ground zero mosque

[fixed_truth]

The protests against this really GMG.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/76...irst-amendment

The argument...that it is insensitive to build a mega-mosque next to the spot where 2,700 people were killed in Islam’s name. . . building the mosque at Ground Zero will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right

So fuck the First Amendment, let's pander to religious bigots.

[StN]

On one hand, there were Muslims that died in the attacks as well as God loving Christians, and they have the same rights as a white supremist faction setting up shop across the road from a Holocaust museum.

On the other, I understand it's an Islamic tradition to build mosques on the site of victorious battles (Temple on the Mount?) - which probably rubs some of the 'merkins the wrong way.

Freedom isn't free.

[Ab]

Look you fucking godless commies, the area around Ground Zero is fucking HALLOWED GROUND. It has been purified by the blood of patriots and heroes. That's why only the most noble and dignified organisations are allowed to operate near the site.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

I'd imagine any group of people having a problem with this anywhere on the globe.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Ab

Look you fucking godless commies, the area around Ground Zero is fucking HALLOWED GROUND. It has been purified by the blood of patriots and heroes. That's why only the most noble and dignified organisations are allowed to operate near the site.

*sniff* GOD BLESS AMERICA

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by StN

On one hand, there were Muslims that died in the attacks as well as God loving Christians, and they have the same rights as a white supremist faction setting up shop across the road from a Holocaust museum.

So you're equating Muslims with White Supremacists? Maybe a better analogy would be a German Beer Garden opposite a Holocaust museum

[fixed_truth]

It's just plain ignorance based fear.

It's simply inaccurate and unjust to stereotype over a billion mainstream Muslims because of a few Muslim fundamentalist terrorists.

People are sensitive yeah, but this "sensitivity" isn't a reason to undermine Freedom. Not to mention the Islamic center is two blocks away.

Fuck america.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Ab

Look you fucking godless commies, the area around Ground Zero is fucking HALLOWED GROUND. It has been purified by the blood of patriots and heroes. That's why only the most noble and dignified organisations are allowed to operate near the site.

To be fair, McDs IS a 'Merkin religion -it's more prevalent than Christianity and it's variants

[StN]

Originally Posted by Saladin

So you're equating Muslims with White Supremacists? Maybe a better analogy would be a German Beer Garden opposite a Holocaust museum

Good point - I've probably been listening to too much Pat Condell!

[Deadmeat]

Not exactly 'next to' either

[Deadmeat]

The site i nicked that image from has some pretty good examples of the kind of batshit bigoted views that make some of our wing nuts look positively liberal.

http://thefuturespeaks.com/2010/08/1...-victory-flag/

Originally Posted by StN

On the other, I understand it's an Islamic tradition to build mosques on the site of victorious battles (Temple on the Mount?) - which probably rubs some of the 'merkins the wrong way.

Just going on what wikipedia says:

Among Muslims, the Mount is widely considered to be the third holiest site in Islam. Revered as the Noble Sanctuary and the location where Muhammad's journey to Jerusalem and ascent to heaven, the site is also associated with Jewish biblical prophets who are also venerated in Islam. After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 637 CE, Umayyad Caliphs commissioned the construction of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock on the site.

It sounds like they built a temple on their holy site after conquering the city that contained it, not because they conquered the city. My guess is that this is like that mythical passage in the Koran that commands all muslim believers to holy war.

On a similar topic, don't christians have a pretty solid history of building their temples on the sites of other religion's, pagan especially, holy sites?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So fuck the First Amendment, let's pander to religious bigots.

In an ironic way, you've proven that idiot right. IT ISN'T ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT because even most of the right wing Christian nutjobs who oppose this Islamic Centre (For the love of God/Jesus/Allah/whomever the fuck, stop calling it a mosque -- it isn't a mosque) accept that no government official or anybody connected with the government can force the backers of this centre to build elsewhere or not to build. For goodness sake, Fixed_truth, if you don't understand how something works, stop bandying terms about. The First Amendment in the US Constitution protects the free exercising of religion from governmental interference -- it doesn't protect a group's exercising of its religious freedoms from cheap thoughts, jibes and lame opposition by idiots.

Where these right-wing nutters are wrong is that they have attempted to create a political "right" not to be offended. There is no such right. It is particularly hypocritical for these same nutjobs, who usually oppose things like gay marriage partly on the ground that allowing gays to marry somehow forces them to accept notions/doctrines that are anethema to them and violate their religious freedoms, to curtail others' religious freedom just to preserve their own feelings. On the other hand, just as I agree it's unfair to collectively punish all Muslims because a few idiots blew up many people, it's naive to think that everyone who opposes the building of this centre is some sort bigot or total moron.

There are simply a lot of people who don't think very hard about the fundamental character of liberalism and what it means to live in a liberal society. Seriously, EVEN if we assume that the backers of this centre are radical Islamists who hate America and BELIEVE in dhimmitude for non-believers, so what? If they don't ACT in ways that break the law, they can think whatever they want. Freedom also means the freedom to hate the very instutitonal bedrocks of society. Hating isn't a crime.

[Fx.]

let them build whatever wherever, who gives a fuck

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

In an ironic way, you've proven that idiot right. IT ISN'T ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT because even most of the right wing Christian nutjobs who oppose this Islamic Centre (For the love of God/Jesus/Allah/whomever the fuck, stop calling it a mosque -- it isn't a mosque) accept that no government official or anybody connected with the government can force the backers of this centre to build elsewhere or not to build.

I don’t buy that people aren’t opposing the Muslim groups right to build the center in lower Manhattan and that it’s fine if they move it elsewhere.

Building new mosques has become increasingly difficult since 2001. Over the past three years, at least 18 mosque projects — from Mississippi to Wisconsin — have run into fierce opposition. More than 400 people flocked to a recent public meeting on Staten Island to protest the sale of an empty convent to a Muslim group there. Hundreds of opponents packed a Rutherford County Commission meeting in mid-June to protest the Murfreesboro mosque. Similar resistance helped derail a proposed mosque in Brentwood earlier this year when mosque organizers withdrew their request.

When does legitimate persuasion under The First Amendment by one party become an infringement upon the other groups First Amendment Right?

Originally Posted by cyc

For goodness sake, Fixed_truth, if you don't understand how something works, stop bandying terms about. The First Amendment in the US Constitution protects the free exercising of religion from governmental interference -- it doesn't protect a group's exercising of its religious freedoms from cheap thoughts, jibes and lame opposition by idiots.

I haven’t said otherwise. Though I do think that it’s arguable that The First Amendment allows the bullying of a law abiding religious community into not building an Islamic center.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I haven’t said otherwise. Though I do think that it’s arguable that The First Amendment allows the bullying of a law abiding religious community into not building an Islamic center.

Being a cock as a private citizen honestly isn't proscribed by the law anywhere in the civilised world. People are allowed to protest and make stupid noises. The USSC has made clear, however, that government officials in exercising GOVERNMENTAL power cannot favour, promote or inhibit any religious adherent's exercise of his/her religious freedom. Seriously, going around arguing that a bunch of cocks protesting against an Islamic centre is somehow violating people's First Amendment rights is just feeding ammo to the very same idiots you say you dislike.

[Lightspeed]

There's a difference between being a cock and trying to compel local authorities to deny a group of people their rights.

[cyc]

Lightspeed, do you understand what the word "compel" means? So long as these lame ass protestors/agitators are just ADVOCATING a position, however ignorant or disreputable that position might be, they are exercising their freedom of speech. People who advocate that their right to be dickheads should be curtailed by unconstitutional or unlawful means are as much a problem as they are.

And, let's face it, if being totally idiotic and unhinged alone is ground for being compelled to stop, I'd hate to think what that might mean for you in light of your inability to form logical arguments.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

Lightspeed, do you understand what the word "compel" means?

I understand its usage in many contexts, including the one I used it in (i.e. not as a legal concept.)

[DrTiTus]

Lightspeed in an argument regarding the definition of a word he used - DRINK!

[Lightspeed]

Pfft, such arguments are not unique to me. I'm just better at them.

[StN]

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Being a cock as a private citizen honestly isn't proscribed by the law anywhere in the civilised world. People are allowed to protest and make stupid noises. The USSC has made clear, however, that government officials in exercising GOVERNMENTAL power cannot favour, promote or inhibit any religious adherent's exercise of his/her religious freedom. Seriously, going around arguing that a bunch of cocks protesting against an Islamic centre is somehow violating people's First Amendment rights is just feeding ammo to the very same idiots you say you dislike.

Yes I get that the govt. can't deny an Islamic center on religious grounds (but to avoid traffic jams will work). What I'm saying is that these protesters bullying, although legal, is often having the outcome of Muslims feeling that they are not able to exercise their Constitutional rights. Of course here it can turned back on the Muslim group that they aren't legally obligated to back down, though can you blame them for doing so amongst such hate towards them?

[Cyberbob]

Seperation of church and state is more of a guideline than a rule anyway.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yes I get that the govt. can't deny an Islamic center on religious grounds (but to avoid traffic jams will work). What I'm saying is that these protesters bullying, although legal, is often having the outcome of Muslims feeling that they are not able to exercise their Constitutional rights. Of course here it can turned back on the Muslim group that they aren't legally obligated to back down, though can you blame them for doing so amongst such hate towards them?

People direct hate at all sorts of things/people. Sometimes people back down; sometimes they don't. That sort of issue is not a concern to me so long as the haters don't break the law and the "hated" have sufficient redress and their fundamental rights guaranteed. You are as free to denounce the stupid haters and they are to hate. You can't stop people being cocks in a free society. Either you accept a liberal democracy with all the good and bad that follows its fundamental characteristics or you don't.

[fixed_truth]

All free speech isn't interpreted equally among different liberal democracies. The USA has its bar pretty high. The Netherlands and Canada for example are quite comfortable with the regulation of some speech. If I think someones hating is oppressing another then it is a concern to me regardless of whether a countries subjective law allows it.