August 3, 2010

"After a protracted battle that set off a national debate over freedom of religion, a Muslim center and mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero surmounted a final hurdle on Tuesday."

Writes the NYT, reporting the city's 9-0 vote against designating the building on the site a landmark. Now, as a matter of freedom of religion, it really was crucial not to let religion (or political ideology) affect the question whether that building should be classified under the law as a landmark, thus limiting the property rights of the owner. The requirement of neutrality in decisionmaking like that is fundamental to the rule of law.
One by one, members of the commission debated the aesthetic significance of the building, designed in the Italian Renaissance Palazzo style by an unknown architect.
That is clearly the way it had to be done. But what should not be lost, in understanding that, is that the owner's freedom means that the owner has a choice. The owner is certainly not required to build a Muslim center and mosque on that site. Because it is a choice, it's not wrong for the community to ask: Why are you making this choice? Why are you doing something that feels so painful to us? The community isn't wrong to plead with the owner to choose to do something else with that property. It's not enough of an answer to say we are doing it because we have a right to do it.

What troubles me about the way the NYT presents the problem is that it tries to make it seem as though the people who question the choice to build the mosque don't understand or don't support the principle of freedom of religion — that they just hate (or dislike) Muslims and, for that reason, would deny them the same freedom other religious persons enjoy. Rights don't work like that. But we can completely understand and support a principle of freedom and still be critical of the way someone chooses to behave in this world. For example, I'm a big supporter of freedom of the press, and I don't feel the slightest bit hypocritical condemning something stupid I read in the newspaper.

365 comments:

1 – 200 of 365   Newer›   Newest»
Rialby said...

They are offended, we bow down. We are offended, we bow down.

Scott M said...

I've heard friends of friends of friends saying what amounts to "there's no way the NY mafia is going to let this happen".

That aside, the wannabe fiction writer started down the road (I was bored in traffic) of, "what if some nutjob decides he's going to, in his mind...or her, let's not be un-PC..., fight fire with fire and decides to bomb the place during construction. The possibility of an ongoing tit-for-tat bombing campaign against churches of various faiths chills me to the marrow. Is it really so far-fetched though?

...as if we don't have enough to worry about...

downtownlad said...

You don't live here. It is not your battle. The people who live in downtown Manhattan want this Mosque. It's irrelevant what you or the Senator from Connecticut think.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

Scott M, the Mafia doesn't exist anymore. That's just silly.

AllenS said...

Everything is my personal battle.

MadisonMan said...

dtl, that doesn't mean we can't comment on it.

I like althouse's view on this -- it's the property-owner's right to build there as he or she sees fit. The Government shouldn't be putting up roadblocks, and I'm glad it isn't. But it's also totally appropriate to ask Why are you doing this!?

I'd like to ask Fred Mohs the same question, by the way.

Trooper York said...

I thought you moved out of the county downtownlad. That's you kept saying the last year.

So are you lying now or where you lying then?

Scott M said...

You don't live here. It is not your battle. The people who live in downtown Manhattan want this Mosque. It's irrelevant what you or the Senator from Connecticut think.

Unless you are a complete hypocrite, you just took yourself out of every issue that involves a locale or state you don't live in. Since you said "here", I'll work on the assumption that you live in NY. Your own sentiment precludes you from posting any opinions about issues that only affect non-NY areas.

traditionalguy said...

Something is rotten in Denmark. Two pro capitalism political power demonstrating monuments in NYC are under attack for many years and finally destroyed. We do not rebuild them. Instead the Attacking enemy now freely builds a monument to his political power at the same location. This goes with electing a Muslim President.

Scott M said...

The people who live in downtown Manhattan want this Mosque.

dlt has spoken to every single one of the, even those that lost family and friends on 9/11. He is the definitive resource on the pulse of NYC. Or, he's a bloviating idiot given to both broad brush strokes and fundamental attribution error.

Ann Althouse said...

@dtl

"Every year on this day, we are all New Yorkers."

Paul Zrimsek said...

It's not enough of an answer to say we are doing it because we have a right to do it.

On the other hand, it is enough of an answer to say None of your fucking business.

GMay said...

You can ask "why" all you want. I hope it makes you feel better.

The reality is that the attack was carried out by Muslims and in the name of their religion. Now other Muslims want to carry on their historical tradition of building monuments to their religion in the most offensive ways.

They win, we lose. But at least you're asking "why", even though you know damned good and well "why".

TRO said...

"You don't live here. It is not your battle. The people who live in downtown Manhattan want this Mosque. It's irrelevant what you or the Senator from Connecticut think. "

Bullshit, there are far more New Yorkers who don't want it than do.

Scott's right as well, you just stupided yourself out of commenting on anything outside of a five block radius of your street corner.

AllenS said...

Shut up, Obama! YOU DON'T LIVE IN NEW YORK. YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON THE MOSQUE!

RACIST!

LOSER!

WV: feinger

I give dtl the feinger. Ha!

TRO said...

Building this mosque is going to bring us together much like electing Barry brought us together. No racial or religious divides here . . . nothing to see . . . move along folks.

Jeremy said...

I see AllenS is still nursing a bottle and of course, the usual meds early in the AM.

How did you ever get out?

Scott M said...

Anyone know if there is a Wal-Mart in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Chase said...

For example, I'm a big supporter of freedom of the press, and I don't feel the slightest bit hypocritical condemning something stupid I read in the newspaper.

Imagine an America in which news was presented without bias, and a citzenry educated well enough to distill the facts reasonably and thus make wise decisions.

Wow.

A.W. said...

mmm, once again, this should not be allowed.

Every right can give way to a sufficiently compelling interest. And this is compelling. it is sending a message of surrender to our enemies. we have a compelling interest in preventing that.

in the last thread i pointed out that the imam 1) doesn't call hamas a terrorist organization, 2) is getting funding from bin Laden's brother, and 3) calls america an accessory to 9-11. someone else pointed out that the very name, cordoba, refers to a symbol of moorish dominance in spain. there is every reason to believe that this mosque is going up in order to send a message to the world of islamic victory.

We are idiots if we let this happen.

which means bloomberg is an idiot. which let's face it isn't a surprise, now is it?

But ultimately it is not dependant on the message they intend to send, but on the message that will be recieved. these guys could sincerely hate terrorism as much as i do, and buidling this mosque would still be a problem. Well, okay, maybe if it was called the "Osama bin Laden is a douchebag mosque and cultural center" i could get behind it. but short of that....

And btw, its a community center AND a mosque. so don't bother to claim its not a mosque.

Big Mike said...

Beautiful riposte to dtl, Professor. My compliments.

A.W. said...

downtowntard

this a matter of national defense, so you bet your ass i have a say in the matter, idiot.

Last time you said something to the effect of "your neighborhood was not attacked on 9-11" demonstratign conclusively how provincial you really are, given that two other places besides NYC were attacked, including my neighborhood.

Big Mike said...

What troubles me about the way the NYT presents the problem is that it tries to make it seem as though the people who question the choice to build the mosque don't understand or don't support the principle of freedom of religion — that they just hate (or dislike) Muslims and, for that reason, would deny them the same freedom other religious persons enjoy.

The Times is spinning the story?!? I'm shocked, shocked!!!

Jeremy said...

Never in his wildest dreams did Osama Bin Laden ever imagine how his act of terrorism would bring about the internal destruction of America's values, freedoms and rights afforded us by our own Constitution.

Muslims didn't take down the towers; Islamic terrorists took them down.

And would the same people who bemoan the Mosque being built in New York feel the same way about a Catholic church being built near the Oklahoma bombing site?

You know...considering the fact that little, lily white Timmy was an Irish Catholic.

Rialby said...

I didn't even realize they were calling it the Cordoba Center until my wife told me last night. Cordoba was the capital of an Islamic caliphate during the Islamic rule of Andalusia. Andalusia, for those who have been sleeping, was cited as one of Osama bin Laden's key arguments in his 1996 declaration of war.

Go back to sleep...

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - What is it about this; "the people who question the choice to build the mosque don't understand or don't support the principle of freedom of religion"...that you don't understand?

Muslims didn't bring down the towers; Islamic terrorists did.

What is you're so afraid of, Mike?

MadisonMan said...

It would be fitting for a neighboring property-owner to put up some kind of display calling out the tastelessness of building a Mosque there (If the adjoining property owner thought the Mosque was tasteless). Something right across the street, or between the mosque and the closest subway stop.

Which would survive longer: the mosque, or the counter-protest?

Scott said...

If the placement of the mosque-cum-community center is an expression of free speech, then the city (assuming that Mike Bloomberg had the balls to) would have every right to bar its construction. The SCOTUS has always supported reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.

Moreover, it's obviously a public nuisance, and it ought to be zoned with that consideration in mind, just as the city regulates stores that sell adult-oriented movies and literature.

Scott said...

Oh, Jeremy aka Moby-Ann-Coulter-in-man-drag weighs in. The nutrino hate brain. How fun.

tim maguire said...

There was a lot wrong with the NYT coverage of this issue. First, they tried to portray it as those evil Republicans against freedom of religion when their own facts clearly contradicted the stance. Second, as you note, they failed to distinguish between the people who thought they shouldn't do it and the people who thought they shouldn't be able to do it (though in fairness, to the NYT there is no difference between what you should do and what you should have to do).

What bugged me the most was that in the print edition, they made Bloomberg's remark about people being afraid of Islam their quote of the day when absolutely nothing in the article supported Bloomberg's assertion that the Mosque opponents were motivated by fear of Islam.

Jeremy said...

A.W. - "this a matter of national defense, so you bet your ass i have a say in the matter, idiot."

The Mosque is associated with "national defense?"

In what way...and what about all of the other Mosques in America?

And what do you have to say about all of those Japanese people living in...Hawaii?

Round 'em up...again?

Scott M said...

Muslims didn't bring down the towers; Islamic terrorists did.

Interesting distinction given your opinions in the past about Timothy McVeigh.

Jeremy said...

Scottie - Instead of trying to be witty, throwing out lines relating to Ann Coulter (what does that even mean??)...why not address my comment with a counter argument that makes any sense.

Take a moment to think before posting your standard tea bagger drivel.

The Crack Emcee said...

Two things:

1) This is PC bullshit.

2) I see another bombing in Manhattan's future.

Palladian said...

Well I actually do live in New York City, so I'm allowed to comment on it! Althouse is absolutely correct here. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

For instance, Democrat Fred Phelps and his inbred family/church are allowed to protest the funerals of fallen soldiers and gay murder victims. They, however, shouldn't do that, and we, as decent people, have every right to make the consequences of their bad choices as uncomfortable and unpleasant as is legally permissible.

But I can see why an execrable person like "downtownlad" supports the decision to build this mosque. It's exactly the same tactics that he uses: make deliberately inflammatory, unpleasant, insensitive statements in the most underhanded, passive-aggressive manner possible, just because he can.

It's called spreading misery around.

Cordoba mosque builders = Fred Phelps people = downtownlad.

Jeremy said...

Scottie - I have no idea what you mean by my previous "opinions" about Timmy.

He was a right wing nutcase who killed Americans.

And he believed much of what you and others right here on this blog site believe.

As for my comment that; "Muslims didn't bring down the towers; Islamic terrorists did"...what is your counter argument?

Either post something that makes sense, Scottie...or fuck off.

knox said...

If someone had told us on Sept 12, 2001 that this would be happening, who would have believed it.

Scott said...

"Take a moment to think before posting your standard tea bagger drivel."

You know, I'd address at least some of what you write if you weren't all talking points and shitty invective.

But you make liberals look bad (just like Coulter makes conservatives look bad), so I'm actually glad you are here. Carry on.

Jeremy said...

The Crack Emcee said..."I see another bombing in Manhattan's future."

WOW!!!

Gutsy call, Crack.

What are your feeling about any future murders occurring in Los Angeles?

Or tornadoes in the Midwest?

traditionalguy said...

A mosque is the Muslim gathering place of safety from non-muslims. The message given to the prostrated worshipers is always the same: you are in danger from unbelievers on earth defiling you, 1) and those willing to sacrifice the blood of themselves and the blood of unbelievers will be honored forever 2). In the misery from being a part of such a legalistic rule keeping and hopeless social group, many of its members become willing Soldiers of Allah so that their lives and their death will have some meaning. Therefore mosques function as the head of the snake that creates the Major Hasans and the DC snipers and the Mumbai Raiders. The deaths of NYPD and FDNY members is what has become meaningless now.

Jeremy said...

Scottie said..."You know, I'd address at least some of what you write if you weren't all talking points and shitty invective."

Bullshit, you just have nothing to counter anything I say.

Let's try this again:

Never in his wildest dreams did Osama Bin Laden ever imagine how his act of terrorism would bring about the internal destruction of America's values, freedoms and rights afforded us by our own Constitution.

Muslims didn't take down the towers; Islamic terrorists took them down.

And would the same people who bemoan the Mosque being built in New York feel the same way about a Catholic church being built near the Oklahoma bombing site?

You know...considering the fact that little, lily white Timmy was an Irish Catholic.

rdkraus said...

At least in the past, defeated cities and states did not vote to allow their conquerors to build monuments to their victories upon the graves of the conquered.

What dopes we are.

Jeremy and dtl will continue to champion the rights of "moderate" muslims right up until the non-moderates have American women in burkas.

Jeremy said...

traditionalguy - Your comment brings the Crusades to mind.

Where was the head of that snake located?

Hagar said...

Scott M,

Hiroshima is headquarter city for Mazda Motors, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Co., and run by a Detroit ex-pat.

A.W. said...

Jeremy

> And would the same people who bemoan the Mosque being built in New York feel the same way about a Catholic church being built near the Oklahoma bombing site?

Um, sorry, your argument is not computing. How is Tim McVeigh, a man who was not a catholic at the time of the bombing, like the people shouting allah akbar as they murder civilians?

I would add that mcveigh is not part of a group WAGING WAR against us and is not yet defeated. A better metaphor would be if they built a giant statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest next to the OKC site.

Which, I would oppose, too, but more like morally rather than saying that we had a legal right to stop them. But this mosque is a white flag of surrender to an enemy we are in active war with. it should not be allowed.

tim maguire said...

Jeremy, McVeigh was motivated by politics, not religion. And his politics and co-politicos have been vilified. But you knew that already.

Also, when were the Japanese in Hawaii rounded up for the first time such that they could be rounded up "again"? And why would they be rounded up now?

Congratulations on sidetracking discussion a bit. Too bad you're never interested in participating in a meaningful way.

Montagne Montaigne said...

There's something different and crazy on every block in Manhattan; a block is like a country mile. No one should give a shit what is being built where and for what purpose; and normally no one does. How could they-- it's complete madness, the city is being torn down and built up constantly.

There is only one reason anyone is up in arms about this mosque. And that is right-wing politicians looking for wedges and traction in an election year. But this instance is more than usually pathetic. And the folks who want to stick their noses in NYC zoning conflicts over this are also pathetic.

Do they know that muslim immigrants lived in the neighborhood before 9/11?

Scott said...

The problem is, if you don't respect on some level the people you presume to have a dialog with, there is no dialog.

That's why, Ms. Moby Coulter, you're not worth addressing on any level. It's wasted effort.

So the best thing to do is to hang back and let you be furious and stupid, watching you discredit everything you think you stand for; and occasionally poke you with a stick -- a cruel amusement but fun nonetheless.

Have a lovely life.

Joe said...

"...at the same location."

The word same must mean something different that what the dictionary says. The mosque is going to be two blocks away. By definition that is not the "same" location.

This is a big yawner.

TRO said...

"Muslims didn't bring down the towers; Islamic terrorists did."

This moronic statement has to win the blue ribbon of the thread.

I'm assuming you know Muslims are Islamic and it's only the failure to include terrorists in there that you object to.

TRO said...

"Your comment brings the Crusades to mind."

Fortunately the Catholic Church has managed to progress a bit past, what, the 12th and 13th Centuries. It's unfortunate Islam hasn't done so as well.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, Muslims danced in the streets when the WTC fell. I don't fear Muslims, I don't even hate them. I regard them the way I regard ants who find their way into the house from outdoors, as dangerous pests.

It took 8 years and 10 months before any responsible collection of Muslim religious leaders condemned Islamic (er, you are aware that "Muslim" and "Islamic" are related terms?) terrorism. From that I infer that Muslimes, as a group, are quite comfortable with what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

I contrast that unfavorably with the way responsible Christian leaders immediately and strongly condemn acts of terrorism committed by Christian fundamentalists (e.g., murders of abortionists, abortion clinic bombings).

A.W. said...

Jeremy

> The Mosque is associated with "national defense?"

> In what way...

If you aren’t going to bother to read all of my comments, even when they are practically right next to each other, why should I bother to reply to you? Read above and then you will understand my argument.

> Never in his wildest dreams did Osama Bin Laden ever imagine

Here’s what Osama bin Laden did dream of, when planning the attack. He dreamed of converting America to islam.

Oh, and here is an american value you keep forgetting: we don't surrender to tyranny.

Scott said...

I don't follow Catholic Church politics much. How did the Archdiocese of Boston respond to IRA violence in Northern Ireland over the years?

Scott said...

(apropos Big Mikes' comment)

Palladian said...

On Lispenard Street, a narrow one-way semi-alley in lower Manhattan, the African Muslims who illegally sell fake Prada purses and counterfeit Rolex watches one block north on Canal Street wash their feet with bottled water and pray at the appointed times. On the wall above the sidewalk where they do this someone scrawled "DOWN WITH USA" in magic marker. It's been painted over but the marker bleeds through the paint, and occasionally someone darkens in the letters to make it legible again. The Muslims who wash and pray in the alley don't seem to notice or don't seem to care how praying below this graffiti appears.

Now, only a little further downtown, this inflammatory insensitivity, something lefties used to love to warn us against, is going to be indelibly writ in bricks and mortar, two blocks from that wound that is bandaged but never heals.

Joe said...

We should celebrate that the atrocious landmark law wasn't used.

But, I suppose private property rights and freedom of religion means nothing to many posers, er posters, here.

Jeremy said...

A.W. Little Timmy was raised as an Irish Catholic and became a terrorist.

Are you implying that all 1.5 billion Muslims in the world are literally being raised to be terrorists?

Jeremy said...

A.W. "Oh, and here is an american value you keep forgetting: we don't surrender to tyranny."

Really?

Then what do you call the Mosque controversy?

That's exactly what the world would see if we refused to allow it to be built.

Thanks for the support.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."Muslims danced in the street..."

Not ALL Muslims.

We had a part of our own population that also danced in the streets after dropping the bombs in Japan.

GMay said...

J-boy asked: "as for my comment that; "Muslims didn't bring down the towers; Islamic terrorists did"...what is your counter argument?"

Hey Ballsucker, you already gave the counter argument. It's "Islamic terrorists".

Hint: read it real slow until you get it.

Follow up questions - Did McVeigh bomb the Fed bldg in the name of Catholicism?

Why was the first Crusade launched?

James said...

Well, from just a business sense: yeah, they have the "choice" to move it. At this point though, they have already sunk in at least $4.85 million (the purchase price of the building) and probably a lot more. So unless all the people who are calling for them to do the sensitive thing and move are offering them to pay the costs of doing so, they won't be moving unless they are sure they will lose a lot more than $4.85 million (personally, I think they definitely will lose more).

Anita said...

@ Jeremy

Before I read your comment re: Catholic church across the street from OKC bombing site, I was wondering how OKC would handle a similar situation, say for instance if a group sympathetic to McVeigh’s political views were to request permission to open a learning center close by the Bombing memorial. I’m pretty certain that the citizens of OKC would be outraged it the idea were even considered.

McVeigh rejected the faith, saying that science was his religion. He did not kill 168 men, women, and children because of any religious motivation. Oh, and you know what is across the street from the site of the OKC bombing? St. Joseph’s Old Cathedral, where I sometimes attend the noon Mass.

Palladian said...

Suddenly the left yawns over symbolism and insensitivity. Or maybe that's not the case. I think they like the symbolism of building a mosque called "Cordoba" right next to Ground Zero. Any finger that pokes into the eye of hated America will do, even if it's the same finger that will one day pull the trigger on everything they purport to hold dear, such as human rights, feminism, gay rights, secular humanism, scientific inquiry...

It seems to me that the left takes up causes not because it believes in them, but because it can use them as weapons against its enemies. I've seen them do this with my personal issue, gay equality. But they don't seem to realize that using Islam as a weapon in their odd patricidal war is playing, literally, with fire.

Jeremy said...

TRO said..."This moronic statement ("Muslims didn't bring down the towers; Islamic terrorists did.") has to win the blue ribbon of the thread. I'm assuming you know Muslims are Islamic and it's only the failure to include terrorists in there that you object to."

There's nothing "moronic" about my statement, asshole.

Are you implying that ALL Muslims, since they're also Islamic...are therefore "terrorists?"

My comment is factual and right at the heart of the debate.

As for the Catholics managing "to progress a bit past, what, the 12th and 13th Centuries"...well, sure, but what does that have to do with my comment?

Unless of course, you're implying that ALL Muslims are adhering to the beliefs of the 12th and 13th centuries.

Is that really what you're saying?

All 1.5 billion of them?

*And how do you account for the fundamentalists right here in America who still think the planet is 6,000 years old?

Hoosier Daddy said...

And would the same people who bemoan the Mosque being built in New York feel the same way about a Catholic church being built near the Oklahoma bombing site?

You know...considering the fact that little, lily white Timmy was an Irish Catholic.


That line of reasoning would have credibility if McVeigh's act of terrorism was religiously motivated.

I also find it telling that you found McVeigh's skin color of relevance.

GMay said...

"We had a part of our own population that also danced in the streets after dropping the bombs in Japan."

I know you're taking a break from sucking on balls to do some Althouse trolling J-boy, but equivocating the end of a major war with Muslim reaction to 9/11 sorta torpedos your shitty argument.

TRO said...

"We had a part of our own population that also danced in the streets after dropping the bombs in Japan."

No shit. They sucker-punched us much like those Muslim/Islamic terrorists did. Plus, dropping the bombs ended a war that would have claimed tens of thousands of additional American lives. (And, without a doubt, even more Japanese lives that would have been lost in a conventional attack on the Japan itself.)

I'd have been dancing, too.

El Pollo Real said...

The mosque is just premeditated provocation. Based on who supports it, there is no simpler explanation.

DTL wrote: You don't live here. It is not your battle.

A former colleague of mine way out here in CA lost his dad in one of the towers. This is not just a local issue.

Gabriel Hanna said...

So how many blocks from Ground Zero does the mosque-free zone extend? The planned mosque is two blocks. If it were three, or four, would it still be the "Ground Zero mosque"?

I ask merely for information, in a spirit of inquiry.

traditionalguy said...

Jeremy...At Trier.But the Fourth Crusade also weakened Bysantium, which was Christian but still was brutally sacked at the request of merchants from the Italian city states of Genoa and Venice.

peter hoh said...

Jeffrey Goldberg is still on the case:

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.

Hoosier Daddy said...

*And how do you account for the fundamentalists right here in America who still think the planet is 6,000 years old?

When they begin flying planes into buildings and self-detonating at the local farmer's market I'll give you my thoughts on them.

edutcher said...

It's called twisting the knife. They know it's as insensitive as Hell, but they can get away with this because of people like The Zero and Bloomie run too much in this country and will bow down for them.

The Crack Emcee said...

Two things:

1) This is PC bullshit.

2) I see another bombing in Manhattan's future.


Yes, and mushroom-shaped.

peter hoh said...

Palladian: For instance, Democrat Fred Phelps and his inbred family/church are allowed to protest the funerals of fallen soldiers and gay murder victims. They, however, shouldn't do that, and we, as decent people, have every right to make the consequences of their bad choices as uncomfortable and unpleasant as is legally permissible.

But that last part is a bitch.

The Phelps clan just picked up $17,000 from a Nebraska town that got that last part wrong.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"We had a part of our own population that also danced in the streets after dropping the bombs in Japan."

After 4 years of total war which included 350,000dead Americans which finally came to an end it's not hard to see why there was dancing in the streets. They danced three months earlier when Germany surrendered too.

Your point...

A.W. said...

Jeremy

> A.W. Little Timmy was raised as an Irish Catholic and became a terrorist.

And was not catholic when he committed the act. but hey don’t let the facts get in the way of your logic.

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/mcveigh.html

> Are you implying

No, I am not. You are the one who would hold a faith responsible for the acts of a person who is not even going to their church.

> Then what do you call the Mosque controversy?

> That's exactly what the world would see if we refused to allow it to be built.

Wow, you are deluded. Either that or just another liberal trying to misuse terrorism for their own ends. Like that idiot who claimed we needed to build day care centers like bin Laden did.

Until you address the following points, you haven’t refuted me:

1) Why Bin laden launched 9-11.
2) The meaning of the name of the mosque.
3) Its founder’s terrorist funding and sympathies.

Until and unless you address those points, you are not refuting or even addressing my argument.

The mosque is a flag of surrender, pure and simple. And you would fly it proudly.

TRO said...

"Unless of course, you're implying that ALL Muslims are adhering to the beliefs of the 12th and 13th centuries.

Is that really what you're saying?

All 1.5 billion of them?"

Well, if they are good Muslims they are (or at least pretend to be), otherwise they get stoned to death or have body parts cut off.

Julie C said...

So, if the Mormon church bought up some property in the Castro District of San Francisco and decided to build a big temple, do you think the gay rights folks would yawn, and say, go right ahead, freedom of religion and all that?

Nope, didn't think so.

The Mormons would have every right to build the temple. Would it be the correct thing to do, given the turmoil over Prop 8 here in California? No.

peter hoh said...

Big Mike wrote: It took 8 years and 10 months before any responsible collection of Muslim religious leaders condemned Islamic (er, you are aware that "Muslim" and "Islamic" are related terms?) terrorism.

Really?

Links.

More links.

A.W. said...

julie

actually disagree in that case. in the ordinary circumstance religious freedom trumps whininess. and mormons surely live in california, even in San Fran. so what? they should have to commute out of the city to worship.

And almost anywhere else, i woudl say let them build the mosque, although i would watch anything led by this imam for signs of radicalization. but this spot is special, and the message putting a mosque there impacts our national security. its a flag of surrender giving our enemies a sense of inappropriate hope.

that interest is compelling enough as a constitutional matter to overwhelm freedom of religion, even

El Pollo Real said...

Excellent point Julie C.

peter hoh said...

Gabriel, I asked that question yesterday and never got a response.

Supposedly, there's a strip club three blocks away from the WTC site, but no one calls it the Ground Zero Strip Club.

Almost Ali said...

My preliminary calculations indicate that the accompanying minaret will need to be at least 37 stories tall, but ideally 56 stories tall given the height of the surrounding buildings. The minaret will also require what amounts to a giant Bose sound system to issue adhan, the call to prayer.

If you're unfamiliar with the purpose of adhan, it is to broadcast the tenants of Islam, many of which incorporate a double meaning; one for believers, another for non-believers.

Which brings us to today's affirmation:

"Religion should only be for Allah" (Qur'an, Surah 8:39)

Gabriel Hanna said...

Here is a list of terrorist attacks in London:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London

In every spot attacked by the IRA, let us draw a two block exclusion zone, so that no Catholic churches may be built there. I'm not saying pass a law or anything; just saying that even though they might have the right they should respect everyone else's sensibilities, and we will yeall our fool heads off until they do.

What's that? The IRA was a bunch of terrorists who use Catholicism as a pretext for their violence, and can't be expected to stand in for a billion people all over the world? And Catholics died in some of these bombings, you say, at the hands of the IRA.

And the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero--hmm, didn't Muslims die on 9/11, and aren't there a billion of them all over the world, and hasn't the majority of victims of Islamic terrorism been themselves Muslim?

peter hoh said...

Julie, of course the gay rights groups would be upset, but some group (or groups) getting upset is not sufficient basis for determining what will happen under the law, is it?

I'm sure that you aren't suggesting that the gay rights groups should have power over whether or not a Mormon group could build on property they owned.

What we're seeing is the right's embrace of the politics of victimhood. I don't like it when the left engages in it, and I don't like it when the right does, either.

Again, I'm not telling you that you can't be upset. I'm asking how much legal weight do you want "I'm upset" to have.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@peter hoh:

I know.

Two blocks, four blocks, anywhere in downtown Manhattan, does it matter? Mosques are offensive and Islam is the enemy.

I have a lot of Muslim friends and coworkers, it's hard for me to get hysterical about this. They're two blocks away. People are acting like they're building it on the smoking rubble.

Seriously, people, how far away from Ground Zero are people allowed to have mosques? Two blocks, four blocks, ten, two miles?

Mick said...

What is it with these idiot Northeastern Liberals that are supposedly so smart? This is like letting your enemy (and they are, there is no such thing as peaceful Islam) camp out in your backyard.
First a foot in the door, and then we will be like Britain, overrun. Pretty soon they will try things like This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsi-NhdqhqM&feature=player_embedded

We don't want your violent perverted culture here, and take the Muslim Usuper with you.

El Pollo Real said...

Gabrielle Hanna: I thought that the Brits already got back at the Roman Catholics ages ago.
In any case, they do not enjoy freedom of religon. linkage.

Sincere question for you and Peter Ho: Why are you picking this fight now? It's not going to help your cause in November.

peter hoh said...

As for bin laden getting what he wanted from the 9/11 attacks -- chief among his stated goals was the removal of US military bases from Saudi Arabia.

I remember the outcry that accompanied the announcement that we would be pulling most of our military personnel from Saudi Arabia.

A.W. said...

Gabriel

Your irish catholic argument almost works except... the problem isn’t REALLY religious. It is just painted as such. The real issue is ethnic.

You know where the scotch irish came from? Well, maybe you do, but for the benefit of anyone who didn’t know, remember all the crap the british did to the scotts, as seen in Braveheart (with the admonition that braveheart was not exactly historically accurate)? Well, later the british said to some scotts, “hey, how would you like to do to the irish what we have been doing to you?” So the colonized Ireland, and that is pretty much the source of all the “troubles” ever since. Which isn’t to hold the modern scotch-irish responsible for their ancestors; each generation is solely responsible for their own sins. But that is how it all started.

Of course there is also a religious difference, but that is traced to the ethnic difference. They aren’t killing each other over faith, they are killing each other, to the extent they are, over ethnicity.

Why most of the world pretends it is a religious squabble is beyond me.

peter hoh said...

El Pollo, I didn't pick this fight. Nor did I pick the timing.

Question for you, Althouse, and Juan Williams: what do you propose if the owner of the property does not change plans?

And how many blocks away would it have to be to be okay with you?

El Pollo Real said...

El Pollo, I didn't pick this fight. Nor did I pick the timing.

Ah, but you're certainly taking sides with odd bedfellows. Just wondering why.

A.W. said...

Gabriel

As for how far the mosque should be? how about far enought that wreckage from the WTC didn't fall there. which in fact it did fall at the site of this proposed cordoba mosque. that is why they picked it. and they chose the name cordoba for a reason.

imagine if we went to war with saudi arabia. and then we decided to build a catholic church right across from the meteor that fell at mecca. and we decided to call it the Sir Richard the Lionheart Catholic Church. Do you think that it would just be intolerante of muslims to say that this church shouldn't be built.

why don't you look into the signifance of the name of this mosque and ask if you think its still about bringing people together. they could have called it anything. they could have called it the "fluffy bunny moque." but they choose cordoba, and there is a symbolism attached.

as mark steyn once observed most people who claim to be multicultural really mean they feel warm and fuzzy about other cultures without really understanding them. how about you learn what cordoba means in their culture and then tell me what message they are trying to send with that mosque?

Hoosier Daddy said...

What's that? The IRA was a bunch of terrorists who use Catholicism as a pretext for their violence, and can't be expected to stand in for a billion people all over the world?

That's a rather simplistic and not altogether accurate picture of The Troubles.

You might find with a little research that the violence had less to do with Catholic vs Protestant and more about Irish nationalism versus English subjugation over a portion of Irish territory.

A.W. said...

hoosier

gmta. look up like three comments from yours on the troubles. we said just about the same thing.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@El Pollo Real:

I know that the UK doesn't have the First Amendment. What I'm asking you is WOULD THAT BE FAIR?

You know it wouldn't, so you sidestep the question.

Why are you picking this fight now? It's not going to help your cause in November.

What cause is that, pray tell? I have never voted for a Democrat, and I can't see doing so in November. I'm a libertarian Republican.

@A.W:

Your irish catholic argument almost works except... the problem isn’t REALLY religious. It is just painted as such. The real issue is ethnic.

Ah hah! When it's Catholics, you can see all the nuances. When it's Muslims, you can't. (Nice apology for terrorism, by the way.)

"Muslim" is like "Christian": it describes an enormous class of people with extraordinarily varied beliefs. You wouldn't confuse a Catholic with a Baptist, but you're perfectly comfortable lumping all Muslims in together.

For all the rest of you:

How may blocks away from Ground Zero should mosques be allowed?

Two blocks is too close, evidently, so I want to know the upper limit. Mick thinks it should be infinite. Who's with him?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Why most of the world pretends it is a religious squabble [Northern Ireland] is beyond me.

Because it doesn't fit the narrative and the history is a bit more complex and that requires reading.

El Pollo Real said...

What cause is that, pray tell? I have never voted for a Democrat, and I can't see doing so in November. I'm a libertarian Republican.

At least you tacitly acknowledge the consequences.

As too your point about would it be fair? It would depend upon what symbolism the people in question (in Britain) read into it, if any.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Hoosier Daddy:

That's a rather simplistic and not altogether accurate picture of The Troubles.

Exactly my point. When Christians are involved, you immediately see all the nuances.

I know quite a bit about the history of Ireland. Just like I know where Cordova is.

@AW:

imagine if we went to war with saudi arabia. and then we decided to build a catholic church right across from the meteor that fell at mecca. and we decided to call it the Sir Richard the Lionheart Catholic Church.

First, who's "we"? The US, or all Christendom? I'm not a Christian and I wouldn't vote for that... Second, why a Catholic church? It wouldn't make any sense, because the people (I assume you mean the US) who went to war are not, in general, Catholic.

You assume that all Muslims believe the same thing and are in on 9/11 together, apparently.

I know where Cordova is, it was in Andalusia, which used to be Muslim until Ferdinand and Isabel. But you don't know what "Cordoba" means in "Muslim culture" because THERE IS NO MUSLIM CULTURE. There is Arab culture, Indian culture, Iranian culture, Malaysian culture, etc.

All you know is what other idiots TELL YOU IT MEANS.

Methadras said...

DTL, you are a pathetic little creature that embraces all that is wrong in life. Your perpetual anger is your perpetual folly. No one is asking the question on how this even got as far as it did and what did the owner, who's backers are still unknown, promise to the council that unanimously approved this permit? DTL, which people in Manhattan want this mosque? I have a ton of friends who live in Manhattan and every one of them has told me personally that they don't want this mosque. One them has already left and moved to St. Croix just to get away from NY on how it is cow-towing to Muslims in the last decade and the mosque was his breaking point.

El Pollo Real said...

Two blocks is too close, evidently, so I want to know the upper limit. Mick thinks it should be infinite. Who's with him?

There's a lot of space for compromise between zero and infinity huh?

I would say well outside of visibility range and that includes any future phallically up thrust minarets.

Methadras said...

Why is NY tripping over their own dicks to cater to these sub-human filth? This is what PC and multiculturalism is doing to our society as a whole and the muslims are agog at how easy is has become to begin the cleansing.

El Pollo Real said...

Gabriel Hanna has just officially usurped the character of MUL/Ritmo

Mick said...

Nah they don't mean any harm. Muslims are just misunderstood. We need to be tolerant, the idiot Leftists of NY insist. The Muslims must be laughing at you!
It's a VICTORY MOSQUE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B3rdoba,_Spain

Who would have thunk it. Idiots elect a Muslim Usurper, and then want to build a Mosque at the site of their greatest "victory".

A.W. said...

Gabriel

> Ah hah! When it's Catholics, you can see all the nuances. When it's Muslims, you can't. (Nice apology for terrorism, by the way.)

First YOU are ignoring nuances. Such as meaning of the term cordoba, the funding of the mosque, the radicalism of its founder. I mean they are all kind of relevant you know? You are the one deliberately ignoring the specific facts about this mosque and its founder and instead stereotyping them all as moderate Muslims who just want to worship and are not trying to send a message of islamofascist victory, despite evidence to the contrary.

Second, are you under the impression that I am catholic? I am not. In fact I share more in common with the scotch irish. Mind you, I am regular Scottish, and protestant, but I am much more closely linked to the scotch irish by faith and ethnicity than the regular irish catholics.

And third, I said nothing to excuse terrorism. You just inserted your own assumptions into my statement.

By the way a better metaphor would be, say, flying the southern flag. The confederacy stood for slavery and evil, to be blunt, but to be equally blunt there is a whole industry dedicated to lying to southerners about what the confederacy was about. Those modern southerners don’t actually believe in slavery and evil, but will fly a flag that is correctly interpreted by many to mean that. so should we be flying the southern flag over our state capitals? How about across the street from the 16th St. Baptist Church, in Birmingham, Alabama? No and nope. Because it is not just about the message intended to be sent, but the message received.

Or take another example: a Buddhist temple right across the street from aschwitz, complete with swastikas. Now, it is not the Buddhists fault that their symbol, the swastika, was misappropriated by the Nazis. But when a jew comes to that place and cries at the thought of what happens to their people, do we really want that person to look up and see a swastika?

But wholly apart from those kinds of sensitivities, this mosque is a flag of surrender in the war on terror. Indeed, if you would take the scales from your eyes and look at the actual facts surrounding it, you would realize that not only would it be seen as such in the terrorists’ eyes, but it is probably intended to be seen that way with anyone who actually is paying attention. We have a compelling interest in preventing that message from being sent.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@AW and El Pollo:

As for how far the mosque should be? how about far enought that wreckage from the WTC didn't fall there.

What if the wreckage that fell included ash from the charred bodies of one of the fifty or so Muslims who died on 9/11? Can they build a mosque there, or do Muslims killed on 9/11 count as some sort of honorary American Christian?

Mick said...

"It sends a particularly bad message, particularly (because) of the background of the imam who is supporting this. This is an Imam who has supported radical causes, who has not been forthright in condemning Islamic (terrorism) and the worst instincts that that brings about.

"So it not only is exactly the wrong place, right at ground zero, but it's a mosque supported by an imam who has a record of support for causes that were sympathetic with terrorism. Come on! We're gonna allow that at ground zero?

"This is a desecration," he added. "Nobody would allow something like that at Pearl Harbor. Let's have some respect for who died there and why they died there. Let's not put this off on some kind of politically correct theory.

"I mean, they died there because of Islamic extremist terrorism. They are our enemy, we can say that, the world will not end when we say that. And the reality is, it will not and should not insult any decent Muslim because decent Muslims should be as opposed to Islamic extremism as you and I are."
-----Rudy Giuliani-----

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/guiliani-gz-mosque-is-a-desecration-decent-muslims-wont-be-offended-.html

Mick said...

Should we have allowed a Japanes Budhist Temple at the site of Pearl Harbor?

A.W. said...

Gabriel

> First, who's "we"? The US, or all Christendom?

I don’t see how either possibility changes anything.

> Second, why a Catholic church?

You don’t understand why a catholic church would be uniquely offensive above all other faiths?

> You assume that all Muslims believe the same thing and are in on 9/11 together, apparently.

Not at all. You assume they are all great people who are not at all on the enemy’s side, in the face of evidence to the contrary. I point out specific evidence that this is intended to be a victory mosque, and you accuse me of lumping people together. You ignore real difference between this imam and good Muslims and then accuse me of not being sufficiently nuanced.

I suppose next you will say about the shoe bomber, “look just because he tried to blow up a plane, doesn’t mean he deserves to be lumped in with all the terrorists. You are so intolerant!” As they said on south park, you can be tolerant, but don’t be an idiot.

> But you don't know what "Cordoba" means in "Muslim culture" because THERE IS NO MUSLIM CULTURE.

Well, the people building it apparently believe there is an Islamic culture. Which is why it is being called a mosque and ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER. Duh.

> I know where Cordova is

But apparently have no idea what it means and aren’t interested in learning. You are the dictionary definition of “willfully ignorant.”

> What if the wreckage that fell included ash from the charred bodies of one of the fifty or so Muslims who died on 9/11?

No, because this radical, al Qaeda funded, imam sending a message of islamic dominance, would be an insult to the Muslims who died there, too.

Again, you are the one lumping people together.

El Pollo Real said...

Should we have allowed a Japanes Budhist Temple at the site of Pearl Harbor?

Of course not, even though a few Jap planes were shot down there and the pilots died.

A.W. said...

Btw, Gabriel, you are aware that Christians have been arrested for handing out christian literature near muslim street festivals in Dearborn, Michigan, right? Peaceful handouts about how wonderful christ is and in AMERICA they are arrested, as though this was downtown mecca.

Big Mike said...

And he believed much of what you and others right here on this blog site believe.

I suppose that's technically true. I believe in evolution, for instance, and probably McVeigh did too. But I'm certain there are many things that McVeigh believed that you believe in. For instance both of you lack tolerance for other people's sensibilities.

I don't follow Catholic Church politics much. How did the Archdiocese of Boston respond to IRA violence in Northern Ireland over the years?

Good question. It's well known that Teddy and other members of the Kennedy clan provided some financial support to the IRA, and from the church's lack of comment I preume that Cardinal Law was on board with providing financial support to terrorists.

Not ALL Muslims [danced int he streets when the WTC fell].

Nope. Some had sprained ankles at the time. Others had an appreciation of how angy the people of the United States were, and how much damage we can do when we're good and pissed.

We had a part of our own population that also danced in the streets after dropping the bombs in Japan.

Damn right. It meant that the war was going to come to a close with no more Americans killed in action.

A.W. said...

btw, before we go through another round of people saying i lump all muslims together, i suggest you read my comment here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=305012969242415545&page=1&token=1280855301723_AIe9_BH_k0kbtBemWQrLUqRCyPhzeMlshbEpsG0K2QyR7S_sENRVJKqYLKPLw4emGEIjKudjq_Pz1WJUg2jeAWUWVCLN5bc_q7I8CP7K-6U-f7AAmAH8-nLnM57KeL2hYaXRufqvJ_wHxK-lpqDcF0al2iovUqNuO3fls5CbYs2dkoMS5jGuj5l2EwrdvH0noiqiUikc646-lU7I9qXfDJIW0TjCjlbLg97j5eRRzbnR5UiVbBsBYfYW5HaA-zHYsBnAEZoHujmWe6R-QEqU5YRTNV-IbPKPoMY3XwJiZ51SmyNKZj2KVT9bXMo2bIc-TBM4MX98FXYYTg5iCoFpxD-cflwX7MOuVH_Od3XFLoZJCHxTObupJba1jUI6o8T3D9XWvve8PV0oxY1vQUQRtlDvK6m2NkT0K0sbPzXkcl8SsNjOP2Cknj21yZmKmL9JkG2RqYt_352T_7PIOxL1N_JlJnYcNpRyV9uthzBAi720QidAuTLdYls8DZvT38ZqTu2uxplRYWVD51DNowz41xSBmzLmYTvhRLklrbvMcgwWnAkd17y5yfXlK4XXKOQsD7CKOiIju-6CPFktntf6k4O_xmI4tjvex-SvXUEBa13kYj-RwkZiG8Q

Go to about 4:05 pm the story of the down's syndrome bomber.

A.W. said...

btw, mick, you fucktard, stay off my side, okay?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@AW:

Not at all. You assume they are all great people who are not at all on the enemy’s side, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I've said nothing of the sort. Islamic terrorists are evil people who kill (mostly) other Muslims, and once in a while they kill some Americans, in the name of Islam.

Btw, Gabriel, you are aware that Christians have been arrested for handing out christian literature near muslim street festivals in Dearborn, Michigan, right? Peaceful handouts about how wonderful christ is and in AMERICA they are arrested, as though this was downtown mecca.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. They were arrested by Americans.

Plenty of Americans, including you, don't understand the concept of religious freedom. I'm not sure the ACLu understands it either.

If I understand you correctly, you'd be happy with some other mosque in an area where wreckage fell from the towers, right?

You'd be happy with some other mosque, just not this one? That isn't what you've said elsewhere on this thread. Every time you've said "muslim" you've said "they" and "them", and "their culture" and such nonsense.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@AW:

Don't worry, I don't blame you for Mick. He agrees with you on ONE issue, but that doesn't taint what you're saying. Probably Mick agrees with me on something, and when we're arguing about that I will also tell him to piss off. :)

Big Mike said...

Look, bottom line, I wouldn't be on board with someone setting up a church named for Jefferson Davis being situated in Harlem, and I'm not on board with a large mosque being built this close to the site of the WTC.

Both actions are legal, and defensible under freedom of religion, but neither is particularly sensitive.

Revenant said...

THERE IS NO MUSLIM CULTURE.

Well, the people building it apparently believe there is an Islamic culture. Which is why it is being called a mosque and ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER.

Ouch.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Big Mike:

How far away should a mosque be before it's not "sensitive"?

Two, three, five, ten blocks? Maybe shouldn't be on the island? Where do you want to draw the lines?

I got annoyed at the "bridge to nowhere" stories for this same reason. It wasn't a bridge to "nowhere" it was a bridge to the AIRPORT. And it's not a "Ground Zero" mosque, but a two-blocks from ground zero mosque.

A two block exclusion radius is a lot of area in downtown Manhattan where mosques are not acceptable.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.708629,-74.009582&spn=0.006018,0.013937&z=17

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Revenant:

And if a sign says "Unicorn Pub" there must be such a thing as unicorns?

Gabriel Hanna said...

I could put up a sign that said "Christian cultural center" and that wouldn't call forth into existence a "Christian culture" now would it?

Islam is a religion, shared by many cultures--some of those cultures have other religions besides Islam. That's the fact, whatever the sign says.

AC245 said...

So how many blocks from Ground Zero does the mosque-free zone extend? The planned mosque is two blocks. If it were three, or four, would it still be the "Ground Zero mosque"?

I ask merely for information, in a spirit of inquiry.


Gabriel Hanna, although there is no mosque-free zone in the city (you only show your ignorance of the existing area by offering such a comment), any mosque that is:
1. named in honor of Muslim conquest over the infidels,
2. funded and fronted by a terrorist-apologist Imam,
3. an enormous overbearing structure, and
4. trumpets its proximity to Ground Zero as a selling point

is probably going to be questioned and viewed with suspicion.

(And please, no more of the tired "it's not a mosque" or "it's not at Ground Zero" arguments - even the Cordoba Initiative itself refers to it as the Ground Zero Mosque.)

El Pollo Real said...

BTW, In all this shouting I missed where POTUS stands on this issue.

Has the leader of the free world weighed in on this lately?

I sure hope he does before November.

Revenant said...

At this point, it isn't possible to take seriously claims that this center is being built for outreach, or to correct ostensibly mistaken impressions of Islam as hostile to western sensibilities. If that was the actual point of the center, they would have located it somewhere else after the public's outraged response.

Revenant said...

And if a sign says "Unicorn Pub" there must be such a thing as unicorns?

So is your argument (a) that Muslims don't know Muslim culture doesn't exist, or (b) that the Muslims in question named it after a mythological entity called "Islamic Culture" because they thought it was a cool-sounding name?

My advice? When you're in a hole, quit digging.

Of course there is such a thing as Muslim culture. There is such a thing as Jewish culture, Christian culture, Star Trek fan culture, etc. Any social group with common interests develops a culture after a while.

AC245 said...

I could put up a sign that said "Christian cultural center" and that wouldn't call forth into existence a "Christian culture" now would it?

Islam is a religion, shared by many cultures--some of those cultures have other religions besides Islam. That's the fact, whatever the sign says.


The routine duplicity (You're all bigots! This isn't a mosque! There's no such thing as Islamic culture! It's not really at Ground Zero!) of the people who have stepped up to support the building of this mosque in this location undercuts the talking point that its purpose is to provide education and promote an honest dialog.

Just sayin'.

Scott M said...

@Gabriel

And if a sign says "Unicorn Pub" there must be such a thing as unicorns?

I'll give credit where credit is due for at least reasoned debate minus the crass pejoratives like many other on your side of this debate.

That quote above, though, was milquetoast.

AllenS said...

When did this acceptance of Muslim tolerance start?

Remember when GW Bush said that terrible word "crusade" in one of his speeches, shortly after 9/11? Everyone and their fucking uncle ripped him a new one. Remember that?

Then what happened? POTUS GW Bush then started to say that "Islam is a religion of peace."

Look how far we've come. Marvelous, absolutely marvelous.

John said...

Since you mention the community's right to question this choice, Ann, it's worth noting that the local Community Board has absolutely NO problem with this cultural center.

Can't New Yorkers determine what's best for New York? Last election, all I ever heard from Quits McGee was that we weren't even a part of "real America."

Big Mike said...

How far away should a mosque be before it's not "sensitive"?

Not my problem.

The "bridge to nowhere" is a bit off thread, don't you think? But the justification for the bridge was always weak. Any weather bad enough to keep the water ferries docked is surely too bad to let a plane take off or land.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Revenant:

If that was the actual point of the center, they would have located it somewhere else after the public's outraged response.

Outrage, of course, is invariably the fault of the targets of the outrage...

Of course there is such a thing as Muslim culture. There is such a thing as Jewish culture, Christian culture, Star Trek fan culture, etc. Any social group with common interests develops a culture after a while.

We can argue all day about what the word "culture" means.

Okay, I will concede that "Islamic culture" exists if you will concede that "Islamic culture", like "Christian culture", is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. Sure, they all believe in one God and that Mohammed was his prophet, but even things like women covering their heads is far from universal.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Big Mike:

But the justification for the bridge was always weak.

I agree. But it was invariably reported as a bridge for the 50 people who lived on Gravina Island, and not as a bridge connecting Ketchikan to its airport. I don't support the bridge, and never did. What I hated was the misleading reporting. Which I think is going on here...

Scott M said...

Can't New Yorkers determine what's best for New York? Last election, all I ever heard from Quits McGee was that we weren't even a part of "real America."

Certainly they should be able to. I'm not a resident, so I'm unaware if NYC, county or state has the mechanism for public referendum. Even if the city does, should the county and state be excluded?

All of that aside, that's not what we have, apparently. What we have is a representative government that's calling the shots on this. If that IS the case and wholly the case, there's not much we can do about it except bitch and moan from our respective sides of the political arena.

Reading through the comments, though, I'm struck with one thing. As the pro-mosque people punch and counter-punch with banal examples and analogies, I just have to ask...have you no sense of scale?

Mick said...

A.W. said...
btw, mick, you fucktard, stay off my side, okay?



Politics makes strange bedfellows. By the way WHERE does it say that anyone born in America is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? (HINT: Nowhere, but several places say that only those born on US soil of 2 US citizen parents ARE Natural Born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS)

A.W. said...

Gabriel

> I've said nothing of the sort.

You have ignored every piece of evidence about the imam’s background, statements, sympathies and intentions, but pretended without even acknowledging all of that, that he is just a nice moderate muslim.

> Plenty of Americans, including you, don't understand the concept of religious freedom.

Every right has an exception. For instance, normally I am free to dress however I want, and to wave whatever flag I want. But suppose it is the civil war, at the battle of Gettysburg and I want to stand right among the union lines and waive a flag of surrender?

Is it a violation of freedom of speech if they stop me from doing that? Of course not. It is an exception to the right.

Well, cordoba house is a white flag of surrender, period. it is intended to be as such, and it will be seen as such. It will give aid and comfort to our enemies.

By the way, I believe I saw where an aclu lawyer is standing up for the Christians arrested in Dearborn, so you might be wrong on that. The ACLU is sporadically consistent on freedom and human rights.

> If I understand you correctly

No, because as I have said repeatedly, while THIS imam is trying to send a message of Islamic dominance, my argument isn’t solely about the message sent, but the message received.

But the whole point of my metaphors of Buddhist swastikas at Auschwitz, or southern flags at the 16th St. Baptist Church, is to say that even if the person putting up the offending thing is doesn’t intend to send a certain message, that message is still receive, reasonably, by other observers. A mosque at ground zero sends the wrong message. It doesn’t matter if the explicit purpose of the mosque is to honor all victims of 9-11, and to rebuke terrorism.

Liberals are always fond of saying “think globally, act locally.” Well, think globally about how this will be seen in the muslim world. It will not be interpreted as a sign of our tolerance, but instead of our weakness. I wish it was not that way, but that is the reality of it, and we can decide whether we want to send that message or not.

And are we really so tolerant? These days a few idiots issuing death threats can make comedy central censor south park of all images of mohammed. Indeed, they can so frighten them that they went back into Netflix and pulled the episode from before 9-11 that had a cartoon mohammed as part of the SuperBestFriends. In the very same episode where mohammed was censored most recently, Buddha was depicted doing blow, and jesus was shown watching internet porn, a not so subtle jab at the hypocrisy we have. They used to say that in both isreal and Palestine, you were free to criticize isreal. The joke being that you were not free to criticize the Palestine in Palestine. Well, these days we are all free to be Muslims, right? But to be Christians, or to criticizes islam? Well how free are we, if those who threaten us with death are free to walk around unmolested? Ordinarily issuing a death threat is a crime. Indeed, on that theory, the surpreme court upheld a Virginia statute banning cross burning on the theory that it was understood to be a threat. But apparently officials are waiting for the terrorists to murder Matt Stone and Trey Parker, before they do anything. And just how free to speak is Theo Van Gogh, anyway. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the idea of complete freedom of religion, if we actually had it.

A.W. said...

Gabriel (cont)

> Every time you've said "muslim" you've said "they" and "them", and "their culture" and such nonsense.

And?

> Don't worry, I don't blame you for Mick. He agrees with you on ONE issue,

Well, I think we can both agree that when Mick is right about something, the broken clock metaphor is in full effect.

> I could put up a sign that said "Christian cultural center" and that wouldn't call forth into existence a "Christian culture" now would it?

So, um, they don’t know about their own culture. Ooookay.

And actually, yes, I would say there is such a thing as Christian culture. It’s a shared set of values, of beliefs, of knowledge and norms. There are jokes a Christian can tell that someone of another faith is unlikely to get. What about it isn’t a culture?

AC245 said...

Okay, I will concede that "Islamic culture" exists if you will concede that "Islamic culture", like "Christian culture", is so broad as to be nearly meaningless.

Revenant isn't the one who is touting the mosque as an Islamic Cultural Center.

You'd need to get your concession that "Islamic culture" is "meaningless" from Imam Feisal or someone else at the Cordoba Initiative.

(Again, just sayin', but your duplicity does not help your cause.)

Gabriel Hanna said...

@at everyone I've been arguing with:

If really all there is to this is that you are offended by the building of a particular mosque in a particular place, but you don't think that legal action is right or appropriate, I don't really have anything more to say.

I, however, support your right to build a pulled-pork stand, strip-club, bacon factory, or whatever, across the street from this mosque or any other. I think if Muslims played the insensitivity card to your Ground Zero pulled pork stand, I'd think they'd be just as wrong as you are for objecting to their mosque.

If all you want is to be offended and outraged, well, that's your right, though I think it's silly and intolerant.

Since we pretty much all think that legal action is off the table, there's not much to argue about, and I'm sorry I wasted your time.

Matt said...

Anyone here drive Japanese cars or German cars? Didn't we have a war with them once? They have a McDonalds right in Hiroshima too. Should we completely close ourselves off from all things foreign? Should everyone in the world do the same? Last I checked not all Muslims were our enemy. And saying so is not PC.

I also think critics of the "Community Center not at Ground Zero" are being presumptuous in saying they speak for the families who were affected by 9/11. Let's stop trying to make this a political issue.

Also isn't this on private property? Who wants the city or the Federal government telling people what they can and cannot build so long as it meets legal requirments?

Almost Ali said...

When has Islam ever backed down, except at the point of a sword. They'll be burkas on Wall Street, you can bet your bottom dollar.

Big Mike said...

What I hated was the misleading reporting. Which I think is going on here...

It seems plausible to me that New Yawkers would feel that insisting on building a large mosque that close to Ground Zero was highly insensitive. I think it's pretty insensitive myself. If you're going to be that okay with that level of insensitivity then what's wrong with the "n-word"?

Youngblood said...

Gabriel,

You conceded the argument before I had the chance to step into the fray! And here I was ready to rip you a new asshole on your idiotic claim that there is no such thing as "Islamic culture"!

Damn.

Matt said...

A.W.

So you want laws to be written that, in effect, say Muslims are not allowed to build a place of worship anywhere right wing conservatives might be offended?

Or are you just making an exception this one time? And if so for how long? Can Muslims build in NY near Ground Zero in 10 more years? 20 years? One generation?

How does it hurt America, our freedoms, our collective will as a people and everything we stand for as an exeptional country with the highest ideals if we allow this community center to be built? Seriously. How?

I say just the opposite. If we say no to this community center we are playing into the very intolerant ideals we oppose as a country.

A.W. said...

Gabriel

Um, they might say "they have a legal right to." but i say no, or more percisely the government has a right to refuse to let them, based on the compelling interest of not waiving a flag of surrender.

El Pollo Real said...

I, however, support your right to build a pulled-pork stand, strip-club, bacon factory, or whatever, across the street from this mosque or any other. I think if Muslims played the insensitivity card to your Ground Zero pulled pork stand, I'd think they'd be just as wrong as you are for objecting to their mosque.

Right, as if repaying insults. like the piling of hand upon hand,* would never eventually escalate to an open conflict.

The problem with you legalistic "just-in-it-for-the-sake-of-argument-types" is that you don't enable anything useful except argumentation.

You don't enable anything useful like resolving real world conflict(s).

*What's that game called anyways?

Jeremy said...

Hooooosier - "That line of reasoning (the Oklahoma bombing and Catholics) would have credibility if McVeigh's act of terrorism was religiously motivated. I also find it telling that you found McVeigh's skin color of relevance."

First of all, the 9/11 attack was not strictly based on religion. Anyone who's ever taken the time to read a book or research the rationale behind the attacks already knows that.

YOU just don't take the time before blathering on.

As for the "lily white" comment regarding little Timmy...are you actually saying the bigotry related to Muslims and others of the Islamic faith is not in any way related to the color of their skin?

If so...YOU really need to read more and talk less.

Scott M said...

How does it hurt America, our freedoms, our collective will as a people and everything we stand for as an exeptional country with the highest ideals if we allow this community center to be built? Seriously. How?

Ask the Swiss.

Jeremy said...

Do ANY of you idiots ever actually read books or newspapers or periodicals relating to the topics you dwell on every fucking day of the week?

95% of you merely repeat the same right wing garbage you hear every night of the week from Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.

Do ANY of you have an original thought you can lend to any of the discussions?

There's not a single thing said here today by the regular tea bagging Ann Althouse sycophants that one can't hear from all of the wingnuts mentioned above.

You ALL hate Muslims, you ALL thing ALL Muslims are terrorists, you ALL think religious freedoms in America are relegated to ONLY the religions YOU yourself approve of, and most of all...you can't stand for anybody to post a comment that doesn't fit into whatever you already believe to be so.

Close-minded tea baggers...what a shock.

Scott M said...

As for the "lily white" comment regarding little Timmy...are you actually saying the bigotry related to Muslims and others of the Islamic faith is not in any way related to the color of their skin?

Are you actually saying that it's impossible to be opposed to Islam's beliefs, tenets, and it's approximately 1/4 population of radicals and not base any of it skin color?

veni vidi vici said...

"*And how do you account for the fundamentalists right here in America who still think the planet is 6,000 years old?"

Someone's too clever by half. Consult the Islamic calendar, o foolish one: you'll find it mirrors the Jewish calendar, placing the world around 6000 years old.

So, what exactly are you arguing so vociferously about anyway? You don't know what side of the argument you're on, do you? As long as you can spew a little invective and get your stem wound, it's good, eh? Man, why bother?

El Pollo Real said...

@Gabriel Hanna

So I guess another thing I'm saying to you is that while I agree with you (and with Althouse for that matter) that we cannot stop this Mosque building on legal grounds.
On the other hand, I side with people opposing this on the grounds of "doing the right thing", and furthermore, agree with elected leaders past, present and future who oppose this obscene insult, and I likewise oppose elected officials who defy the collective will of the people.

Jeremy said...

Scottie - "Ask the Swiss."

So...now we're to make our decisions based on what other countries do or experience? Should we also ask the North Koreans or Iranians what they think we should do?

What an idiotic thing to suggest.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, change the topic slightly and your rant above could have come directly from Tim McVeigh.

If he was still alive, that is.

Scott M said...

You ALL hate Muslims, you ALL thing ALL Muslims are terrorists, you ALL think religious freedoms in America are relegated to ONLY the religions YOU yourself approve of, and most of all...you can't stand for anybody to post a comment that doesn't fit into whatever you already believe to be so.

Close-minded tea baggers...what a shock.


How close-minded do you have to be to tell an entire group of people that you know what they hate? You're the epitome of hate and you display it every time you're on these threads. You're poison where other people from you side of the spectrum manage to make convincing arguments without relying on bullshit name calling.

Jeremy said...

veni vidi vici said...in reference to: ("And how do you account for the fundamentalists right here in America who still think the planet is 6,000 years old?")

"Someone's too clever by half. Consult the Islamic calendar, o foolish one: you'll find it mirrors the Jewish calendar, placing the world around 6000 years old."

So what is your point (other than the one on your head?)

That because other religions also have calendars that reflect the belief that the planet is 6,000 years old...that makes it so?

And please...I don't really believe there are many Jews out there who adhere to that specific belief...DO YOU?

Matt said...

Scott M

Ask the Swiss.

In otherwords, you want us to use fascist tactics to stop people whom you define as fascists from building a community center because otherwise we will turn into a bunch of clock-making cheese-selling apathetic Europeans?

Scott M said...

So...now we're to make our decisions based on what other countries do or experience? Should we also ask the North Koreans or Iranians what they think we should do?

Not at all. Not that I would expect you to understand nuance. Frankly, basing our decisions on what other countries do or experience has a lot of cache with liberals, so way to jump that particular shark.

Go back and read the question I was answering. Then go read up on what the Swiss have done and why they have done it. We don't need the Swiss' permission to do anything. Their actions merely gave me a basis to answer his question.

I'm not sure why I try to engage you in a debate. Debate is not what you're interested in.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, I was referring to your 3:58 post. Your 4:01 comment was actually reasonable.

By your standards.

But some of the left-of-center justices of the Supreme Court have referred to foreign laws as partial justification for their positions, so Scott's in good company.

Well, not good company, but respectable.

Jeremy said...

Scottie - Don't give me that "hate" bullshit. It has to one of the most overused words in the English language.

I based my coment on what I read here every fucking day of the week.

YOU and damn near everybody else here, spend every minute you post, whining and bitching about literally everything president Obama says or does, everything anybody with whom you disagree says or does, and today, you get to jump all over anybody who practices a religion you evidently detest.

There's plenty of bigotry and racism displayed right here every day of the week.

And, as for those Muslims you denigrate...you better get used to them, hotshot...because right around one out of every four people on the planet is of that faith...and there are at least one million right here in the U.S. of A.

Youngblood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Youngblood said...

Matt wrote:

"Or are you just making an exception this one time? And if so for how long? Can Muslims build in NY near Ground Zero in 10 more years? 20 years? One generation?"

There are already several mosques in the area. In fact, the Burlington Coat Factory building is currently being used as a mosque and has been for a little while now.

Nobody has complained about that.

What people are objecting to isn't simply the construction of a mosque in the area. They're objecting to the construction of a $150 million high-rise Islamic "mosque and cultural center" --with prayer space for 2,000 (!) people to attend regular worship services-- being built two blocks from Ground Zero.

From the beginning of this project, the fact that the structure will be near Ground Zero has been the whole fucking point, and it has been at the center of the Cordoba Initiative's fundraising efforts.

Where are the funds coming from? We don't know!

See, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf won't release that information. As has been reported already, both in threads on Althouse and elsewhere, Rauf is a pretty shady character to begin with.

I mean, he's presented in the media as a super-enlightened moderate who fights terrorism, yet when Malaysian Muslims started killing Catholics and firebombing their churches, he blamed the Catholics for being provocative.

When asked if he would agree with the US State Department that Hamas is a terrorist organization, he said that he couldn't define terrorism.

He compared Islamic terrorism to the US going to war against the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists.

He said that the US was an "accessory" to the September 11th attacks.

He published a book called What's Right With Islasm Is What's Right With America.

Actually, that's not right. When he first published it in Malaysia, the title was A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da'wah in the Heart of America Post-9/11.

If you don't know what Da'wah is, please look it up.

The simple fact of the matter is that Rauf wants to construct a center for proselytizing a stone's throw from Ground Zero.

And he won't tell us where the money to do so is coming from.

And he's claiming to want to build bridges between all faiths when, in fact, he's deliberately politicizing the site and polarizing people over it.

And, of course, the project is called the Cordoba Initiative which, as anybody with even a cursory understanding of Islamic Culture will tell you invokes the military conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.

The original name of the mosque and cultural center was to be Cordoba House.

Jeremy said...

Scott M said...referring to: ("So...now we're to make our decisions based on what other countries do or experience? Should we also ask the North Koreans or Iranians what they think we should do?"

"Not at all. Not that I would expect you to understand nuance. Frankly, basing our decisions on what other countries do or experience has a lot of cache with liberals, so way to jump that particular shark."

Nuance? What part of asking another country how they would handle such matters relates to "nuance?"

As for the "liberals' being at the forefront of "basing our decisions on what other countries do or experience"...I think if you were to take the time to read up on such matters (history comes to mind) you would see that damn near everything we do today...is based on what other countries have experienced.

Unless of course you think America is the older and wiser of the countries throughout the world.

Is that what you think, Scottie?

Big Mike said...

@Scott, let's get a game going. The point is poke fun at Jeremy (I didn't say it was a hard game) until he suggests that we go engage in coitus with one's self and otherwise engages in vulgarity.

One point for each time he calls you or me an idiot or otherwise suggests we're not particularly bright.

Two points for each use of the "f-word" directed at one of us.

Four points for each time he suggests we engage in coitus with ourself.

Winner is whichever one of us collects the most points by midnight.

Anyone else want in?

A.W. said...

Jeremy

> Do ANY of you have an original thought you can lend to any of the discussions?

You’re the one who doesn’t pay attention to any inconvenient facts.

> You ALL hate Muslims

We have specifically said we don’t.

> Close-minded tea baggers

Ah, but if we are looking for prejudice... “All you evil teabaggers are just bigots. Every one of you over generalize. There are no exceptions to that.” Its almost comical in a Life of Brian sort of way.

Matt

> So you want laws to be written that, in effect, say Muslims are not allowed to build a place of worship anywhere right wing conservatives might be offended?

You aren’t offended by a flag of surrender? Why the hell not?

> Or are you just making an exception this one time?

If you were actually paying attention to what I said you would know the answer to that.

> And if so for how long? Can Muslims build in NY near Ground Zero in 10 more years? 20 years? One generation?

How about we wait until we are no longer at war with Al Qaeda, for starters? Then we will let you know.

> How does it hurt America[?]

How does a flag of surrender hurt us? Are you really asking?

> If we say no to this community center we are playing into the very intolerant ideals we oppose as a country.

Its not intolerant to oppose a signal of surrender, especially when that is the intended message sent.

A.W. said...

mike

if you change that to a drinking game, i am in.

Walter said...

Of course the community has the right to ask why build it here, where it will cause pain. I think the response should be, why should a house of worship, which will bring its member's joy, cause other Americans pain? How as a community can we address this pain without forgoing the joy?

The right to ask a question is not the same thing as the right to demand an answer one finds acceptable. Is something still a right if its exercise has to be justified to the satisfaction of everyone? Yes, you can support a right and be critical of how someone exercises it, but I don't see how one can say they support a right to religious freedom while suggesting any limit on the right of others to choose to exercise it.

A.W. said...

> Unless of course you think America is the older and wiser of the countries throughout the world.

America has the oldest constitution in effect.

And yes, we are the wisest. but feel free to move to a country you percieve to be wiser.

Scott M said...

Don't give me that "hate" bullshit. It has to one of the most overused words in the English language

You used it yourself. Making a ridiculous statement. Turn the mirror on yourself and your hatred of the Tea Partiers. See how that sits with your conscience, if you have one. You've got quite a bit of hate pent up there and it's on display every time you decide to carpet bomb a thread with your rants.

The only thing you've got in your playbook, apparently, is exaggeration ("every minute you post, whining and bitching about literally everything..."). Of course, one single mention of something he did right would reduce that comment to the bullshit it is. So would the mountains of posts about things other than Obama.

Then you go on to claim I detest an entire religion? Where is the proof of that? Please...show me. You said "YOU" in big caps, so you're referring directly to me.

...or do you not feel the responsibility to back up a word you're saying?

As for the "liberals' being at the forefront of "basing our decisions on what other countries do or experience"...I think if you were to take the time to read up on such matters (history comes to mind) you would see that damn near everything we do today...is based on what other countries have experienced.

Unless of course you think America is the older and wiser of the countries throughout the world.

Is that what you think, Scottie?


Since you're obviously clueless on the topic and completely unable to debate civilly, I'll pass. Do some reading on various SCOTUS candidates and their desires to look at foreign law when deciding a case. That should get you in the ballpark. Not that I expect you to do so. It would cut into your insult and frothing time.

Big Mike said...

@Walter, not with Jeremy. We'd all be drunk by 7:00 PM!

Youngblood said...

A.W.,

Jeremy is a troll, and a notoriously shitty one. If you ignore him, he will shrivel up like the turd he is and blow away for a little while.

Taking anything that he says even remotely seriously and responding to it only encourages him, because it suggests that he's getting to you.

Matt said...

Youngblood

I understand your skepticism. Still, legally it is pretty tough to tell them that they cannot build this center in this sensitive spot. Not to say there are not legal precedents out there where a city stops a private developer. It just strikes me as rather draconian if NY did. And they are not, in fact. So it's sort of a moot point now.

Scott M said...

@Big Mike,

That's an excellent idea, but you should have mentioned it Altolist instead of here where unwashed can see it.

Besides, according to Jeremy, I've got too much hate to work on tonight. I'm actually going to vote and hang out with my wife and kids, but somehow, that's got to be hate.

Jeremy said...

Scottie - I don't "hate" the tea baggers, I just think they're morons.

Big Mike said...

Sorry, Walter. I addressed my response to A.W. to you instead.

I do like your comment though, Walter.

Scott M said...

Scottie - I don't "hate" the tea baggers, I just think they're morons.

How can you possibly claim, then, that you know that I HATE anything?

Scott M said...

> Unless of course you think America is the older and wiser of the countries throughout the world.

America has the oldest constitution in effect.

And yes, we are the wisest. but feel free to move to a country you percieve to be wiser.


I'm not so sure about that. I used to be, but after watching people get a two year warning to switch from analog to digital, then have to have an act of Congress to extend it six months...I'm just not sure about that anymore.

A.W. said...

Mike

> not with Jeremy. We'd all be drunk by 7:00 PM!

As Glenn Reynolds might ask, is that a bug or a feature?

Matt

> Still, legally it is pretty tough to tell them that they cannot build this center in this sensitive spot.

Nothing tough about it. every right has an exception for compelling interests. So the compelling interest is national security.

Jeremy

> I don't "hate" the tea baggers, I just think they're morons.

That sentence actually is hate-filled in and of itself. Which is hilarious.

Jeremy said...

Youngblood - And yet another tea bagger who doesn't possess the intellect to counter an argument so he resorts to the standard "troll" excuse.

95% of the regulars here agree on literally everything...and then there's the other 5% who post counter arguments or opinions that do not fit into the beliefs held by the local wingnuts..and they're dismissed as trolls.

Here's a suggestion little man: Don't read or respond to my comments...oh, and...fuck off.

A.W. said...

Scott

Well, the truly dumb part of that whole thing is when people wondered how they would reach those people who have analog Tv's.

i think it was taranto who suggested, you know, TV commercials.

A.W. said...

Anyway, on America's greatness, i will let Fred Thompson take over: "This country has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than all the other nations in the history of the world combined, and I'm tired of people feeling like they've got to apologize for America."

Amazingly he said that before Obambi went on his bow-a-thon.

Matt said...

A.W.

A flag of surrender

Wow, it seems you really do think we are at war with the entire islamic world [including American Muslims] and the entire Muslim religion.

Flag of surrender? How hilariously inappropriate. We have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands have died and plenty more will and you claim we are waving a white flag because we are allowing a building that happens to be one among many in the area? What the what?

What do you want? A 100 year war?
What next? Should we start shipping Muslims back to the middle east? Goodness, dude. I thought you were a moderate.

I view it more as we [or NY anyway] are maybe trying to grow up for once and heal these wounds. I'm guessing within 5 years after this is built no one will remember there was a debate.

Youngblood said...

Matt,

I don't think that anything should be done, legally speaking, to stop the construction of Cordoba House (or Park 51 or whatever it's called this week).

I do think that we need to follow the money though.

Parker said...

I am part of the internet community, and part of the American community, and part of the world community, and I find it painful that you have chosen to promulgate your xenophobia and bigotry here in my community. WHY have you chosen to do this? It is not enough of an answer to say you are doing it "because you have the right to."

Big Mike said...

Scott starts off with 2 points from Jeremy's 4:19 post. I'm not sure how to score the 4:25 post. He's referring to "teabaggers," and I don't attend Tea Party rallies. Do you? Perhaps you've earned 3 points already.

Hey, Jeremy, I know some Muslims who say that you're more fun than a whole flock of goats!

Big Mike said...

Youngblood gets 2 points and he's not even playing.

Youngblood said...

Matt wrote:

"I view it more as we [or NY anyway] are maybe trying to grow up for once and heal these wounds. I'm guessing within 5 years after this is built no one will remember there was a debate."

Within the first couple of months after the construction of the mosque and cultural center, Islamic extremists will crow that the first new major construction project in the area is one celebrating Islam.

They will point out that we still have a giant open grave at Ground Zero. This will be of a piece with the boom in supertall construction projects in Muslim countries.

Whether the Cordoba Initiative intends it or not, the construction of this building will be akin to the construction of mosques with minarets that dwarf nearby houses of worship.

After all, it's not that hard to build a structure that's taller than a hole in the ground.

This won't be forgotten in five years. Religious zealots have long memories, which is why the pronouncements and communiques of al-Qaeda and other extremist organizations are still peppered with calls for a reconquest of al-Andalus and reminders of the humiliations of the Crusades and the defeat of Muslim armies at Vienna.

The clear message, intentional or not, will be that Islam is ascendant and America is a grave.

JAL said...

Hey Jeremy -- I actually listened to Rush Limbaugh for probably 7 minutes today. (!!!)

There were a couple interesting questions raised: Wonder what the Japanese would think if someone built a monument to Enola Gay and Little Boy a couple blocks from ground zero in Hiroshima?

And then there was the suggestion that the mosque be okayed when there was a synagogue in Mecca. (Heck Riyadh would even work ...)

The opposition I read hear and below thread is not all anti-First Amendment -- it is based on the horrendous insensitivity (nicest take) or willful shoving of the First Amendment in our faces while hoisting us on our own petard for the Islamist street to see. You know -- the ones who danced when the towers came down.

(Yeah, the ones who hate us and call ask first for their legal rights which america guarantees.)

The imam is suspect and his funding is suspect. That needs to be clarified. I wonder if he is functionaing as a 501(c)(3) in which case his funding should be open. Wanna bet it's not?

Mmmm. I just did a quick search and there is no Cordoba anything in NYC. that is a 501(c)(3) I'll see if I can find another name it is under.

Ahh! Ta da! Here it is ... Cordoba Initiative ... Aspen, CO.

Nice digs, imam.

Any snowbunnies out there?

Walter said...

Thank you Big Mike.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Because it is a choice, it's not wrong for the community to ask: Why are you making this choice?

The community in question has spoken and it doesn't include all you assholes in the flyover but rather the actual residents of lower Manhattan.

Fuck off and learn to respect local control already, dipshits.

Youngblood said...

"Youngblood gets 2 points and he's not even playing."

Go Team Youngblood!

JAL said...

I think if Muslims played the insensitivity card to your Ground Zero pulled pork stand, I'd think they'd be just as wrong as you are for objecting to their mosque.

Can't remember who said this, but this occurs pretty frequently.

Ask the guys who were arrested in Dearborn.

Ask the South Park guys.

Ask the Dutch cartoonist who hangs out in a safe room in his house.

Ask the Italian chick who died a year or so ago (from cancer) what it was like to be insensitive to Muslims.

Ask Ali Hirsi (naah, she's disreputable ... she doesn't count.)

Ask Theo van Gogh... Oh. Wait. You can't because he's very dead because he was insensitive to Muslims.

Jeremy said...

A.W. - "That sentence actually is hate-filled in and of itself. Which is hilarious."

You need to pick yourself up a dictionary if you think someone referring to another as a moron means that they "hate" them.

What are twelve years old?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Manhattanites Support Mosque Near Ground Zero, Poll Finds

I love how the internet became an excuse for respecting the autonomy of real, physical communities - at least in the small areas of gray matter that compose conservative minds. Or what's left of them.

Jeremy said...

JAL - So these six examples you provide makes it okay to be insensitive to the beliefs of a religion?

What the fuck do you think the people in the Mideast think about those "Christian" bombers and drones dropping their loads?

How many innocent civilians (Muslims or otherwise) do you think have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since Bush started these two wars? (And don't forget: 3,000 died on 9/11...and right now we have an American death count of 4,400 and another 33,000 wounded.)

Why is you and others here appear to think we're the only people on the planet?

JAL said...

@ Matt: Can Muslims build in NY near Ground Zero in 10 more years? 20 years? One generation?

You know, we're at war. We didn't start the war. When the war's over and we've won? It might not be a problem after a few years.

The guy building the 13 story mega whatever is not an upfront guy.

Legally he apparently can do what he's doing, until someone at the WSJ or another REAL newspaper/blog whatever tracks down the donations being laundered from the terrorist supporting groups and it all dries up.

To think that this is building cross cultural understanding has got to be the biggest baddest jokes so far this year.

And as for NYers wanting this? Or not caring? Here's an idea ... how about having a referendum in NYC. Wouldn't be legally binding, but it might let the muckety muck community planning airheads get in touch with their gritty New York City souls.

Jeremy said...

JAL said..."Hey Jeremy -- I actually listened to Rush Limbaugh for probably 7 minutes today. (!!!) - SHOCKING!!

"There were a couple interesting questions raised: Wonder what the Japanese would think if someone built a monument to Enola Gay and Little Boy a couple blocks from ground zero in Hiroshima?"

So now you and the fat radio fuck are comparing the plane and bomb that killed over 200,000 Japanese...to a
Mosque?

You're a fucking moron...and so is fatso.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Why not pretend to at least care for exerting federal jurisdiction over the activities on Wall Street before you dim light bulbs go on about building ordinances?

This is absolutely incredible.

El Pollo Real said...

The community in question has spoken and it doesn't include all you assholes in the flyover but rather the actual residents of lower Manhattan.

That raises an interesting Matrushka analogy. The analogy is whether larger communities actually "comprise" smaller ones and whether a larger generic America really includes all of the smaller parts.

We do get upset lately when smaller parts thought to be part of whole assert their specific values upon the whole.

When the converse occurs it's understandable that there would be opposition.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 365   Newer› Newest»