Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[scipio337]

Uh, excuse me but which specific point/points in my post are you referring to? If you feel the need to vent over the confusion among mosque opponents, I can empathize with you.

Thank you for yet another glib dismissal.

Bon fait!

seekerz:

On the other hand, if you are seeking a rational discussion where I say something specific and you counter it, I’d be more than happy to oblige…as of my previous post, the ball is in your court.

I’ve been giving reasons and links for over the past week, and no one has bothered to acknowledge it, much less “counter” any of it.

I think my post is pretty straightforward, so I’m not sure where your “confusion” comes from. If you are seeking a rational discussion where you respond to my specific points with something outside of speculation on “motivation behind the opposition”, etc, I’d be more than happy to oblige.

 

[4elise]

Actually what you and others said was that those who oppose the mosque had based their opinions on the directions from the usual left-wing bogeyman. The only thing I disagree with the person who commented that the left claims these bogeymen kick puppies is at the left really believes they eat a puppies for breakfast every morning.

Thank you for elevating the discussion. (sigh)

What I wrote - which should help with clarification - was that I believe that the pundants (your bogeymen) were using this issue - **not **that they were responsible for your or anyone else’s opinion.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you for yet another glib dismissal.

Bon fait!

I’ve been giving reasons and links for over the past week, and no one has bothered to acknowledge it, much less “counter” any of it.

I think my post is pretty straightforward, so I’m not sure where your “confusion” comes from. If you are seeking a rational discussion where you respond to my specific points with something outside of speculation on “motivation behind the opposition”, etc, I’d be more than happy to oblige.

There is no confusion-but I guess being called confused is preferable to being called a racist bigot under the control of the right wing media.

 

[Catherine_D]

These things are against our laws.
These things will not stand in our country.

I hope you are right.

The problem, as I see it, is that Shariah systems have already been established in other Western countries. It would be naive to believe that some misguided jurist or legislator, wouldn’t seek to allow it here, in the name of religious freedom or multiculturalism.

 

[4elise]

I hope you are right.

The problem, as I see it, is that Shariah systems have already been established in other Western countries. It would be naive to believe that some misguided jurist or legislator, wouldn’t seek to allow it here, in the name of religious freedom or multiculturalism.

I don’t want to seem contrary - but the parts of the Shariah system you were talking about specifically - what western countries allow their husbands to beat their wives? What western countries allow honor killings? From what I understand what has been established in places in the UK are for civil law among Muslims, not criminal law - i.e. inheritance and nuisance neighbors.

With you Catherine I am willing to work to raise the lives of women around the country - and around the world - so that they too may chose to live as they wish. Blessings

 

[Fitz]

I do not think that the mosque or community center will be built in the end. I think that the opposition to it will win out. I don’t think that those that oppose it are racist. We have a right to be sensitive to the situation. In this instance, Obama is wrong.

 

[estesbob]

Archbishop Dolan and Governor Patterson are meeting this afternoon in an attempt to find a resolution to this issue. I am hoping that the developers will show the same humility and sensitivity that John Paul the Great did with a similar situation at Auschwitz. Archbishop Dolan has already mentioned this as an example of how this could be worked out.

 

[tpw]

Your link suggests New Yorkers are divided about the cultural center/mosque. The issue is where are they getting their information. The right feeds on frenzied statements by their progenitors (FOX, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc.) while the left feeds on constitutionality and tolerance espoused by their media sources.

In the end it may require compromise. The questions confronting the right are will they allow for any compromise (a site somewhere else in NYC) which might defuse the controversy provided the center builders agree to move? And secondly will the continued xenophobia which this has been re-kindled by this controversy continue flaring up across the country (i.e. the evangelical church in Florida which pledges to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11) unabated?

As Catholics we suffered through this nonsense in the mid-19th century propogated by the Know Nothing factions and continued to experience it all the way until Kennedy’s election in 1960. Why would we want to see anyone else go through the same thing?

Provocation once initiated has a terrible tendency to smolder and burn slowly waiting for the next opportune moment to burst into flames. And quite sadly politicians are using the mosque incident to promote their own campaigns.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I hope all peaceful Muslims are absolutely sure of the intents of the people behind this project.

I don’t know how much tolerence would be left if this center is not exactly as described and funded by those seeking peace.

 

[estesbob]

Your link suggests New Yorkers are divided about the cultural center/mosque. The issue is where are they getting their information. The right feeds on frenzied statements by their progenitors (FOX, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc.) while the left feeds on constitutionality and tolerance espoused by their media sources.

In the end it may require compromise. The questions confronting the right are will they allow for any compromise (a site somewhere else in NYC) which might defuse the controversy provided the center builders agree to move? And secondly will the continued xenophobia which this has been re-kindled by this controversy continue flaring up across the country (i.e. the evangelical church in Florida which pledges to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11) unabated?

As Catholics we suffered through this nonsense in the mid-19th century propogated by the Know Nothing factions and continued to experience it all the way until Kennedy’s election in 1960. Why would we want to see anyone else go through the same thing?

Provocation once initiated has a terrible tendency to smolder and burn slowly waiting for the next opportune moment to burst into flames. And quite sadly politicians are using the mosque incident to promote their own campaigns.

And the march of the bogeymen goes on…

 

[iamrefreshed]

Your link suggests New Yorkers are divided about the cultural center/mosque. The issue is where are they getting their information. The right feeds on frenzied statements by their progenitors (FOX, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc.) while the left feeds on constitutionality and tolerance espoused by their media sources.

.

Can I play Ann Coulter, pretty please???

The left feeds on frenzied statements by their progenitors (MSNBC, Maddow, Pelosi, Franken, Krugman, Huffington, Stewart etc.) while the right feeds on constitutionality and tolerance espoused by their media sources.

 

[mlund]

This building should not be built by this individual because of his political rhetoric, not his religion. Whether he’s a yuppie professor from Columbia University or a mischievous Imam beloved by the left-wing intelligencia, an apologist from terrorists should not be building a soap-box for his “America had it coming” rhetoric in a building lot partially destroyed by the debris from the explosion of the airplanes on 9/11.

Even if it isn’t illegal, it can be rightly opined to be hurtful, insensitive, antagonistic, uncivil, and in poor taste. This guy deserves all the protests and negative opinions and treatment thrown his way. He’s earned it.

• Marty Lund

 

[Catherine_D]

70% of the people in this country oppose the building of this mosque in its presently planned spot. It is not possible that ALL of those who oppose it are stirred up by some sort of frenzy. Democrat politicians from Howard Dean to Harry Reid have spoken out against this project.

A person can take a principled stand against something all by themselves. They don’t need anyone else to tell them how to think or what to believe. It doesn’t mean that such a position is racist, bigoted or motivated/driven by hate. Since is this a free country, they are also entitled to speak their mind, whether or not anyone else agrees with it. On this subject, the majority opinion is that the mosque needs to be built elsewhere.

To suggest that the 70% of the people of this country that oppose the ground zero mosque are motivated by hate, as was suggested by Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Rauf in an interview with Christiane Amanpour this weekend, is to fling the same sort of hate at 70% of the people of this country as Daisy Khan is suggesting is being exhibited by those who oppose the mosque.

Further, if this is truly a constitutional argument, then I call on everyone to remember that the opponents of the ground zero mosque, particularly the families of the 9/11 victims also have first amendment rights. Please give them equal support when asserting an argument is being made on constitutional grounds.

 

[Marie5890]

70% of the people in this country oppose the building of this mosque in its presently planned spot. It is not possible that ALL of those who oppose it are stirred up by some sort of frenzy. Democrat politicians from Howard Dean to Harry Reid have spoken out against this project.

A person can take a principled stand against something all by themselves. They don’t need anyone else to tell them how to think or what to believe. It doesn’t mean that such a position is racist, bigoted or motivated/driven by hate. Since is this a free country, they are also entitled to speak their mind, whether or not anyone else agrees with it. On this subject, the majority opinion is that the mosque needs to be built elsewhere.

To suggest that the 70% of the people of this country that oppose the ground zero mosque are motivated by hate, as was suggested by Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Rauf in an interview with Christiane Amanpour this weekend, is to fling the same sort of hate at 70% of the people of this country as Daisy Khan is suggesting is being exhibited by those who oppose the mosque.

Further, if this is truly a constitutional argument, then I call on everyone to remember that the opponents of the ground zero mosque, particularly the families of the 9/11 victims also have first amendment rights. Please give them equal support when asserting an argument is being made on constitutional grounds.

I do agree that just because most people are against the mosque doesn’t mean they are motivated by hate. They are motivated by sensitivity.

But I also don’t think that for most of those 70% that this really is all that big of an issue. They certainly have an opinion but they aren’t intently focuses on it not being there.
The protest turn out was this past Sunday was very small on both sides of this. There is no real uproar over this beyond the stampede in the media trying to squeeze out ratings.

I fully support the 9-11 families Constitutional right to speak out against this. To even protest.

However, it’s privately owned property. Their rights are just as valid and just as protected under the same 1st Amendment.

Should my neighbors be allowed to tell me what I can and can not build on my own property as long as what I want to build is within the zoning laws ?

Of course not. But they surely can speak out against what I want to build. No doubt.

 

[seekerz]

There has been no confusion from mosque opponents. We have stated clearly that we believe building a mosque at this location is insensitive. In reply we have been told that we are racist, bigots, mindless robots being controlled by a vast white wing conspiracy etc. etc. etc. This is been sprinkled with attacks on the usual far left bogeymen-Sarah Palin ,Newt Gingrich , Dick Cheney George Bush yada yada yada. 9/11 victims who have posted to this forum have been told to quit whining and get over it. They thread jumped the shark yesterday when the mosque apologists started personal attacks on anyone disagreed with them.

Maybe you’re not aware, but just in the last 24 hours I have read posts from mosque opponents who fear everything from Sharia law to female subjugation to the usual, ‘be very afraid Obama’s-really-a-muslim’ ghost stories. I guess only non-muslims have sensitivities that must be respected.

If you are not confused about the who, where, what and why of this mosque opposition, then maybe you can answer what one man speaking against the mosque couldn’t (last night on CNN): how far is far enough? How many feet, meters, miles, blocks…take your pick of measurements.

 

[seekerz]

Even if it isn’t illegal, it can be rightly opined to be hurtful, insensitive, antagonistic, uncivil, and in poor taste. This guy deserves all the protests and negative opinions and treatment thrown his way. He’s earned it.

• Marty Lund

Read your post again. Basically you’re saying he deserves whatever he gets, but the onus is on him to be sensitive and civil and to do the right thing. I guess the confusion can only get worse from such a viewpoint…even I’m dizzy just trying to sort out your views.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe you’re not aware, but just in the last 24 hours I have read posts from mosque opponents who fear everything from Sharia law to female subjugation to the usual, ‘be very afraid Obama’s-really-a-muslim’ ghost stories. I guess only non-muslims have sensitivities that must be respected.

If you are not confused about the who, where, what and why of this mosque opposition, then maybe you can answer what one man speaking against the mosque couldn’t (last night on CNN): how far is far enough? How many feet, meters, miles, blocks…take your pick of measurements.

And I have read in this thread alone that those who are opposed to the mosque are akin to Nazi Germany requiring Jews were yellow stars of David. Nobody is confused. The mosque apologists like to claim that, I guess, because the personal attacks have not gained traction they wanted.
Archbishop Dolan has shown us Catholics the way.I sincerely hope the developers listen to him and come to a mutually agreeable solution

 

[seekerz]

Thank you for yet another glib dismissal.

 

[seekerz]

And I have read in this thread alone that those who are opposed to the mosque are akin to Nazi Germany requiring Jews were yellow stars of David. Nobody is confused. The mosque apologists like to claim that, I guess, because the personal attacks have not gained traction they wanted.
Archbishop Dolan has shown us Catholics the way.I sincerely hope the developers listen to him and come to a mutually agreeable solution

Personally, I feel that those tired references to Nazism (whichever side they come from on a particular day) detract from the real story of the holocaust and turn its victims into pawns in whatever the conflict of the moment happens to be.

I believe you quoted Archbishop Dolan as saying there were “two goods” at stake here but I don’t see that view reflected in the negative comments about Islam and Muslims that have been repeatedly made on this thread. If we can’t respect the Archbishop’s opinion on a Catholic board, we expect Muslims to heed his words? All I can say is: Wow!

And for me - as for, I’m convinced, a growing number of participants and observers of this conflict, the confusion over the basis of the protests and what exactly the objective is, continues to mount with every passing day.

You still haven’t told me how far is far enough to build the mosque…

 

[estesbob]

Demonization and the Ground Zero Mosque

*For the Left, their opponents can never have decent motives.
*
*http://www.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif
*
I recently wrote about leftists’ hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for the conservative ideas they hold. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the Left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here’s a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California’s Proposition 8 — retaining the man-woman definition of marriage — was an act of hate.)

A related defining characteristic of the Left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the Left, a dismissal of conservatives’ motives is as important as a dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left — and I mean the elite Left, not merely left-wing blogs — to say, “There are good people on both sides of this issue.” From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of the New York Times, this has always been the case.

nationalreview.com/articles/244525/demonization-and-ground-zero-mosque-dennis-prager