Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
And therefor should not have first amendment rights.
And therefor should not have first amendment rights.
But all this has what, exactly, to do with the Park51 project he and a host of other partners and developers are involved with? Seriously, after all the "he's a Wahhabist-loving extremist" crap didn't pan out, this is the straw that opponents of the project are now grasping at?
It seems some people in this thread think a defense of Rauf's right to build this community center on the proposed site is somehow a defense of him or his beliefs, and that if they succeed in tearing down one or both it will undermine that defense.
A rather myopic thought process, I would say.
That's why I don't bother to investigate Rauf's beliefs or defend him in threads on this issue. I don't want there to be any question that my opposition to the opposition to this project is somehow tied to the moderation or acceptableness of these particular Moslems. It's simply irrelevant to the question of this building in any neighborhood.
Can I play, too?
Only Left Wing Athiests and Dirty Muslims support the Mosque...
http://www.salon.com/news/ground_ze...r_room/2010/08/31/orrin_hatch_supports_park51
To be perfectly clear, Keller should be permitted to build anything he wants as long as it's legal.
But the only logic by which Keller's project would not be horrifying to those who oppose Park51 is if they believe all Muslims, including the progressive Muslim Americans behind Park51, should be treated as suspicious or even in the same category as the Sept. 11 terrorists. If mosque opponents' concerns are truly about sensitivity to the neighborhood around ground zero -- and not about Muslims -- we'll hear them denounce Keller loudly in the coming days.
Does Rauf or his property manager run the operation day-to-day?
Are the tennants polite and quiet or do they knock out the walls?
Have you ever owned a rental property and hired a manger to do maints and collect rent?
I'm trying to find the part in the Constitution that says if you're a bad landlord you lose your First Amendment rights, but no luck.
Cicero, can you help me?
Only when partisan rabble-rousers engage in ad hominem attacks against brown people they don't like.
Where is this happening?