Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[KoihimeNakamura]

Maybe because Ground Zero is government controlled land?

 

[The Painter]

What government? And what branch? Port Authority?

 

[leftysergeant]

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?

What part of separation of church and state do you find so offensive? There is no way that we could justify even the construction of a non-denominational Christian chapel there.

By contrast, it is none of our damned business what a landowner does 2 1/2 blocks away on private land.

Have you a RATIONAL reason why a mosque, in conformity with zoning and building codes should be prohibited? Do you also wish to prohibit any churches from operating there?

 

[UTLonghorn]

What government? And what branch? Port Authority?

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Port Authority; controlled by the states of New York and New Jersey (executive)

The Port Authority is jointly headed by the governors of New York and New Jersey. Each governor, with the approval of his or her state senate, appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, who serve overlapping six-year terms without pay.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey^WP

 

[hgc]

What government? And what branch? Port Authority?

The State of New York and the State of New Jersey. Those governments.

But it's irrelevant. The mosque site is not on the WTC site, and is on private property.

 

[The Painter]

What part of separation of church and state do you find so offensive? There is no way that we could justify even the construction of a non-denominational Christian chapel there

The are religous site on government property now. Oh look here's one;

Pentagon opens 9-11 Memorial Chapel

the chapel is located in the newly rebuilt wedge of the Pentagon, in the exact spot that radical Islamic terrorists crashed a commercial plane filled with passengers.

"This is the first large chapel at the Pentagon," Benson said. " It is the first time we've had a place large enough to conduct services, which will include Jewish, Christian and Islamic."

http://www.militaryinfo.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=75

So again, why not in Ground Zero?

 

[leftysergeant]

The are religous site on government property now. Oh look here's one;

So? Does that make it a good idea? I frankly find the military policies concerning religious activities on military installations offensive and intrusive. I have incurred the anger of more than one pompous ass of an officer for walking out of a religious observance to which my entire unit had been marched, the most recent being an Easter service in Korea in 1987.

The relgious right is too bloody powerful now, and this is just going to make life easier for those wankers.

So again, why not Ground Zero?

Because you do not give over publicly owned property to a private organization in a rational society. This would be especially true if the property was to be used for a minority relgious group which could easily find other space, as is the case here.

The only exception I would make to that would be to allow an indigenous people to reclaim sacred ground unjustly stolen for development of a controversial project that might do other harm.

 

[The Painter]

So? Does that make it a good idea? I frankly find the military policies concerning religious activities on military installations offensive and intrusive. I have incurred the anger of more than one pompous ass of an officer for walking out of a religious observance to which my entire unit had been marched, the most recent being an Easter service in Korea in 1987.

The relgious right is too bloody powerful now, and this is just going to make life easier for those wankers.



Because you do not give over publicly owned property to a private organization in a rational society. This would be especially true if the property was to be used for a minority relgious group which could easily find other space, as is the case here.

The only exception I would make to that would be to allow an indigenous people to reclaim sacred ground unjustly stolen for development of a controversial project that might do other harm.

Guess we don't live in a rational society.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which once sat right across the street from the World Trade Center, was crushed under the weight of the collapse of Tower Two on September 11, 2001. St. Nicholas was the only church to be lost in the attacks, and nine years later, while City of New York officials are busy removing every impediment to the building of the Cordoba mosque two blocks from the site, St. Nicholas' future remains unclear.

The Port Authority agreed to give the church a parcel of land at Liberty and Greenwich Streets, and contribute $20 million toward construction of a new sanctuary. The Port Authority also agreed to build an explosion-proof platform and foundation for the new church building, which would sit on top of a screening area for cars and trucks entering the underground garages at the new World Trade Center.

So lefty, not only did they give "publicly owned" land, they gave them 20 mill for construction.

So again, why not in Ground zero?

 

[leftysergeant]

Guess we don't live in a rational society.

That is because you have a comprehension problem.

So lefty, not only did they give "publicly owned" land, they gave them 20 mill for construction.

Their office towers fell on the Greek church. It's a liability thing. Has nothing to do with the conditions surrounding the mosque

So again, why not in Ground zero?

Because it does not belong there.

 

[willhaven]

Now [Obama] 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?

"The writ of the founders must endure."

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Thunder]

By contrast, it is none of our damned business what a landowner does 2 1/2 blocks away on private land.

no no, the people have the right to have a say what is built in their communities. if someone wants to build a 34 story porn shop, the people have a right to say no.

but the gov. has no right to prevent a house of worship from being built, simply based on the religion involved. we can limit its size, we can demand adherence to certain architectual styles and standards, but we can't ban it outright.

that would be Fascism.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Has anyone noticed that those running about opposing the mosque are using the same arguments that the radical islamics used in reaction to the Danish Mohammad cartoons?

(that culture takes precedance over fundamental rights)

We need a heavy duty irony meter here.

 

[Thunder]

We need a heavy duty irony meter here.

no such icon exists, that is big enough to measure this kind of irony.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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...

Wups! You're simply wrong again.

Obama specifically said "in accordance with local laws and ordinances".

From the CNN article (my bolding) 3 days ago:

President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York's ground zero, saying Friday that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," Obama said at a White House Iftar dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

So why are you just making up facts?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why?

There's a great deal of case law that says that the establishment clause in the First Amendment means that governments can't be in the business of building churches. So again, if the proposal were to build a mosque on publicly-owned land, I would object.

But that's not the case here. There is no entanglement issue. No one is proposing a mosque at Ground Zero, despite the many false claims to the contrary.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Since the 9/11 hijackers choose to spend one of their last nights on earth visiting, not a mosque, but a strip club, I would argue that the right wingers should be up in arms over the two strip bars near GZ.

 

[Neally]

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.

And similar objections would be raised if a waco christian militia group bombed a building causing massive deaths then wanted to build a church near the spot.

By contrast, it is none of our damned business what a landowner does 2 1/2 blocks away on private land.

Have you a RATIONAL reason why a mosque, in conformity with zoning and building codes should be prohibited? Do you also wish to prohibit any churches from operating there?

Yes, there is a legitimate concern that it would attract extremists to the area.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Sadly, I think you're right. I watched clips of yesterday's Face the Nation again, and 2 different Republicans repeated the "mosque at Ground Zero" thing with no one correcting the falsehood.

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.

You mean it would be better if Muslims didn't have First Amendment rights that needed to be defended? (I hope not!)

But back to Obama. 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.

(He did so with a figure of speech that was a form of apophasis. He claimed he wouldn't comment on the wisdom of building a mosque there, but just by denying that he was making a comment, he was indeed making a comment that questioned the wisdom of the building project.)

Do you think his comments then were just as great?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, there is a legitimate concern that it would attract extremists to the area.

That's not a rational argument. You can't decide an issue in favor of the extremists because you're afraid of the reaction of those extremists if it doesn't go in their favor.

Or are you saying that the "extremists" are those who would use the mosque? (I assumed you meant the extremists who might target the mosque.) If so, then that's not a rational argument either. It's on par with the stuff these nutjobs have been saying that claim that all mosques are centers of terrorism and all muslims are terrorists.