis of a permit process. What’s being conveniently neglected here is that “permit” is a verb as well as a noun. Any homeowner who’s ever applied for a permit can describe this issue to you.
You can be denied for whatever reason. You can see your application simply dropped into a memory hole, so that it’s never denied OR approved. That’s what is so odious about a permit process. So all these protestations from you, President Obama, and the others that there’s some “right” to an affirmative outcome of this process are just silly, which is why so few are actually stating this outright.
You don’t have a right to have a permit approved. If you did, it wouldn’t be a permit.
Are you saying the RLUIPA does indeed create such a right? Links, please, to the cases in which it had this kind of an impact. First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech — you can attend a public hearing about a permit, putting a voice behind the objections of the community. And if this results in a negative outcome, then so be it. See, this gets back to my original point — this mindset continues to paint itself into the same corner, time and again, where the “rights” of some people are honored and the rights of others are not.
So you hate the smell of hypocrisy. Glad to see you’re on my side!
Regarding this other matter, the list of 2,996, that’s a simple equation involving logic, common sense, and set arithmetic. The insinuation is that nobody knows the size of some set, which is a subset of a larger set, well established. The number of the subset (Muslim victims of 9/11) has been placed as high as 1,200, roughly 40%.
Your bullshit detector should be going off at the idea that this statistic is shrouded in such mystery, because the only way this could be so is through uncertainty about the denomination of the 2,996. Now, how much uncertainty could there possibly be? Seriously.
LikeLike
I’m unaware of any credible, public list of the faiths of the victims. I’m unaware of any such list at all.
As Dr. Kinnamon noted, Moslems performed valuable public service, and gave their lives trying to aid the victims of the attack. Those facts about Salman Hamdani were unknown until his body was found.
About 7% of Americans are followers of Islam. Are you willing to wager a smaller percentage of a heterogeneous group of people in the World Trade Center were? 7% of about 3,000 would be 210. Got different figures?
LikeLike
Let’s make it a more realistic hypothetical, Morgan.
Let’s say the group bought the land, recorded the deed, has the building drawn up and ready to go, and now the construction company has asked for a permit to build.
On what basis can anyone deny the permit, without trampling the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalize Persons Act (RLUIPA). That last law, by the way, was passed to frustrate local governments’ ability to put restrictions on churches, for example, by preventing a church from demolishing a building considered extra valuable because it is an historic building. It was passed by people who share your antipathy to government, exactly to frustrate government doing things like telling the Xyzzy group they can’t build in Oklahoma City, or any group of Moslems they can’t build near Ground Zero in New York City.
Your argument suffers from a lot of missing fact and nuance. McVeigh professed to be a bit of a Christian. He showed profound sympathy for some of the Aryan Nation and white supremacy groups who claim to be following religious dictates of the Bible. Were your hypothetical to be more realistic, you’d present it as a general ban on Christian churches withing hailing distance of the old Murrah Building.
And, were your hypothetical more realistic, you’d be going ballistic over any proposal to put up a huge cross close to Ground Zero.
I hate the smell of burning hypocrisy in the morning (or any other time).
LikeLike
Yeah, you know what? I’ve come across some more documents.
A Christian Fellowship center has applied for a permit, once the WTC has been rebuilt, to erect a huge marble cross right over the main entrance. It will stretch from twenty to eighty feet off the ground, with a life-like sculpture of The Savior nailed to it, it will cost $8 mllion to erect, and $1 million a year to maintain. That center will pay for all of this. They just want to be given the green light.
As for rights, there is a “free expression” clause in the First Amendment.
Slam dunk, right?
LikeLike
Morgan,
I think you’re missing one important point: it’s not one group’s feelings being more or less important than another group’s feelings. It’s about one group’s RIGHTS versus another group’s feelings.
The feelings vs feelings arguement is about being good neighbors, while this issue is about how is legally allowed to be your neighbor. Two quite different things.
Brett
LikeLike
Hey Nick,
You may be interested to know I’ve come across some documents that prove Tim McVeigh was in fact quite religious, and belonged to a church called Xyzzy. Now, it hasn’t made the news lately but the Xyzzy church has stepped forward and requested a permit to build a shrine to the Xyzzy religion close to where McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Their plans call for a $100 million Fellowship Center.
They’ve provided many assurances that this is not about a poke-in-the-eye directed at the Federal Government, or at the victims of the 1995 bombing. But nobody knows where their $100 million is coming from, to say nothing of the funds that will be required to maintain it. It’s all a complete mystery. Can they be granted the permit, pretty-please?
No, none of that’s true; I just pulled it out of my ass, as you can easily figure out.
But it’s a legitimate hypothetical case. You’d completely back them on this right? Because if it happened, most of the people I know, like me, would be consistent. We’d tell them to piss up a rope.
This is nothing but white guilt on steroids. A legitimate extension of feelings of togetherness, diversity, healing, communication — would recognize the issue and relocate the center.
And like it or not, the argument of “shut up & give it a green light” is unsustainable because it is self-contradictory; this is an issue on which we nay-sayers are arguing not just from a position of logic and common sense, but of sensitivity to feelings as well. Those who say shut up and go ahead, therefore, are placed in the absurd position of arguing that some peoples’ feelings should reign supreme, and the feelings of others do not matter.
LikeLike
And Nick K, I agree that the demonization of Muslims in the US by right wing whackos is just like… well, it’s not even necessary to finish that sentence if one has half a brain.
LikeLike
fanatic white christianists know nothing about anything other than:
jesus is my personal lord and savior.
god opens doors for me.
the united state’s constitution is based on the bible.
the united states is a christian nation.
homosexuals are damned to eternal hell.
obama is a communist.
that’s it.
thank you very much.
LikeLike
And once again the right wing, pardon the vulgarity, has pissed its pants like scared children since 9-11 and insists on surrendering to the terrorists who attacked us and giving them what they want.
Would some right winger here like to try and explain how the protest against that mosque in New York City and the protests against all the other mosques, the demonizing of all Muslims, isn’t like what the Nazi’s did to the Jews before the Holocaust?
Where does it say in the 1st Admendment “but not Muslims”?
LikeLike
Ed,
I’ve seen you talk many times before about your “Hemingway Bullshit Detector.”
In view of the fact that the complete list of 9/11 victims has been well established, for nearly all of the 8y11mo since the attacks, and pegged at 2,996, I wonder what statements like “No one knows how many Muslims died on 9/11 but they number in the hundreds” does to that detector. How is it that no one knows?
And how come the feelings of those who were friends or relatives of this unknown number — and therefore, we cannot know how many friends+relatives there are, therefore we don’t know who they are, exactly…are so legitimate that we need a $100mil center to extend the honors thought necessary. But the feelings of the person who would be offended, are not legitimate at all?
I’ve noticed this seems to be a constant when we try to make a world that works for “everybody”; we’re constantly leaving some people in and some people out.
Where’s the $100mil coming from, anyway?
LikeLike