Letters from the New York Times:
Reverberations From a Muslim Center
Re “Bloomberg’s Fierce Defense of Muslim Center Has Deep Roots” (front page, Aug. 13):
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg may have lost some popular support but has gained historic stature with his principled and eloquent defense of the right to construct a Muslim community center a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.
As a legal matter, there is nothing to debate. If a church or synagogue could be constructed on the site, so may a mosque. Period. The First Amendment means at least that.
As a matter of public policy, the answer is the same. While some political leaders — Newt Gingrich, Rick Lazio and Rudolph W. Giuliani, to name three — may find it convenient to politicize the issue, there is a moral issue that should not be overlooked.
Muslim organizations that refuse to condemn the attack on 9/11 or that seek to minimize or “explain” it deserve the harshest public criticism. But here, there has been no basis for such criticism. Unless we are to treat all Muslims as being somehow complicit in the attack, a guilt-by-association proposition contrary to every principle of fairness, any bar to the construction proceeding would be reprehensible.
Floyd Abrams
New York, Aug. 13, 2010
(The writer, a First Amendment lawyer, has represented The New York Times.)
and...
To the Editor:
Don’t be fooled by the claims of those, including the Anti-Defamation League, who say their opposition to the proposed Muslim community center is based on the sensitivity of the site.
Put aside the fact that the building is not at the World Trade Center site but rather two blocks away and not visible from the site. The same people who came to our community board meeting in May saying they didn’t oppose the project — just the location — and would support it if it were anywhere else in New York were back again at our July meeting carrying signs that read: “We won in Staten Island and we’ll win at ground zero. No mosque.”
The opposition to this project is based not on sensitivities but on bigotry, pure and simple.
Michael Connolly
New York, Aug. 11, 2010
(The writer is a resident of Lower Manhattan and serves as co-chairman of the World Trade Center Redevelopment Committee of Community Board 1. )
And to prove Mr. Connolly's point:
[skip]
According to the Associated Baptist Press (ABP), Heartland Baptist Church is “independent,” and Heartland Baptist Church Christian Pastor Dusty Ray led Christian prayers for the anti-mosque march because “My main concern is that our freedoms are being threatened.”
(An example of the failure of our educational system. This unfortunate Christian pastor has no idea that by protesting the building of a mosque in Murfreesboro, he is the one threatening "our freedoms.")
And this...
Temecula mosque plan sparks protest
Vocal opponents of the 25,000-square-foot mosque proposed for 4 acres in the city's northeastern corner describe Islam not as a religion, but as a political movement bent on taking over the world and squelching freedom in favor of strict religious law.
Supporters of the project say members of the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley, which wants to build the mosque, are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who deserve the right to worship their God freely.
Temecula, a city of 105,000 with many residents previously from conservative havens in Orange and San Diego counties, is home to a variety of churches, including an independent Baptist congregation whose minister doesn't want the mosque as a next-door neighbor.
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”
“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.
But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”
***************************************************
It is clear that the protests against the building of mosques around the country are not based on 9/11 sensitivity issues, but rather a First Admendment, Freedom of Religion issue. The extremists on the Right who are the first to accuse Mr. Obama of destroying the Constitution are the same people who wish to assault the very freedoms they are so fearful of losing. How can they be so blind to their blatant and shameful bigotry?
UPDATE FROM THINK PROGRESS:
"As the Guardian’s Michael Tomasky notes, the president’s support for the Cordoba House “is going to be demagogued to death in the next few days. The important part is going forward. Hang tough. Stand by the position. Don’t trim sails or add asterisks after Mitch McConnell or Dick Cheney or whomever says whatever hideous thing they’re going to say.”
By supporting the rights of an unpopular religious minority, President Obama is firmly within the bounds of America’s best traditions and values. The same can’t be said of those cultivating fear of Muslims for political gain."
64 comments:
And the Indian immigration cartoon was gone before Rob at Newspaper Rock saw it. Do you have another link to it?
I've embedded the cartoon in my post on the 14th Amendment:
FLAWS, MAWS, AND JACKDAWS
I'll look for it and let him know.
Speaking of the sidebar, I saw "DETROIT GOES FROM GLOOM TO ECONOMIC BRIGHT SPOT", and thought it referred to the city, which is still reeling like the rest of Michigan from Gov. Granholm's "scorched earth" get rid of jobs policy.
Now I see it is about the bottom line of the investors and top brass at two of the Big 3.
And now I see it. I responded to your earlier deleted comment above.
Back on topic: No one who has sworn an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution should be working to ban mosques.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This reminds me of Malfeasance, or whatever that guy was called, who claimed to be a Marine (and Marines swear to such oaths) while also declaring a war against religious freedom.
dmarks,
would you use that amendment to support the building of that mosque if the primary purpose or intent of its building was one of the following:
1. as a memorial to the 13 "martyrs" of 9/11?
2. to be used as support and recruitment for terroristic activities in this nation?
3. to promote the idea of turning this nation into an Islamic state by the use of violence if necessary if it couldn't be done peacefully?
would you use that amendment as defense of building a Christian church on that spot if the supporters were known members of the kkk or some other racist clique?
Griper,
Do you have a link to where the Imam of that mosque (who was appointed, BTW, by George W. Bush to be a partner for Mideast peace) actually is quoted as saying these are the objectives of the Muslim community center? I'd would like to see where you got that information, please.
It would be difficult to believe that Mr. Bush would promote a Muslim of such prominence whose hidden agenda embodied all the points you posted in your comment--which has no link to back up the claims.
Unless you can give us incontrovertible proof that this community center is being built to destroy America, I have to assume that info you posted here is nothing more than anti-Muslim hatred promoted by the hysterical Right.
This country has a history of indicting an entire group of religious or ethnic people for the heinous acts of the few.
We need to conquer our fears and not run away from the guarantees in our Constitution when it suits our prejudices and hatreds.
I find this all so depressingly shameful.
What is so insensitive about being Muslim? The American Muslims building this mosque believe in religious tolerance. There is not anything insensitive about that. Many American Muslims died in those buildings when they went down and many American Muslims have fought the 2 wars that have followed.
Sunflowerpipes.com
Griper:
1) falls under freedom of speech. Do you get all bent out of shape and want to chuck the constitution out the window because churches express views you do not like? I'm sure they do.
2) Such can be properly investigated under Homeland Security and other laws.
3) See 3. Again, there are churches that preach that kind of crap that you describe. But we don't ban people from building churches, do we? But we do investigate and prosecute criminals if they are found. Think about those awful Mormon child rapists in Texas. No one talks about banning their churches, do they? But they do prosecute actual criminals.
"would you use that amendment as defense of building a Christian church on that spot if the supporters were known members of the kkk or some other racist clique?"
Yes. I would object, but I readily admit that this is legal also, and protected.
Shaw: Good points, all around. Unlike some conservatives, I am remembering the First Amendment.
Sun: The previous name, Cordoba, was insensitlve, and connoted conquest and religious intolerance. But I give them credit for changing it, and it is not longer a problem. Still, even if they had kept the name, there's nothing in the First Amendment to ban a mosque using that name.
Shaw,
don't confuse my questions with my stance on the issue. i haven't declared where i stand yet.
My questions were in reference to the concerns of those "bigots" have in regards to the building of that mosque.
and those concerns deal with the purpose of the building of that mosque. they are questioning whether it is being built for political purposes which that amendment does not cover or for religious purpose which that amendment does cover.
as for the proof of those questions, since the Koran allows a Muslim to lie to an infidel if it promotes their goals, any proof not supporting my questions would be suspect at the least.
and given the attitude of the left towards Bush in regards to his service in the military, his appointments while in office and as being nothing but a liar along with the lack of support for his policies I'd have to wonder why you'd try to use his appointment of that Imam as evidence for the support of this project.
I'd think that, in itself, should be reason for the left to be suspect of this project.
dmarks,
your answers to my questions justifies the objections of those so-called bigots especially your answer to 2 and 5.
their objection is based upon the motive of the building of it, not the constitutionality of it.
"My questions were in reference to the concerns of those "bigots" have in regards to the building of that mosque."--The Griper
I included in my post the fact that people are protesting the building of mosques in areas of the country not anywhere near Ground Zero. And I stand by my opinion of those people as "bigots," because there is no issue about Ground Zero in places like Murphreesboro and Temecula.
I understand the feelings that the families and friends have who lost loved ones on 9/11. But should we nullify our Constitution based on feelings? BTW, Ground Zero cannot be seen from where the community center is scheduled to be built, and a strip club exists 2 block away--the same distance as the proposed community center.
"...and those concerns deal with the purpose of the building of that mosque. they are questioning whether it is being built for political purposes which that amendment does not cover or for religious purpose which that amendment does cover."
Actually, our laws allow church involvement in politics so long as the organization does not endorse or support a particular candidate:
What Political Activities by Churches are Permitted?
The Congressional Research Service findings on the political activities of tax-exempt organizations state the following.
Clearly, IRC § 501(c)(3) organizations may not do such things as make statements that endorse or oppose a candidate, publish or distribute campaign literature, or make any type of contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a political campaign. On the other hand, IRC § 501(c)(3) organizations are allowed to conduct activities that are not related to elections, such as issue advocacy, lobbying for or against legislation, and supporting or opposing the appointment of individuals to non-elective offices.
SOURCE
As to my pointing out that GWB appointed the imam involved in the mosque near Ground Zero, I brought that to your attention to show that our previous president had no problem in appointing this Muslim to work with his administration. That has nothing to do with my opinion of Bush, but shows that even a conservative president found the imam to be an honorable person.
What if?
Who's to say?
Charles Krauthammer raved:
'Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?'
I thought that was about as dismal as the conversation could get. Boy was I wrong.
'would you use that amendment to support the building of that mosque if the primary purpose or intent of its building was one of the following:
1. as a memorial to the 13 "martyrs" of 9/11?
2. to be used as support and recruitment for terroristic activities in this nation?
3. to promote the idea of turning this nation into an Islamic state by the use of violence if necessary if it couldn't be done peacefully?'
And what if the government takes away our guns?
And what about those FEMA concentration camps?
And what if the government reintroduces the Fairness Doctrine and nationalizes the media?
Kids add your own to the list!
It's free! It's fun! It's scaaary!
Shaw,
you may have included other mosques in your post but your post was focused on the mosque in new york. your title of this post declares that.
and while my first question may not apply to the other mosques the other three still apply.
as for seeing the Imam as being an honorable man, by what standards of honor are you using? the standards by which he adheres to, which is the standards of the Koran, or your own? myself, i'd guess that he abides the standards of his own.
so, if you consider him an honorable man then you are using his standards unless you can show that they are the standards you adhere to.
and the fact that you used a man who you consider as dishonorable as a means to prove your point says a lot about your standards.
but more important is the fact that by your use of him to prove your point only declares that your whole argument is an argument to appeal to emotion not logic. and that makes your argument a fallacious argument.
Harrumph. Er. Er. Harrumph.
Speaking as an authority on the Koran I assure you it not only is it permissible for believers to lie to, deceive and otherwise vex and deceive 'infidels' in any and every conceivable fashion such devices are taught in any self-respecting Mosque world-wide.
Oh. They're sneaky bastards.
"...as for seeing the Imam as being an honorable man, by what standards of honor are you using? the standards by which he adheres to, which is the standards of the Koran, or your own? myself, i'd guess that he abides the standards of his own."--The Griper
Well I'll just guess his standards of honor just may be above those of the present head of the Catholic Church, who found it perfectly honorable to protect child rapists.
And perhaps the imam may be a bit more honorable than the two prominent American pastors, the late Jerry Falwell, and the still living Pat Robertson, who blamed the 9/11 tragedy on feminists and gays. So let's not question this guy's honor, since I've found nothing about him that approaches the dishonorable behavior and disgusting statements cited above.
BTW, nowhere on my blog do I state that GWB is "dishonorable." You're making things up to prove something that I am not.
I disagreed with Bush on many things, but I never considered him an enemy of America or the devil incarnate as many people on the Right believe Mr. Obama to be.
I'm not a religious person, Griper. I find belief in supernatural beings, well, unbelievable. I'll also take a guess that you know nothing about this imam except what you pick and choose to believe--but I do admit I'm just guessing.
The imam's belief in his religion is as sincere as any other person who believes in supernatural beings and dogma written during the Stone Age.
There are a lot of Christians in this country who believe that if one does not accept JC as their personal savior, one will burn in the lake of fire and suffer indescribable torments for eternity. And those same people apparently enjoy thinking about that.
No different, IMHO, than any other vengeful and exclusionary religion that plagues this planet.
None of this has anything to do with the Muslim's Constitutional right to build their center on their own private property where they wish to.
I thought conservatives were strict Constitutional constructionists and howled over each rumor finding its way into their emails saying that Mr. Obama was going to abrogate their precious freedoms.
14 Aug 2010 01:43 pm
"An enormously complex and emotional issue -- but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen. Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone,” - Michael Gerson, former speech-writer for George W. Bush.
Shaw,
your last comment to me only affirms the fallaciousness of your argument. Since a fallacious argument needs no rebuttal i will respectfully decline to rebut your last comment.
the one thing this discussion revealed is the difference between how a person with a collective mindset argues and how a person with the mindset of an individual argues.
Arthurstone,
Thank you for your expertise of the Muslim ways. I do appreciate it.
Interesting.
I drew a different lesson altogether.
What was 'revealed' to me was the difference between the scloretic and open 'mindset'.
Go figure.
Arthur said: "...And what if the government reintroduces the Fairness Doctrine..."
This one is scarrier than the rest, because so many people are pushing for this form of censorship.
Like clockwork...
Don't fret dmarks. The Fairness Doctrine isn't coming back.
It's mere mention an effective tool for stirring up the right to rally for 'free speech' and against 'censorship'.
Like so many good ideas we've discarded on our march to a complete 'free-market' corporatist state, the Fairness Doctrine is a relic from the days when Americans and their government had a brief moment of clarity and worked to improve the lot of the average American and not merely to serve the rich.
Unions. Workplace safety. Financial regulations. Food safety. Civil rights. All areas have suffered in the mad dash for 'freedom' and a demonstrably unhinged view that the 'markets' are the most perfect of human endeavors.
And boy is that working well for us.
Suggested reading:
“I.O.U.: Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay”
by John Lanchester
Lanchester is a marvelous British novelist who, will researching for a novel to be set in The City (de facto center of world finance in London), found the real life story of the global financial catastrophe far better than anything he could imagine.
Griper,
At the very beginning of this thread, I politely asked you to back up the assertions you made about the mosque and the hidden agenda you claim is behind its construction.
You did not supply us with any evidence to verify the truth of those statements.
Everything else that followed is really irrelevant, including your claim that MY argument is fallacious.
Arthurstone,
Thanks for the book tip. Agree with what you posted. BTGWS [but that goes without saying].
Arthur: No quote marks needed around free speech and censorship, for Fairness Doctrine discussions.
It was a very bad idea, and it is good that we discarded it, and it has nothing to do with mythical corporatism.
"the Fairness Doctrine is a relic from the days when Americans and their government had a brief moment of clarity and worked to improve the lot of the average American and not merely to serve the rich."
Actually, it is a relic from the days when the government in its arrogance was the sole arbiter of what was "fair" or not (at tne espense of the average American), on the airwaves. It in fact had nothing to do with the rich.
As for Lanchaster, did he support your views in favor of much stronger government control over viewpoints presented in the media?
As for markets, they are not perfect. But typically they are more worth trying than fascism (government control). Let the people decide, and only leave matters up to the ruling class as a last resort.
Read the book dmarks.
I can't do all the research for both of us.
I will say that we only need look at the current wreckage to see just what the 'perfect mechanism' is capable of. The results of deregulation and unfettered freemarket 'innovation' are perfectly obvious to anyone.
Does the book make a case for tight government control of political expression? The results of over-regulation and fettered command-control (government controlling markets instead of the people) are after all perfectly obvious to anyone.
Or does it matter.
Regardless, there is near universal agreement (minus one?) on Shaw's point on this post.
" they are questioning whether it is being built for political purposes which that amendment does not cover or for religious purpose which that amendment does cover."
The First Amendment in fact covers freedom of religion and freedom of speech (and therefore political speech).
American Christianity has been politicized for some time now; the Religious Right is only the most recent manifestation. The same people who screech that keeping the Ten Commandments out of courthouses abridges their First Amendment rights now want to dictate where a community center can be built. A cynic might call this base hypocrisy.
K, you are right
"The First Amendment in fact covers freedom of religion and freedom of speech (and therefore political speech)."
The same amendment which allows mosque-building and prohibits such policies as the "Fairness Doctrine"
And really frowns upon spending government money for Ten Commandments displays.
Shaw,
"At the very beginning of this thread, I politely asked you to back up the assertions you made about the mosque and the hidden agenda you claim is behind its construction."
i never made any assertions. I asked 4 questions and questions seeks "truthful" answers which i got and which i appreciated.
the fact that you saw an implication of assertions in those questions only declares that you jumped to a conclusion which is fallacious in itself.
and if you had questioned that assumption you made at the beginning of the thread you would have clearly found out that it was a false implication.
it is not up to me to prove that those implied assertions are truthful. it is up to you to find out if those implication was the intent of my questions and the answer to that is no.
"the fact that you saw an implication of assertions in those questions only declares that you jumped to a conclusion which is fallacious in itself."--The Griper
Whether or not I made an assumption about the questions in your comment is beside the point--what is disturbing about the questions is the paranois that prompted you to ask them.
Why would you ask if the community center would be built:
"1. as a memorial to the 13 "martyrs" of 9/11?"--Griper
That is a terrible suspicion, but you don't give any reason as to why you would think that this imam would do such a despicable thing. Do you believe all Muslims are evil and complicit in the 9/11 attacks?
"2. to be used as support and recruitment for terroristic activities in this nation?"--Griper
Why would anyone ask this? Do you think all mosques support terrorists? Or just this one that would be built in NYC?
"3. to promote the idea of turning this nation into an Islamic state by the use of violence if necessary if it couldn't be done peacefully?"--Griper
This is, of course, recycled paranoia about a foreign religion. When Kennedy ran for president, more than a few non-Catholics thought he would be a Papist toady, taking orders from Rome.
I guess fear of "the other" and guilt by association is still prevelant in a majority of this country's population.
It's funny how more than a few southerners I know get really, really angry when that sort of guilt by association is implied when discussing the terrorism that African Americans endured in the south, such as lynching, which was never punished.
Should African Americans have assumed that all white southerners are murderous outlaws because a large number of them committed murder and got away with it?
That's what your suspicions, implicit in those questions about Muslims, sound like to me.
And yes, those questions sounded like something that would have been sent around in an email to scare the beejeebeeze out of people who hate Muslims and who continue to believe Mr. Obama is not a Christian.
Ouch.
Irony isnt your strength dmarks.
Shaw: Griper's "questions, not assertions" are actually leading questions. Pointed ones, that imply assertions.
Artbur: Just playing straight with it, not ironic. Since the idea of basic Constitutional rights was being discussed in an overlapping matter.
Strictly speaking, the Fairness Doctrine is not a violation of the 1st Amendment, as it has survived court challenges.
Anyway, there's no freedom of speech issue, because the doctrine requires additional speech, not censoring of speech. Since we're talking about private use of a public resource (the airwaves), I see no reason why the public can't require certain practices in exchange for use -- fair use being one of them. Denying use of the airwaves because of politics would intrude on free speech (and wouldn't get far), but that's irrelevant to the Fairness Doctrine.
Having said this, there are bigger fish to fry, such net neutrality and the corporate consolidation of the media.
Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York:
"[W]hat they are saying essentially is how can you put a mosque there when, after all, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and this is ripping open a wound? Well, the fallacy is that Al Qaida attacked us. Islam did not attack us. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like other religions, has many different people, some of whom regard other adherents of the religion as heretics of one sort or another. It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit, as opposed to Al Qaida as the culprit. We were not attacked by all Muslims. And there were Muslims who were killed there, there were Muslims who were killed there. There were Muslims who ran in as first responders to help. And we cannot take any position like that."
Shaw I have already responded to that when i denied that your implications were true.
in fact if you read this thread with a little more of a open mind you'd see what my intent was in the asking of those questions. i made it very clear.
"Anyway, there's no freedom of speech issue, because the doctrine requires additional speech, not censoring of speech."
It's a big blanket of censorship in practice, because if the media present controversial views, then their editorial content is subject to government control and micro-management. No views? No censorship. So stations before it for the most part only played music.
Mario Cuomo said of this: "If I ran a radio or TV station, I might avoid a controversial point in order to avoid entanglement with government. The F.C.C. has compiled more than 60 reported instances of broadcasters' quashing programming on such topics as the nuclear arms race, religious cults and municipal salaries for fear of triggering fairness doctrine obligations."
Also, broadcast hours from a station are limited. When the government mandates that certain hours be put aside for government-approved content, the station has to get rid of content in order to make way for it. That's another example of censorship.
It's like having a 32-page first section of the New York Times being required to have "fair" content in order to meet a Fairness Doctrine applied to newspapers. The editors of the paper would have to can a bunch of pages of content to make way for the government material.
Yes, if the government forces a station to air something, it requires specific "censoring of speech" to make way for it.
"Since we're talking about private use of a public resource (the airwaves), I see no reason why the public can't require certain practices in exchange for use."
You aren't talking about the public requiring things when you are talking about the Fairness Doctrine. That is government requirements, not public requirements.
Mario Cuomo, as a progressive who was not afraid of dissenting views and was thus opposed to the Fairness Doctrine, concluded his NYT op-ed piece saying:
"True progressives ought not be unnerved by the popularity of conservative talk show commentators. To safeguard our cherished freedom of expression, they should resist the temptation to stifle distasteful views and concentrate on sharpening their own."
"Having said this, there are bigger fish to fry, such net neutrality and the corporate consolidation of the media."
Don't worry about the last one: there is a steady trend to more and more voices over the decades. OF course, there are those who want to alter ownership regulations as a means to censorship.
Your intent was clear from the get go Griper.
And that was to impugn Muslims. All of them.
By their use of the Koran (at least YOUR) interpretation of a few cherry-picked 'examples' they are reduced to a people completely without 'honor' or even 'standards'.
Did I miss anything ?
Back on the Muslim topic.
Arthur, I think you nailed it, even though there are probably more points you could make.
Arthur,
tis a good thing i can laugh when people believe they read something into what someone else says even when it is obviously not there and continues to think it is still there even when it is denied.
always did amuse me when someone thinks they are so intelligent as to be able to read minds.
but what amuses me the most is seeing how the collective mindset works.
CAMPHOR!
PENICILLIN!
DEET!
CHEMOTHERAPY!
Josh Barro, from the NRO:
"Conservatives rightly bristle at the federal government’s micromanagement of land in the American West, with the highest profile example being the closure of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. So why should we invite the feds into land use review in Manhattan? What New York allows to be built in its Financial District is not the federal government’s business.
What I find bizarre about some of the conservative response to Cordoba House is not just the objection to the construction of the mosque, but the conviction that it should be stopped by any means necessary—even if that means violating conservative principles about property rights, rule of law, and federalism."
I don't find it bizarre at all. To a number of conservatives, principles are fungible when they come up against their prejudices and hatreds. And the rancid opposition to Muslims' First Amendment rights is an example of this. The move to repeal the 14th Amendment (Born in the USA) is another.
I urge everyone to read this entire article, because Mr. Barros demonstrates what I have said in the title to this post. The main objection to the community center is bigotry and anti-Muslim hatred.
I can laugh as well griper as I watch the delusional mind romp through the fields of pure, self-sure wrongheadedness.
""Conservatives rightly bristle at the federal government’s micromanagement of land in the American West, with the highest profile example being the closure of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling."
Apologies for the diversion, but as someone who lives in the American West, I find this laughable. For one thing, most of the land is public. The federal government has an obligation to its owners (i.e., you and me) to manage it.
For another, the American West wouldn't exist were it not for federal water and grazing policies, both of which are the corporate welfare state run amok. Neither pay for themselves, and any efforts by the government to make them more equitable run into stiff opposition from the very same people who complain about the federal presence in the west.
If the feds ever pulled out of the west, the sound of a collective stroke would be heard all over the country.
I agree with you K. Barro's comment is included here to reveal the disconnect in the conservatives mantra of "No government interference in my life!"
Except when they want government to interfere in people's lives: reproductive rights, the right to marry whom they wish to; the right to build a mosque/community center under the First Amendment.
No one has put up a rational argument against the building of this center.
great comments on a great post Shaw!
"Except when they want government to interfere in people's lives: reproductive rights, the right to marry whom they wish to; the right to build a mosque/community center under the First Amendment.
No one has put up a rational argument against the building of this center".
This, your last comment, speaks to who the right wingers are.
To everyone's delight i'll say that this will be my last comment in regards to this post and will say that i'm a little disappointed in what i have heard.
i was hoping at least one person in here would have had enough self-respect to admit the possibility that they may be wrong in their judgment of my intent.
i say this especially after i had denied that what you thought was correct.
i was hoping that at least one person would ask me what my intent was but guess that would have been hoping for too much.
its too bad that the prejudice and bias of ideology got in the way of a potentially interesting discussion.
You know what they say Griper.
Intentions are of no value without results.
That's not to say I'm not unsympathetic to your being 'picked on' & 'misunderstood'.
Wait. I am unsympathetic.
This thread has been ongoing for a few days and the best you've been able to accomplish is to denigrate 26% of the world's population and to criticize everyone else for misunderestimating you for pointing out that obvious fact.
"...as for the proof of those questions, since the Koran allows a Muslim to lie to an infidel if it promotes their goals, any proof not supporting my questions would be suspect at the least."
and
"as for seeing the Imam as being an honorable man, by what standards of honor are you using? the standards by which he adheres to, which is the standards of the Koran, or your own? myself, i'd guess that he abides the standards of his own.
so, if you consider him an honorable man then you are using his standards unless you can show that they are the standards you adhere to."
You wrote this stuff Griper.
I merely took you at your word.
Cheers
I'll make a comment of substance when the food fight slows down over here.
Cheers!
"For another, the American West wouldn't exist were it not for federal water and grazing policies, both of which are the corporate welfare state run amok"
K. I checked a place and found the rahchers paying for grazing, as opposed to any sort of payment from the government. What did I miss, or did I find an old link that is out of date?
-------------------
Back on topic: I heard Hannity ranting at the mosque today, and he compared the imam to Rev. Wright.
I never recall ever believing that Wright's church should have been shut down by the government, no matter how bad Wright's sermons.
Similarly, assuming the worst about the imam's speeches, I would never want the government to step in and ban his mosque.
Griper, you asserted that the imam was not an honerable man. I do not recall any sort of nullification of the First Amendment's freedom of religion because someone does not meet another's standard of honor.
If you don't like this mosque, you don't have to enter it. Problem solved.
Griper - “Shaw … i [sic] haven't declared where i [sic] stand yet (August 14, 2010 3:32 PM).
Griper - “it is up to you to find out if those implication [sic] was the intent of my questions … (August 15, 2010 3:02 PM).
Griper - “Shaw, your last comment to me only affirms the fallaciousness of your argument. Since a fallacious argument needs no rebuttal i [sic] will respectfully decline to rebut your last comment (August 14, 2010 8:47 PM).
Griper, don’t tell me you came here to have a polite conversation, when your real intention is to come here as a con artist and engage in propositional logic fallacies. This forum is not a shell game for your self-amusement. You have turned yourself into an narcissistic comment troll. Consider yourself banned.
Re federal grazing subsidies:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/index.html
The government originally required a grazing fee in 1934, as part of an overall land management program initiated in response to widespread overgrazing. Depending on the source, the current rate is anywhere from half to an eighth of the market rate, which is figured by a monthly cost per head of cattle.
dmarks, I don't intend the following as an insulting. You may not be old enough to recall that early in his presidency, Bill Clinton attempted to raise grazing fees on public land to something close to the market rate. His proposal was met with almost uniform opposition from western state politicians. The ones who shouted the loudest were the same ones who wanted the govt off their backs etc and who were all too happy to criticize subsidies in other states.
But the real welfare queen in the west is water. The book is a few year's old, but Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert still provides the seminal history of western water policy.
K: I do not count selling something to cheaply as a "gift". I've heard about this controversy over the years.
For another interesting discussion of water, government and 'free enterprise' have a look at 'King of California: JG Boswell and the Making of a Secret American Empire' by Mark Arax and Rick Wartzman. Fascinating.
'Rugged individualists' and 'entrepreneurs' have always had their hand out for government assistance.
It's how the west was really 'won'.
Post a Comment