Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[Corsair 115]

they have oil, thats different, and he is not the king of SA.

In 2009, the United States imported nearly twice as much crude oil from Canada as it did Saudi Arabia (709,106,000 barrels versus 357,874,000 barrels, 1.98 times greater). Indeed, the U.S. imported more crude oil from Mexico than it did Saudi Arabia.

Canada accounted for 21.6% of all U.S. crude oil imports that year, by far the single largest supplier. Mexico was second, accounting for 11.8% of U.S. imports. Saudi Arabia was third at 10.9%.

 

[linusrichard]

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.
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.

Did you read City of Boerne? It involved zoning regulations that had nothing to do with the religious nature of the proposed renovation. It is a distortion (at best) to say the SCOTUS upheld the City's right to tell the Catholic Church they couldn't build there because they decided the site was not acceptable. Nobody's arguing that NYC couldn't prevent this mosque if, say, the site were zoned residential. Or (following City of Boerne) if the building were in a historic district.

The point is, unlike in City of Boerne, this project, as far as anyone can tell, complies with all applicable zoning restrictions and regulations. The people who want to prevent it want to do so solely because Muslims in general hurt their fee-fees. These people need to grow up, and read the First Amendment.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

I'm sure you're aware that the issue here is that the First Amendment tells us that no government entity can forbid the construction of a religious building that is compliant with local zoning laws and regulations because of what religion it is.

The issue of the mosque and community center in lower Manhattan is not a question of complying with zoning regulations. Please stop pretending that is an issue here.

Even if the city attempted to pass a new zoning ordinance that would exclude just this project, as I've pointed out already (for examples, a law against building a religious structure that lacks a crucifix or one that bears an Islamic symbol--or one that specifies any structure on that property, or any other ordinance that otherwise singles out this project), such an ad hoc law would be in violation of the First Amendment.

NB: there are already a great many churches (mostly Christian) already in lower Manhattan.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The point is, unlike in City of Boerne, this project, as far as anyone can tell, complies with all applicable zoning restrictions and regulations. The people who want to prevent it want to do so solely because Muslims in general hurt their fee-fees.

Or because these people are hot to portray the "war on terror" as a holy war or crusade against Islam.

I can't believe these people are claiming that a mosque and Islamic community center in Manhattan would do anything to prevent healing. These people share religious intolerance and the yearning for theocracy with the people who committed the 9/11 attacks.

These people need to grow up, and read the First Amendment.

Amen!

I still don't understand why reasonable people even consider anything about this project to be "controversial".

 

[Foolmewunz]

Did you read City of Boerne? It involved zoning regulations that had nothing to do with the religious nature of the proposed renovation. It is a distortion (at best) to say the SCOTUS upheld the City's right to tell the Catholic Church they couldn't build there because they decided the site was not acceptable. Nobody's arguing that NYC couldn't prevent this mosque if, say, the site were zoned residential. Or (following City of Boerne) if the building were in a historic district.

The point is, unlike in City of Boerne, this project, as far as anyone can tell, complies with all applicable zoning restrictions and regulations. The people who want to prevent it want to do so solely because Muslims in general hurt their fee-fees. These people need to grow up, and read the First Amendment.

Correct. City of Boerne v. has nothing to do with this case. The Archbishop wanted to expand his church, which I believe was a landmark building, but more importantly was in a designated historical district where expansion and new building ws controlled. On its surface, the case was a 14th Amendment case. And while 14.5 is designed to allow the federal government to stop local governments from infringing on the rights in any of the preceding amendments (and thus, indirectly making it a First Amendment case), the court had nothing to say about the Archbishop's faith or Catholicism.

The actual result was a traditional Supreme Court ruling, striking down Congressional meddling.

Congrats to Wikipedia - they get some right, after all. The people who do their legal editing are fairly good, I find. This synopsis is excellent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I support the rights of Muslimes to build a Mosque at the location, but,frankly I do have my doubts about the wisdom of it, and whether it's the best way to acheive it goals,same as Obama.

Which goals are those? If the goal is to have a mosque and community center in that neighborhood, I can think of no wiser way to attain that goal than building a mosque and community center in that neighborhood.

 

[Thunder]

I am quite confident, that if the Cordoba Initiative offered to move the mosque to a site 3 blocks north, it wouldn't make a damn difference.

No Mosque!!

Not here..not now...not ever!!

that is their creed.

 

[Neally]

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.

Why do you keep repeating this? I already acknowledged that SCOTUS acted against the wishes of the Catholic church. You're the only one talking about limiting the 1st amendment to Christians.

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- Prohibiting the mosque being built in a certain location does not constitute a law estabilishing a religion.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" in City of Boerne v. Flores, Flores claimed his ability to act on his beliefs was substantially burdened by the denial of the proposed addition. The court didn't buy it. The facts of course are different in the mosque issue, but again hardly clear cut.

Did you read City of Boerne? It involved zoning regulations that had nothing to do with the religious nature of the proposed renovation. It is a distortion (at best) to say the SCOTUS upheld the City's right to tell the Catholic Church they couldn't build there because they decided the site was not acceptable. Nobody's arguing that NYC couldn't prevent this mosque if, say, the site were zoned residential. Or (following City of Boerne) if the building were in a historic district.

The point is, unlike in City of Boerne, this project, as far as anyone can tell, complies with all applicable zoning restrictions and regulations. The people who want to prevent it want to do so solely because Muslims in general hurt their fee-fees. These people need to grow up, and read the First Amendment.

I've read the summary and quoted the relevant lines from the 1st Amend.

I'm sure you're aware that the issue here is that the First Amendment tells us that no government entity can forbid the construction of a religious building that is compliant with local zoning laws and regulations because of what religion it is.

Funny that Obama didn't bother to mention that in his two comments whereas he was all over the AZ immigration law when he suspected it of having constitutional issues...

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Funny that Obama didn't bother to mention that in his two comments whereas he was all over the AZ immigration law when he suspected it of having constitutional issues...

P1. Obama did not mention the First Amendment when he discussed the Mosque at GZ
P2. Obama did mention the constitution multiple times over the Arizona Immigration law
P3. (unstated) Only cases where the Constitution is cited are cases where it applies
C. The Mosque at ground Zero is not a Constitutional issue

Inductive; uncogent; false premises; false conclusion.

 

[leftysergeant]

..."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" in City of Boerne v. Flores, Flores claimed his ability to act on his beliefs was substantially burdened by the denial of the proposed addition. The court didn't buy it. The facts of course are different in the mosque issue, but again hardly clear cut.

Absolutely clear-cut difference. The church violated zoning and building codes. The mosque doesn't. The only arguments raised are those of the shrieking morons who want there to be no mosque nearby. And, as I have pointed out, many of those idiots base their objections on disinformation handed to them by domestic enemies of the First Ammendment as it regards non-Christians.

Funny that Obama didn't bother to mention that in his two comments whereas he was all over the AZ immigration law when he suspected it of having constitutional issues...

To an intelligent person, it goes without saying.

 

[quixotecoyote]

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 wrote several letters complaining to local papers that while they shouldn't censor the opinion letters sent to them on the basis of what opinions they promote, they should refrain from publishing the ones that promote easily verifiable incorrect facts. They had no impact on behavior but a couple did get published.

 

[Ausmerican]

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.

Because Joe, as you know, a nonmosque at nonground zero is a nonstory. But if you remove the nons from that sentence it has legs that never quit.

 

[eeyore1954]

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.

Why?

 

[Kopji]

I liked Obama's speech, very presidential sounding. I can't remember the last time I did not think 'republican' or 'democrat', only 'president'. Refreshing.

I tend to agree more with the Sufi leaders position that Muslims are not really supposed to proselytize, the site lends itself to that, even with a message of tolerance. But I thought Obama was great, even though it would be nicer if the Muslims were not putting him in the position to need to defend their rights.

I'm willing to grant politicians that their first statement is the real thing, and later statements are often not from the heart.

Likewise, from Gingrich:

Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway, but this seems a rather easy position to take that will get him votes. I'm really tired of this.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Why?

Why what?
Why would it be an entanglement of church and state?
Because the Port Authority is a government entity, and by most standards, while I won't pretend to speak for JtJ, we don't think the government should be letting space to religious groups or religions, unless they can find a way to do it with such equanimity that all beliefs or lack-of-beliefs are treated equally. And since that latter part is as close to impossible as you can get, it's better that governments just stay out of the religion business altogether.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you keep repeating this? I already acknowledged that SCOTUS acted against the wishes of the Catholic church.

That case wasn't about Catholicism or limitting Catholicism for the sake of stopping the Church. The opposition to the Mosque in lower Manhattan IS about stopping a specific faith from building just because it's Islamic. Try again.

 

[Juniversal]

Likewise, from Gingrich:


I wasn't going to vote for him anyway, but this seems a rather easy position to take that will get him votes. I'm really tired of this.

Newt and his gang seem to be conflating radical Islam with Islam in general. Considering the number of Muslims in the U.S. it's clear your average Muslim is perfectly peacful. His opposition to the mosque wouldn't sound AS rediculous if your average American Muslim supported the Taliban or if many completely innocent Muslims hadn't died on 9/11. But that's not the case.

To compare average Islamic practitioners to Nazi's because of the fudamentalist trash that crashed those planes into the towers is laughably offensive.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Newt and his gang seem to be conflating radical Islam with Islam in general. Considering the number of Muslims in the U.S. it's clear your average Muslim is perfectly peacful. His opposition to the mosque wouldn't sound AS rediculous if your average American Muslim supported the Taliban or if many completely innocent Muslims hadn't died on 9/11. But that's not the case.

To compare average Islamic practitioners to Nazi's because of the fudamentalist trash that crashed those planes into the towers is laughably offensive.

Yeah, as I said above.... It's nice of Newt to join in on the irrational and jaundiced side of the debate. Saves me the trouble of looking up intellectual reasons to hate him, I can just go with my gut reaction which is that ignorance is not bliss in my political leaders. I want them to show that they can actually think.

I am not a Newt fan (yeah, I know, that surprises a lot of you ). Has he had this ignorant intolerant redneck streak in him all along and was just good at hiding it, or is this a shift because he's afraid the Tea Bag shock troops are going to raid his district?

 

[leftysergeant]

Has he had this ignorant intolerant redneck streak in him all along and was just good at hiding it, or is this a shift because he's afraid the Tea Bag shock troops are going to raid his district?

He was always a superstitious twit. You can ee it in the way he interprets American history and ecconomics. Racists and religious bigot are usually superstitious twits. We also know that he views women as disposable ornaments to his pride.

So, yeah, he has just been half-way effective at keeping his redneckiness covered up to this point. At his very core is a low-class bigot.

 

[The Painter]

I too oppose a Mosque in Ground Zero.

But I have no problem with one 2.5 blocks away.

Why? Why would you oppose a mosque in Ground Zero? 2.5 blocks is OK, but at the site isn't? Why? I have no problem with a mosque 10 blocks out. According to you, I'm a bigot and you're not. Why, because we differ by 7.5 blocks? This statement now makes you a bigot;

I too oppose a Mosque

You are now what you hate.