Republican/Conservative hypocricy & the Constitution

[Chaos]

If a KKK center was proposed to be built near me, I'd try whatever legal ways there might be to prevent it. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed speak out against it and to work within the law to do this?

Okay, so you think moderate Muslims are comparable to the KKK? Interesting.

 

[portlandatheist]

And how does seeking to legally prevent a religion from building places of worship as is happening is many many states not just in lower Manhattan, remember California is too close to ground zero to tolerate a mosque being built or something. So how does that legally blocking of them not deprive them of their constitutional right to freedom of religion?

An attempt to legally block them would be an attempt to deprive them of their rights in my opinion. My point is that opposition in itself, no matter how passionate, is not a disrespect for their constitutional rights.

 

[portlandatheist]

Okay, so you think moderate Muslims are comparable to the KKK? Interesting.

I think you misunderstood the entire point. If I oppose the KKK loudly and passionately, that doesn't necessarily mean I oppose their rights of free speech and freedom of association. I can hold up signs that say "You're not welcome in my neighborhood" and so on without thinking that they need to be forcibly prevented from my neighborhood. The KKK is a great example not only because they are almost universally despised and deservedly so, but because they commonly bring up the first amendment as a manipulative rhetorical tool when confronted. They declare their first amendment rights and then their opposition is dumbfounded, thinking if they continue to air their disgust and disapproval, that they come across as an individual who is against the first amendment and so they simply stop engaging. Its very effective.
Somebody can be just as vocal in their opposition to a harmless, moderate Muslim community center, as completely misguided as that may be(and it is), without being anti first amendment.

 

[Neally]

Okay, so you think moderate Muslims are comparable to the KKK? Interesting.

Comprehension fail. I never said that nor did I make that comparison. The comparison is the right to legally protest and speak out against or for something while still recognizing the other side has their rights as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you misunderstood the entire point. If I oppose the KKK loudly and passionately, that doesn't necessarily mean I oppose their rights of free speech and freedom of association.

So how do you feel about communities refusing to sell any property to blacks then? It is all legal right, no ones rights get stepped on then.

 

[drkitten]

I think you misunderstood the entire point. If I oppose the KKK loudly and passionately, that doesn't necessarily mean I oppose their rights of free speech and freedom of association. I can hold up signs that say "You're not welcome in my neighborhood" and so on without thinking that they need to be forcibly prevented from my neighborhood.

Yes, but it's very hard to read an attempt to have the land they want to build re-zoned to prevent building there as anything but "forcible prevention."

That's not a counterprotest. That's not freedom of speech. That's an attempt to suppress their ability to present their point of view.

The KKK is a great example not only because they are almost universally despised and deservedly so, but because they commonly bring up the first amendment as a manipulative rhetorical tool when confronted. They declare their first amendment rights and then their opposition is dumbfounded, thinking if they continue to air their disgust and disapproval, that they come across as an individual who is against the first amendment and so they simply stop engaging.

It also helps that much of the time, their opposition is against the first amendment (in this instance only, of course). There's a reason that the ACLU took the side of the KKK in the very famous case where the locals were trying to deny them (the KKK) a permit to march. (Skokie, IL, wasn't it?)

Hold up all the signs you want, that's fine. Prevent the march by government action,.... that's a violation of their rights.

 

[portlandatheist]

drkitten and ponderingturtle,
I think you are reading too much into what I am saying or possibly creating a strawman. We are on the same page, the constitutional rights of people building the community center needs to be protected and I support their constitutional rights and I think those that oppose it are misguided. Their rights shouldn't be subverted by new re-zoning laws or otherwise have their rights undermined or compromised. I'm simply saying that opposition, by itself, is not hypocrisy in terms of the constitution as implied by the OP. The implication of the OP is used by all sorts of people with unpopular views, that opposition to them is equivalent to rejecting their rights which is not necessarily the case. Certainly the OP is accurate in terms of some aspect of the opposition as I'm sure their are plenty of people who could care less about the constitutional rights of the Muslims, but it is disingenuous to characterize opposition in general as a rejection of their constitutional first amendment rights. That's all I'm trying to say, please don't read more into it as if I support something like zoning these guys out or anything else because that is not the case.