Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[Thunder]

There is a great article in the NY Daily News today, showing all the porn shops & betting places within 3 blocks of GZ.

We got the Thunder Lingerie shop on Greenwhich St.

We got NY Dolls on Park Place.

We got Off-Track Betting near Park Place.

And we got the Pussycat Lounge by "Rector" St.

Hallowed ground? My butt.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ifso-facto????? That's a good one.

He was spoofing irrational thinking that makes Neally's analogy "work".

Oh yeah, So again, why not in Ground Zero?

Why again?

No one is proposing building in Ground Zero. If it were a project proposed for government-owned land, then there would be no problem denying the project. And if that were the case, I myself would be vocal in my objections to such a project (which would indeed raise church/state entanglement issues).

But that's not what's going on. In fact, we don't live in a universe where any level of government in the U.S. is seeking to help establish Islam. Most of these kinds of entanglement issues arise when the majority religion (some form or another of Christianity, usually) is being promoted by local or state governments.

What we have is a situation where some nutjobs think there should be a no-First-Amendment zone surrounding some undefined area near Ground Zero.

Parky mentioned something similar recently, but I'm very curious as to how far they think that zone should extend. Would it matter if the site were another 100 feet farther away? Another mile? What other places do they think should become zones where the First Amendment is suspended? How about in and around the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? All of Waco, TX (as has been pointed out, we'd need to tear down subsequent Branch Davidian buildings)?

How about no Catholic churches (since that's the dominant religion of Mexicans) near the Alamo? Yes, the irony gets that absurd if you try to treat objections to a mosque in lower Manhattan as if it were a logically consistent position!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of absurd ironies, NY Republican Representative Peter King said (of Obama's original remarks):

President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero. Unfortunately, the President caved into political correctness.

How does a large hole in the ground cast a shadow to a site a couple of blocks away (or at all)?

Yes I know--it's just a misuse of figurative language. But it shows the absurdity of this position, and the disdain for logical thinking of those who hold that position.

ETA: I agree that Obama caved into popular sentiment for political reasons, but he did it when he made his second statement (from Florida) where he questioned the wisdom of building a mosque in lower Manhattan.

 

[Thunder]

Great. Now Hamas supports the GZ Mosque.

lol

http://www.haaretz.com/news/interna...s-must-build-mosque-near-ground-zero-1.308387

 

[Kegeshook]

Interesting point. KKK lynchings killed far more Americans than the 9/11 attack.

How have you determined that? The KKK was nasty, to be sure. However, there seems to be about 3500 recorded lynchings of Blacks, and I'm not so sure that all of those can be attributed to the KKK.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Great. Now Hamas supports the GZ Mosque.

A consequence of creating this bogus "controversy".

We should all of us--of no matter what religion or lack of religion, no matter what political party (or none), no matter where on the political spectrum--assert the First Amendment right to freedom of religion for everyone.

There should be no controversy about building a mosque with private funds on private land anywhere in the U.S. in accordance with local laws, ordinances and building codes.

Any other position is fundamentally un-American (that is, it runs contrary to some of the most fundamental principles on which our nation is founded).

 

[Scootch]

what are you trying to accomplish with this line of questions?

cut to the chase and tell us what you REALLY want to say.

I think what he is trying to say is the difference between a bigot and an open minded person is 2.5 blocks

 

[Thunder]

We should all of us--of no matter what religion or lack of religion, no matter what political party (or none), no matter where on the political spectrum--assert the First Amendment right to freedom of religion for everyone.

There should be no controversy about building a mosque with private funds on private land anywhere in the U.S. in accordance with local laws, ordinances and building codes.

Any other position is fundamentally un-American (that is, it runs contrary to some of the most fundamental principles on which our nation is founded).

one cannot oppose this Mosque and consider oneself a supporter of Libertarianism or the Bill of Rights.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How have you determined that? The KKK was nasty, to be sure. However, there seems to be about 3500 recorded lynchings of Blacks, and I'm not so sure that all of those can be attributed to the KKK.

I think it's a safe assumption that every one of those lynchings involved KKK members. At its height, the KKK's influence was pretty widespread. (In the 1920s, the KKK claimed over 4 million members.)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find one lynching that you could rule out any KKK involvement, and I would not believe the assertion that more than 500 of these lynchings had no KKK members involved.

It's also safe to assume that anyone involved in lynching a black person at the very least shared a great deal of ideology with the Klan. Remember, Al Qaeda is a very loose organization, where cells are often only identified as being "Al Qaeda" based on ideology and behavior rather than any real organization connection. So a crime inspired by the popularity of the Klan by people at the very least sympathetic to the Klan who share their extremist views can as well be said to be a crime committed by the Klan. (And again, I would not believe the assertion that over 500 of these lynchings were not actually done by KKK members.)

In fact, the actions of the Klan and similar groups would, in today's language, be called an "insurgency", and the insurgents would be said to be conducting terrorism or guerilla warfare.

ETA: However, I think it's irrelevant whether or not the number of one act of terrorist murder is greater than another set of terrorist murders. Neither of them justifies creating a zone where the First Amendment is suspended.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think what he is trying to say is the difference between a bigot and an open minded person is 2.5 blocks

But of course the difference is way more than simply 2.5 blocks' distance. The difference is about who owns the land. Opponents of the mosque/community center project keep trying to blur that incredibly important distinction.

Many of them continue to assert the idea that there is a proposal to build a mosque at Ground Zero, which is simply a false statement of fact.

ETA: And my own opinions on both scenarios (a mosque actually on government owned property at Ground Zero, and a mosque built on private property a couple blocks away) are based on the First Amendment. If he's suggesting my opinions on these two scenarios are inconsistent, he is wrong. That is, if he's suggesting that the *only* difference in these two scenarios is distance, he's wrong.

 

[Thunder]

Many of them continue to assert the idea that there is a proposal to build a mosque at Ground Zero, which is simply a false statement of fact.

and they assert this LIE on purpose....cause most Americans would obviously be opposed to a Mosque AT Ground Zero.

bigots and liars, that's all they are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

and they assert this LIE on purpose....cause most Americans would obviously be opposed to a Mosque AT Ground Zero.

Including the vast majority of American Muslims.

Separation/entanglement/establishment issues are not completely divorced from free-exercise issues. Many of the people on the board of directors of Americans United for Separation of Church and State are religious people (even members of the general category of the majority religion in the U.S., Christianity), and they recognize this fact.

 

[marksman]

I agree with your assessment of his first statement on the issue, but I think the problem is that he waffled on it in a huge way with his subsequent statement from Florida where he pointed out that while he still believed they have the right to build the mosque, he called into question the wisdom of building a mosque in lower Manhattan.

I agree. I was elated at his first statement, but his second statement from Florida put him in the same bin as the Anti-Defamation League and others, who acknowledge the right of the center to be built, but ask them to be sensitive to the feelings of those who oppose it.

That disappointed me.

 

[hgc]

I agree. I was elated at his first statement, but his second statement from Florida put him in the same bin as the Anti-Defamation League and others, who acknowledge the right of the center to be built, but ask them to be sensitive to the feelings of those who oppose it.

That disappointed me.

I don't interpret his follow-up like that. Maybe I missed something, but all I got was that he's not going to comment on it. I don't see how that goes to what the ADL did, which was to explicitly oppose the mosque at that location.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't interpret his follow-up like that. Maybe I missed something, but all I got was that he's not going to comment on it. I don't see how that goes to what the ADL did, which was to explicitly oppose the mosque at that location.

The difference is negligible, IMO. What Obama did is a rhetorical device called apophasis--or perhaps more accurately paralipsis. He said he would not comment on the wisdom of the project, but by saying that, he was in fact commenting on (or at least raising doubts about) the wisdom of it. Granted, it was in waffling terms rather explicitly, but given his position, I think that's a neglible difference.

I remember in third year Latin class noting examples of Cicero using this technique in the Cataline orations. (Something like, "I won't even mention what this guy does with goats. . . .")

 

[Kestrel]

There is a great article in the NY Daily News today, showing all the porn shops & betting places within 3 blocks of GZ.

We got the Thunder Lingerie shop on Greenwhich St.

We got NY Dolls on Park Place.

We got Off-Track Betting near Park Place.

And we got the Pussycat Lounge by "Rector" St.

Hallowed ground? My butt.

Photos of some of the hallowed ground near the WTC site.

 

[hgc]

The difference is negligible, IMO. What Obama did is a rhetorical device called apophasis--or perhaps more accurately paralipsis. He said he would not comment on the wisdom of the project, but by saying that, he was in fact commenting on (or at least raising doubts about) the wisdom of it. Granted, it was in waffling terms rather explicitly, but given his position, I think that's a neglible difference.

I remember in third year Latin class noting examples of Cicero using this technique in the Cataline orations. (Something like, "I won't even mention what this guy does with goats. . . .")

I understand the apophasis concept, but I don't see it applying here. The question of the "wisdom" of building the mosque can be answered with yes, no, maybe or irrelevant (my position). The Cicero example is instructive. That goats enter the equation in any way is truly revelatory. The fact that there is some possible position about the "wisdom" of the mosque location is not revelatory.

 

[Brainster]

There is a great article in the NY Daily News today, showing all the porn shops & betting places within 3 blocks of GZ.

We got the Thunder Lingerie shop on Greenwhich St.

We got NY Dolls on Park Place.

We got Off-Track Betting near Park Place.

And we got the Pussycat Lounge by "Rector" St.

Hallowed ground? My butt.

Even by the standards of the NY Daily News, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody wearing lingerie attacked the WTC on 9-11. No dolls were involved in the hijackings of four jet planes that morning. Nobody placed wagers on the ponies and then slit the throats of flight attendants to get into the cockpits.

 

[Thunder]

Nobody wearing lingerie attacked the WTC on 9-11. No dolls were involved in the hijackings of four jet planes that morning. Nobody placed wagers on the ponies and then slit the throats of flight attendants to get into the cockpits.

and no Muslims who attend moderate Mosques where women show their hair, attacked the USA on 9-11.

bottom of the barrel huh? its the bigots and extremists who are against this Mosque, who are scraping the bottom, scavenging for any reason they can short of proclaiming Fascism, to denounce the Mosque.

 

[Thunder]

Photos of some of the hallowed ground near the WTC site.

many parts of that neighborhood are indeed quite scuzzy.