Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[JoeTheJuggler]

Our local paper has an online article about the Islamic Center. The comments section is full of misinformed posts opposing the construction of a mosque at ground zero. They are responding to the lies they heard on right wing talk radio instead of the facts in the newspaper article.

I find this exasperating.

(But then again, I also kept trying to disabuse proponents of the Arizona immigration law of their false idea that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws.)

I'm not sure why the media doesn't take pains to correct these claims every time they're made. I just heard one of the panelists repeat the "mosque at Ground Zero" thing on Face the Nation this morning, and no one corrected him.

Obviously it would be wrong for a mosque to be built on land that is at least partly owned by the Port Authority! I would be among the first to voice my objection to such an entanglement of church and state. But that's not the case.

 

[MG1962]

In my opinion, Obama's greatest flaw is that he never knows when an issue just isn't any of his business.

Well what is he supposed to do - there are a number of congressmen ranting about this - All he did was get up and say the constitution says this mosque is legal (dependent on local zoning laws) I am the president and my job description says I defend the constitution.

It is a beautiful statement about America and its society to see this Mosque built. It signals to Muslims around the world, we dont blame you, we blame the misguided individuals who used your religion as an excuse.

 

[leftysergeant]

In my opinion, Obama's greatest flaw is that he never knows when an issue just isn't any of his business.

This one is his business. He needs to make it clear to the rightwhacker radio sludge-spewers that they are not going to get away with lying about what is going on, and he needs to make it clear to the idiots who think that there is a reason not to allow the mosque to be there that they are crapping on one of the things that makes America worth defending.

He needs to stand up to these morons now, before they do something stupid that gets people killed.

 

[bynmdsue]

disregard

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This one is his business. He needs to make it clear to the rightwhacker radio sludge-spewers that they are not going to get away with lying about what is going on, and he needs to make it clear to the idiots who think that there is a reason not to allow the mosque to be there that they are crapping on one of the things that makes America worth defending.

He needs to stand up to these morons now, before they do something stupid that gets people killed.

I agree.

Remember, this is the president who openly chided the SCOTUS for making a really bad decision on corporate personhood wrt campaigns during a State of the Union address. He should have the guts to use the bully pulpit to stand up for the First Amendment in a clear and consistent manner.

ETA: He should also be consistent with his message that the U.S. in not at war with Islam.

 

[Thunder]

Seriously, no. The 1st amendment does not grant the unconditional right of anyone to construct any building anywhere they want, regardless of whether it is religious related or not.

The 1st Amendment does FORBID government from stepping in the way once property has been purchased and existing common sense zoning laws are adheared to.

so you are wrong.

Government has NO RIGHT, under our Constitution, to pick and choose with religious buildings can or cannot be built. This would be the easiest SCOTUS case ever.

 

[Thunder]

There is also a greater concern here. If government gives in to the demands of the dregs of society on this one, what other liberties will be sacrificed by other worshippers of other faiths down the road? The possible outcomes are unacceptable for a host of reasons.

it would be very very dangerous for our democracy and our liberties, if the state, city, or feds even considered stepping in and preventing this Mosque from being built.

if that happened, the cries of "Fascism in the USA" would no longer be simply CT talk and fear mongering. It would be legit.

 

[Neally]

The 1st Amendment does FORBID government from stepping in the way once property has been purchased and existing common sense zoning laws are adheared to.

so you are wrong.

Government has NO RIGHT, under our Constitution, to pick and choose with religious buildings can or cannot be built. This would be the easiest SCOTUS case ever.

Well all the uproar is pointless on both sides then, right? Why bother discussing if it is so clearly unconstitutional? The only comment Obama needed to make was that if zoning permits it, refusing to do so is unconstitutional. End of discussion.

Note: SCOTUS ruled in favor of City of Boerne v. Flores when the city denied the Catholic church request to expand their building and Flores claimed his ability to act on his beliefs was substantially burdened by the denial of the proposed addition.

 

[Thunder]

Well all the uproar is pointless on both sides then, right? Why bother discussing if it is so clearly unconstitutional? The only comment Obama needed to make was that if zoning permits it, refusing to do so is unconstitutional. End of discussion.

please show us when SCOTUS ever ruled that a government has the right to prevent a house of worship from being built, because it may "offend" someone.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Seriously, no. The 1st amendment does not grant the unconditional right of anyone to construct any building anywhere they want, regardless of whether it is religious related or not.

It would be a violation of the 1st ammendment to stop the building based on religious discrimination. That's exactly what Fox News and friends are trying to do.

 

[Thunder]

I would love it..if Fox News or some big time Republi-waco openly called for the City, State, or Federal govt. to intervene and prevent the mosque from being built.

Then any claim from them to be Constitutionalists or Libertarians could be thrown right out the door...for they would be supporting one of the main tenants of Fascism. Government discrimination against religious/ethnic minorities.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

Then any claim from them to be Constitutionalists or Libertarians could be thrown right out the door

HA! As if that claim ever had any basis in fact. Their support for S.B. 1070 in Arizona is enough to make it laughable; to say nothing of their cheerleading of Bush-era abuses.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Thunder, they contradict themselves constantly. They will always do so, and they won't even understand that it's a contradiction.

 

[Thunder]

Thunder, they contradict themselves constantly. They will always do so, and they won't even understand that it's a contradiction.

well you know, as Peter Griffin said: "9-11 changed EVERYTHING!!"

..including our commitment to religous freedom and tolerance and the seperation of Church & State...I guess.

 

[Neally]

please show us when SCOTUS ever ruled that a government has the right to prevent a house of worship from being built, because it may "offend" someone.

The closest thing might be when SCOTUS ruled in favor of City of Boerne v. Flores when the city denied the Catholic church request to expand their building and Flores claimed his ability to act on his beliefs was substantially burdened by the denial of the proposed addition.

Now show me where SCOTUS ruled that a city cannot restrict the construction of a religious building at a location that they decide is not acceptable.

I would love it..if Fox News or some big time Republi-waco openly called for the City, State, or Federal govt. to intervene and prevent the mosque from being built.

Plenty have already called for the city to intervene.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Neally, do you not understand the 1st ammendment? It's not there just to protect Christianity.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

The closest thing might be when SCOTUS ruled in favor of City of Boerne v. Flores when the city denied the Catholic church request to expand their building and Flores claimed his ability to act on his beliefs was substantially burdened by the denial of the proposed addition.

Zoning issue. Not analogous.

 

[Thunder]

a munipality can require a house of worship abide by zoning restrictions, such as requesting a minerat or steeple not go above a certain height.

however, outright banning a house of worship? no freaking way. such is the realm of Mussolini and Hitler.

 

[Neally]

Neally, do you not understand the 1st ammendment? It's not there just to protect Christianity.

Don't you think I would understand that if I cited City of Boerne v. Flores which involved a Catholic church. You do understand that Catholics are Christians, right? SCOTUS ruled against the Catholic church.

a munipality can require a house of worship abide by zoning restrictions, such as requesting a minerat or steeple not go above a certain height.

however, outright banning a house of worship? no freaking way. such is the realm of Mussolini and Hitler.

So show me where SCOTUS ruled that a city cannot restrict the construction of a religious building at a location that they decide is not acceptable.

Zoning issue. Not analogous.

Obviously there will be no analogy to 9/11. The point is that the claim that prohibiting the construction is not "clearly unconstitutional". Obama jumped on the AZ immigration law when he thought it might be struck down in court. Now he has made two comments regarding the mosque debate and he has never mentioned constitutional issues. Don't you think if it was "clearly unconstitutional" that he would have mentioned it by now?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If the government tried to stop this Mosque from being built, it would be a violation of the 1st ammendment. They would clearly be doing it to discriminate against a specific religion. The 1st ammendment is not just to protect Christians, Neally.