Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[Teelynn]

“Yes, Muslims have the right to build on private property and worship as they please. However, the President has a right to voice his objection to such an incredibly stupid and insensitive exercise of rights. Instead, he supported them in their obamination, showing where his true loyalties lay.”

What he supported was the First Amendment to the Constitution. I didn’t see anywhere in that speech where he said, “This location is a great idea for the mosque.” I really wish that all of you who are saying how much he supports it, would post a link to that part of the speech.

If you don’t like the First Amendment, try mounting a campaign to get rid of it.

When the President of the United States says: " Muslims have the same rights as everyone else in this country to practice their religion", you have to agree with him. But, when he doesn’t follow up with some clarification, like for instance: Although they definitely have every right, I do hope that they take into consideration the sensitivity of family members and Americans alike to build a Mosque overlooking ground zero. Nothing remotely similar was said by the President. He along with others was trying to make this into a “freedom of religion” debate. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF RELIGION. No one is telling them they cannot build their Mosque there. They are free to do as they choose. They are certainly free in America to be disrespectful of the feelings of family members and Americans who lost loved ones in the name of Islam. They are certainly free to cause division instead of “building bridges of unity”. They are certainly free to tell families to “get over it”…“be tolerant”…“buck up”. They are certainly free to resent this Mosque and the Muslims behind it as well. It will do nothing to 'BUILD BRIDGES".

 

[iamrefreshed]

I don’t see the mosque as provocative the way that protesting a soldiers funerals is. I know there are many people here who will think I am blind for saying so, but since it is (in New York terms) a considerable distance from the WTC site, and since this group of Muslims have been in the downtown area for years, I really think they also honestly didn’t realize that they would be seen as polluting “sacred ground”. (They also probably feel that they didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, just like I don’t feel responsible for the actions of Eric Rudolph, even though he is a Christian and did what he did in the name of Christ.)

I don’t think there’s any justification for the Westboro Baptist Church’s actions. Their freedom of religion doesn’t give them the right to disrupt people’s private funerals. If they want to protest American foreign policy, that’s fine, but do so in a public space like every other protester.

The issue is that many of the families of those killed on 9/11 see it as ‘provocative’.

 

[tjm190]

Nancy Pelosi demands an investigation! Of those opposing the building of the mosque!!!

AUDIO - Rep. Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition

washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/

I wonder what this mosque opponent thinks about that

bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10994421

 

[tomarin]

The issue is that many of the families of those killed on 9/11 see it as ‘provocative’.

Aren’t you assuming that they think the way you do? And if they do think that, doesn’t it mean that they also think all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If they think that, I have to say that they’re wrong.

 

[scipio337]

Aren’t you assuming that they think the way you do? And if they do think that, doesn’t it mean that they also think all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If they think that, I have to say that they’re wrong.

Hmm, I have a difficult time finding “all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks” in this thread. Or in the forum altogether.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The issue is that many of the families of those killed on 9/11 see it as ‘provocative’.

Why do they see it as provocative?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

But you’re arguments have been worthless in trying to convince anyone that you are right, so please stop trying to take an argument and turn it into an entirely different argument to prove a point. You have over 60 percent of the population who see things differently than you do.

So public opinion trumps reason? I have not yet heard a solvent argument as to why the Islamic center is actually offensive. I, for one, am extremely uncomfortable with such staunch opposition to a religious group when no one seems to be able to explain why they are opposed in the first place.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I wonder what all the mosque defenders here think about the Westboro Baptist Church’s habit of protesting at soldiers funerals?

They have a right do do so.

Do you think they should stop? If so why?

If you think they should continue protesting, why?

I was waiting for this response. The WBC is different because they actually preach hate. In this way we know that their protests are not merely an expression of their free speech, but also harassment of the groups they hate. In the case of the Islamic center there has been no expression of hate. In fact they have preached exactly the opposite.

 

[tomarin]

Hmm, I have a difficult time finding “all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks” in this thread. Or in the forum altogether.

Thanks for getting right to the heart of the issue. If the idea that all Muslims are in some way responsible for 9/11 (presumably because they preach a religion of hatred) is not implied in the argument about insensitivity, then why is it insensitive for these particular Muslims to build this mosque in the vicinity of the WTC site? There’s no reason that I can see to think that they support al Qaeda or its goals.

In other words, if you’re not saying that these particular Muslims bear some of the blame for 9/11, isn’t it unreasonable to ask them to build their mosque elsewhere?

 

[tomarin]

So public opinion trumps reason? I have not yet heard a solvent argument as to why the Islamic center is actually offensive. I, for one, am extremely uncomfortable with such staunch opposition to a religious group when no one seems to be able to explain why they are opposed in the first place.

Public opinion trumps reason. That’s precisely what’s wrong with the insensitivity argument.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If I’m not mistaken the original argument was to move the mosque away from this location which is a 150 year old building that was damaged by the debris from 9/11. This was way before it became a national hot topic and the predictable mantra from liberals was being regurgitated.

I don’t think there was ever any such discussion once it was determined the building was not a landmark. It was an abandoned coat factory and, quite frankly, an eyesore. The question of “is the building we are replacing special” was answered in the negative by the courts.

I don’t know New York, or this location very well. Is there a building or lot closer to 9/11 they could have purchased but didn’t? That might make things a little easier on them if someone could point that out and say “See we are not trying to ruffle anyone’s feathers or we would be building it there.”.

But it doesn’t explain why people would be offended in the first place.

Otherwise, they have some issues to deal with. One, the liberal supporting media is just calling everyone bigots. If these people were considering the feelings of those around them the liberal media should be reporting it. At least it would look like they are trying to come up with a solution, instead of flying us the bird.

Just because people are liberal does not make all there arguments invalid. Just because you don’t like their conclusions does not mean their reasoning was not sound.

The other issue is, once they start looking for construction crews if they try to build on this lot here, they may run into some resistance there.

So? Why would there be resistance? Because it is insensitive. Why is it insensitive?

 

[scipio337]

Thanks for getting right to the heart of the issue. If the idea that all Muslims are in some way responsible for 9/11 (presumably because they preach a religion of hatred) is not implied in the argument about insensitivity, then why is it insensitive for these particular Muslims to build this mosque in the vicinity of the WTC site? There’s no reason that I can see to think that they support al Qaeda or its goals.

Thanks for ignoring the strawman you’ve set up.

Its insensitive because Islamic ideology (whether twisted, or not) were the impetus of the attacks.

 

[scipio337]

Public opinion trumps reason. That’s precisely what’s wrong with the insensitivity argument.

No. I haven’t seen anybody state the planned mosque is “illegal”, or that there is no Constitutional protection to build the “community center” anywhere, simply that it is in poor taste, especially for a community center whose stated purpose is to foster “peace and reconciliation”, and “interfaith dialouge”.

If that irony doesn’t knock you over, I’m not sure what will.

And yes, public opine has a great deal of impact on what is considered “poor taste”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Nancy Pelosi demands an investigation! Of those opposing the building of the mosque!!!

AUDIO - Rep. Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition

washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/

A toothless gesture on her part. As Chesterton says: “What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.” In other words her little probe will not make the opposition any more self-reflective.

For the record, I am still eagerly awaiting arguments that fall outside this cycle:

1. Opposition group: The Islamic centre is insensitive.
2. Support group: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive?
3. Opposition group: Because those involved with the Islamic centre are Muslim, as were the 9/11 terrorists.
4. Support group: But those involved with the Islamic centre, along with the majority of other Muslims, have denounced the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam. Therefore equating the two groups because of religion is not reasonable.
5. Opposition group: But those involved with the Islamic centre have not proven they have not taken money from terrorists, nor can we be sure they do not sympathize with the terrorists.
6. Support group: No, but we have no reason to be suspicious. Why do you suspect the Muslims involved with the Islamic centre are lying about their beliefs and intentions?
7. Opposition group:
   a) Normal response: I’m not saying I don’t believe them, I am saying that if they wanted to be sensitive, they could build somewhere else.
   b) Prejudiced response: They are not being truthful because they are Muslims, we should be suspicious because Islam says x y and z. Discussion ended.
   c) Possible response (not yet observed): You are right, I guess it does not make sense to be offended by this mosque. Discussion ended.
   d) Possible response (observed, but evidence is insubstantial or anecdotal): no, here is substantial evidence that the centre is affiliated with terrorism. Discussion shifted to the validity of evidence.
8. Support group response to 7a: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive? (goto 3)

 

[tomarin]

Thanks for ignoring the strawman you’ve set up.

Its insensitive because Islamic ideology (whether twisted, or not) were the impetus of the attacks.

So am I as a Christian responsible for Eric Rudolph or the guy who murdered an abortion doctor recently because Christian ideology was the impetus of their actions?

If I’m not (and I don’t think I am) then how can I blame these particular Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 fanatics?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

No. I haven’t seen anybody state the planned mosque is “illegal”, or that there is no Constitutional protection to build the “community center” anywhere, simply that it is in poor taste, especially for a community center whose stated purpose is to foster “peace and reconciliation”, and “interfaith dialouge”.

If that irony doesn’t knock you over, I’m not sure what will.

And yes, public opine has a great deal of impact on what is considered “poor taste”

If we do not question the rationale behind the allegations of poor taste, then we run the risk of a mob mentality. Say I lived in Rosa Park’s day. I say “I guess it would be legal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus, but it is extremely poor taste for them to do so.” If no one comes along and asks me why I feel this way, I could persist in that racist sentiment without realizing it is racist. I am concerned that calls to move the mosque are analogous to calls for blacks to move to the back of the bus.

Please prove me wrong by explaining why you think the center is in poor taste.

 

[tomarin]

Thanks for ignoring the strawman you’ve set up.

Please tell me how my argument is a strawman (and my apologies if it is – I just don’t see it).

 

[scipio337]

So am I as a Christian responsible for Eric Rudolph or the guy who murdered an abortion doctor recently because Christian ideology was the impetus of their actions?

If I’m not (and I don’t think I am) then how can I blame these particular Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 fanatics?

Of course not. But if you wanted to erect a church close to the places of his murders, I would support your right to build a church there, but still call it “distasteful”.

Its really that simple.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Thanks for ignoring the strawman you’ve set up.

Its insensitive because Islamic ideology (whether twisted, or not) were the impetus of the attacks.

But that sounds like a reason FOR construction. It is vital that people realize the twisted ideology in the attacks is completely separate from the Islam practised by the majority of Muslim-Americans. If people are not told this (and the educational process may be uncomfortable) they might have unfair–or even discriminatory–views about Muslim-Americans.

 

[tjm190]

Its insensitive because Islamic ideology (whether twisted, or not) were the impetus of the attacks.

How so? Why, in your opinion, did the attacks take place here rather than say, Japan? Japan is composed almost entirely of ‘infidels’ rather than ‘Dhimmis’- if the attack was religiously motivated it would seem they were a much better target.