« All The Ships At Sea | Main | If You Thought "Taxation Without Representation" Was Bad... »

How close will the mosque to Ground Zero be?

Close, very close:

groundzero.jpg
Aerial photo of World Trade Center Ground Zero following Sept. 11 attacks. Red square to right of Ground Zero marks former Burlington Coat Factory and proposed location of Cordoba House

H/T Larwyn via email.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39861.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How close will the mosque to Ground Zero be?:

» Brutally Honest linked with How close will the mosque to Ground Zero be?

Comments (109)

To the troll in a previous ... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

To the troll in a previous article that said you couldn't even see the WTC site from the location of the new mosque? I think this picture puts the lie to that lame statement.

I still think the bastards are dancing on the dead, no matter what ANY politician or Islamic representative say's.

This action will cause the Democrat party almost as much grief as the passage of the health care travesty simply because the idiot in chief as well as the mayor of NY and others in the party are defending it.

I think what the Democrats are failing to realize this is NOT about NY, but rather the US vs Islam ... and fly over country isn't putting up with this bullshit any more.

Gov. Patterson (the guy Oba... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Gov. Patterson (the guy Obama tried to convince that he shouldn't run for his own elected term as governor) made a statement late last week acknowledging the legal right to build the mosque/community center but suggested that perhaps another location would be more acceptable to opponents. He then offered as how some state owned property elsewhere in NYC could be made available.

This strikes me a novel concept, government attempting to facilitate a solution respectful of the needs and desires of all, not just a few. So, between Obama and Patterson, which one is the "blind" one. And since the answer to that for me is Obama, I am once again forced to examine the question, "Why is that?"

Muslims everywhere are ROLM... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Muslims everywhere are ROLMAO as the dhimmocrats trip over each other to appease this group and endorse this victory mosque built on the ashes of its victims.

This is not a slap in the face, but a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

UOG -Doesn't that ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

UOG -

Doesn't that start enroaching the supposed 'church-state' barrier? How DARE the state even OFFER land to a religion!

Oh, wait - it's not a Christian-based religion so it's okay.

Living in CT I've had a bit... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Living in CT I've had a bit more of an up-close-and-personal view of the fungible nature of property rights, and eminent domain (Kelo) than many others. That ruling bothers me both from a rule of law perspective and personally as I'm probably considered a less-desirable resident of the town I live in. I also live on a large enough piece of property to be attractive for development.

I too share your take on the "anything except Christianity" view of state involvement in property transfers and just about everything else.

But in this case, David Patterson's Spock-like view of "the needs of the many exceed the needs of the few, or of the one" seem real tempting. I was attracted to the Spock character, it was the antitesis of who I am.

From the New York Post:<br ... (Below threshold)
recovered liberal democrat:

From the New York Post:
"A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there. "We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip."
I was not surprised that Obamalala endorsed the Obama mosque at ground zero. He sat for twenty years in Rev. Wright's church and Rev. Wright has made no secret that he supports Hamas. Nobody believes Obamalala didn't hear Rev. Wright blame America for the 9/11 attack. Nobody believes Obamalalas it's a tolerance issue. Nobody that loves this country, that is.

Its at least a stoning's th... (Below threshold)
914:

Its at least a stoning's throw away.


Thats probably about as clo... (Below threshold)
914:

Thats probably about as close as they could come to building it right where they really wanted it which is in the bathtub.


They build it and Obama will come.

I find it interesting that ... (Below threshold)
Razorgirl:

I find it interesting that the Dim/Libs will use our Constitution when it supports their purposes (freedom of religion to build the mosque). However, when it comes to border security or healthcare they can't seem to see the conflict their purposes have with the Constitution. If it applies in one case, it applies in the other. They can't have it both ways.

I have an idea.. lets start a fund to buy the property to build a big Baptist Mega-church.

As I stated before. It is n... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

As I stated before. It is not whether they can, but why would they? The liberals run from that one. ww

"Aerial photo of World Trad... (Below threshold)
davidt:

"Aerial photo of World Trade Center Ground Zero following Sept. 11 attacks. Red square to right of Ground Zero marks former Burlington Coat Factory and proposed location of Cordoba House.

It should be mentioned that part of one of the hijacked planes went through the building in question. That makes it very much a part of Ground Zero."

The second part is vitally important. The proposed site of Cordoba House was/is part of the battleground of the 911 attacks.

And exactly how many blocks... (Below threshold)
Dane:

And exactly how many blocks away would the proposed site have to be in order to be "OK"?

If the proposed site was 30 blocks away you namby-pamby extremists would still be crying.

50 blocks? 100 blocks? It doesn't matter.

There are protests of mosques as far away as Temecula, California.

Clearly location doesn't matter at all. You haters want to deny Muslim Americans their Constitutional rights no matter how far away the mosque is.

"If the proposed site was 3... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"If the proposed site was 30 blocks away you namby-pamby extremists would still be crying."

Okay asshole. PROVE THAT STATEMENT!

Dane,so you admit ... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Dane,

so you admit that the proposed site is too close to the old WTC ...

so how far away would you propose they move it ... ?

btw without links your claims that mosques are being opposed all over the place is just BS ...

such anger... such hate.</p... (Below threshold)
Dane:

such anger... such hate.

As I wrote previously, but you apparently couldn't read because you were slobbering and foaming at the mouth, GarandFan, is that teabaggers are protesting proposed mosque construction as far away as California.

WHICH IS PROOF THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE MOSQUE WILL BE LOCATED.

Caps lock off, mocking over.

Every month or so we get a ... (Below threshold)
914:

Every month or so we get a new liberal big mouth that gets schooled over and over and then vanishes. Like the late Lee Ward, Steve f Green, Mak44 just to name a few.

The gig is up Dane. You have not proved one point to date in any of your hate filled diatribe.

Quit trying to tell us what we have to accept asshat.

Hmmm, why didn't Dane provi... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Hmmm, why didn't Dane provide a link for the reports on the Temecula mosque protest? Could it be that having a crowd of about 25 individuals peaceably protesting the planned mosque across the street is not that "hair-raising"?

Dane, why do you oppose individuals making use of their 1st Amendment rights in a peaceful and lawful way?

Dane, were you upset when Act-Up and other leftist groups actually threw condoms at the children of parishoners of Catholic churches who were attending services? Were you equally upset when other left-wing activists invaded and disrupted services on church property?

Quick answer: no.

Question: Why?


Dave no one said a mosque c... (Below threshold)
Gladius:

Dave no one said a mosque could not be built. I personally don't know how many are needed in this part of New York so I ,like many Americans ,question why build it at GZ ...the answers have not been comforting... and then there are people like you all too quick to condemn those asking the questions. How many of us non-muslims will be allowed to enter ? Why build a community center where there is no community ? Care to answer that Dave.

I ment Dane instead of Dave... (Below threshold)
Gladius:

I ment Dane instead of Dave but now that I thing of it a** hole will do instead.

Dane, once again you... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Dane,
once again your use of the sexual term "tea baggers" shows you have no interest in debate but wish to shout down your opponents with slurs.
Why do you continue to use such a hateful label ?
How about you try showing your intelligence and debate your point instead of trying to paint your opponents as unworthy of debate ?

yours is the side that is trying to use hate to shout down your opponents ... Why all the hate ?
Going around full of hate and ignorance is no way to live your life sir ...

I'm just speechless.<... (Below threshold)

I'm just speechless.

How many of you have ever been to New York?

New York, which was **actually attacked**, which is filled with people whose friends, relatives and neighbors ***actually died*** - NEW YORK has the spine to extend religious freedom to LAWFUL MUSLIMS WHO ARE US CITIZENS.

Because New Yorkers, even in their real grief from the people they knew who actually died, is strong and brave and has the integrity to know who actually attacked us.

While you people, who I'm willing to bet weren't friends with a single person who was killed, are freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate.

New York's actions in approving the building of this cultural site make me proud.

All of you yelling against it shame me as an American, and I wish you would stop and realize what you're doing.

I tried twice to include a ... (Below threshold)
Dane:

I tried twice to include a link and site wouldn't let me. I'll try it without the http:// in front and maybe it will go through.

beforeitsnews.com/story/135/262/California_Mosque_Protest:_Protesters_Call_for_No_More_Mosques_in_America.html

"California Mosque Protest: Protesters Call for "No More Mosques in America"

WW is right, it isn't about... (Below threshold)
Hank:

WW is right, it isn't about whether it can/should be built, it's about why within view of Ground Zero.

Found this while on the web today about the history of Cordoba.

"Toleration for Christians and Jews as 'Peoples of the Book' is enjoined by the Koran. But in practice it was limited - Christians under Islamic rule were forbidden to build new churches, to ring church bells, to hold public processions..."

Jim x, many of us question ... (Below threshold)
Maggie Mama:

Jim x, many of us question the motives of the Muslims who are doing this.

As family members come to pray at the site, five times a day the Muslim Call to Prayer will be blasting through the neighborhood via loudspeakers.

IS THAT COMPASSIONATE? DOES THAT DEMONSTRATE SENSITIVITY OR UNDERSTANDING?

Muslims call for us to respect them and often show little respect for women, especially scantily clad ones, gays, those of other religions, etc.

TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.

"As family members come ... (Below threshold)
Dane:

"As family members come to pray at the site, five times a day the Muslim Call to Prayer will be blasting through the neighborhood via loudspeakers."

Lol - what a joke. Teabaggers hate so much you say anything to shut down a religion you oppose.

There are laws and ordinances in New York against blasting sound that can be heard several blocks away.

Quit the bullshit. If you can't win a debate honestly quit making up crap to scare the namby-pamby knee-knockers.

Why do Christians hate so much?

Why do Christians send out emails and post messages on blogs saying things like that?

What happened to love thy neighbor? Did the New York Muslims bomb the WTC? NO.

What happened to the Constitution? Since when does it not apply if you xx blocks from a "sacred site" as defined by Sarah Palin?

Jim x: "I'm just speechless... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x: "I'm just speechless."

Apparently not.

Jim x: "How many of you have ever been to New York?"

Not relevant to the discussion of whether or not the building of a mosque that "close" to the WTC site is "insensitive" or in poor taste.

Jim x: "New York, which was **actually attacked**, which is filled with people whose friends, relatives and neighbors ***actually died*** - NEW YORK has the spine to extend religious freedom to LAWFUL MUSLIMS WHO ARE US CITIZENS."

Hmmm. Washington DC was attacked (and the area included Northern Virginia) as well as Pennsylvania (though that was clearly not the intended target).

This is a standard and tired lefty tactic: "you aren't a woman so you can't discuss abortion!", or "you are a chickenhawk and you shouldn't support "boooshes" war if you haven't served", on just about every lefty campus: "no free speech for fascists!!". See the pattern? Debate is to be stifled so as to ensure that lefty ideas remain unchallenged since they usually cannot stand the light of day.

Jim x: "Because New Yorkers, even in their real grief from the people they knew who actually died, is strong and brave and has the integrity to know who actually attacked us."

Jim x is now empowered to speak for all New Yorkers. Odd. Why are some New Yorkers speaking out against building a mosque at this location? Jim x, please explain in detail why we should simply take your comments as "representative" of New Yorkers?

Jim x: "While you people, who I'm willing to bet weren't friends with a single person who was killed, are freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate."

Jim, please provide a workable definition of "freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate" so that we may apply your "rule" to the actions of leftists such as yourself.

Further, even if someone were "freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate", wouldn't that person be acting in accordance with our 1st Amendment rights? Isn't that the 1st Amendment that you claim you are defending for the muslims?

Finally, in what ways are the opponents of the mosque acting with "cowardice". What would the opponents of the mosque have to do to prove their lack of cowardice to you? Would they have to fly planes into mosques? Hmmm, maybe they should. Then groups and financiers who have spoken positively of the groups that carried out the attacks could simply build "cultural outreach centers" next to the spots of the blown away mosques. A move that Jim x would heartily endorse.

Jim x: "New York's actions in approving the building of this cultural site make me proud."

Why is this relevant?

Jim x: "All of you yelling against it shame me as an American, and I wish you would stop and realize what you're doing."

You wish we would stop? Why aren't you "proud" that your fellow Americans are making themselves heard in a peaceful debate about an issue that is controversial to some? Why is it that all of a sudden you simply want the other side to "stop" what they are doing when all they are doing is making use of the 1st Amendment to make themselves heard.

Why, if I didn't know better, I would almost swear that you really aren't a big defender of the 1st Amendment. You just want "free speech" for your side.

This is a defining characteristic of the left.

Maggie Mama - Are you in Ne... (Below threshold)

Maggie Mama - Are you in New York?

Because New Yorkers don't seem to have the same problem with this. The New Yorkers who live and work around there know that it wasn't all muslims who attacked them. It was 20-odd whacked-out scumbags.

Should all Christians be judged by the example of Fred Phelps?

Should all churches be judged by the example of the Catholic church, and the way they've protected pedophile priests for decades?

If the answer is "No" - as I think it should be - then the same should go with Muslim-Americans.

Dane: "Why do Christians ha... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Dane: "Why do Christians hate so much?"

Hmmm. Dane, are you making a generalization about an entire group of people based on what you believe a subset of that group are doing?

It's funny really. The left has been doing this for decades against Christians. And it was always "ok".

Remember everyone, we all must be very sensitive the feelings and emotions of our muslim brothers. We must not be unnecessarily confrontational with muslims or denigrate their proud religion of peace.

Of course, we must also use funds to display "piss Christ" and other such works of "art" since that "challenges" Christianity.

Behold, the modern left.

As usual, Charles Krauthamm... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

As usual, Charles Krauthammer put it best the other day:

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

This is about common decency, respect, taste and humanity.

Jim x (27): "Should all Chr... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x (27): "Should all Christians be judged by the example of Fred Phelps?"

Dane (25): "Why do Christians hate so much?"

Behold, the cumulative genius of the modern left.

For Dane and Jim x, I offer a paraphrase of that wonderful leftist and Pulitzer prize winning reporter Walter Duranty (who's Pulitzer prize still hangs in the display at the NYT building with nary a sideways glance from the left: "I have been over to future dhimmi world, and IT WORKS!!"

"...is that teabaggers are ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...is that teabaggers are protesting proposed mosque construction as far away as California.

WHICH IS PROOF THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE MOSQUE WILL BE LOCATED."

Dane, you're threshold for "proof" leaves a lot to be desired. So far it's lower that a pile of bovine excrement.

Really, all in all the left... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Really, all in all the left ought to be as tolerant of those who oppose building a mosque so close to ground zero as they are tolerant of leftist activists actually invading Christian churches and disrupting services, ELF crazies blowing up cars and burning down other private property and other leftists standing up to that "horrible" institution known as the Boy Scouts.

Hey, remember all of 19 months ago when dissent was still patriotic.

It seems so long ago now doesn't it?

"Lol - what a joke. Teabagg... (Below threshold)
914:

"Lol - what a joke. Teabaggers hate so much you say anything to shut down a religion you oppose."


There are no "teabaggers" here. Perhaps you should try KOS or looking in a mirror.

Another day and the same old apologists are taking a bow for the Imams.

Jim X,I <a href="h... (Below threshold)
Rick:

Jim X,

I was working in Pentagon City on 9/11.

Don't come to me with your BS about not knowing anyone impacted. I was impacted.

Toss your idiocy out someplace else bub...

Are any of you aware that t... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Are any of you aware that there is already a mosque 2 blocks north of the proposed mosque?

Are you going to demand that it be torn down?

Not relevant to the disc... (Below threshold)

Not relevant to the discussion of whether or not the building of a mosque that "close" to the WTC site is "insensitive" or in poor taste.

No, it's completely relevant. It shows how conservatives want to grandstand and play victims as if they've loved New York all their lives - when many of the same conservatives before 9/11 talked about New York like it was a Sodom & Gomorrah that was a blight on civilization.

Hmmm. Washington DC was attacked (and the area included Northern Virginia) as well as Pennsylvania (though that was clearly not the intended target).

Yes. And there's a spot inside the Pentagon, for Muslims to worship. Inside the ***same building that was attacked***. They don't have a problem with it. But you guys do, for a building in a city that most of you have never even visited and probably would hate if you did.

Jim, please provide a workable definition of "freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate" so that we may apply your "rule" to the actions of leftists such as yourself.

Sure! Why don't you go and read every other article about this subject on this site, including this one.

You conservatives are apparently taking this building as some sort of Muslim victory statue intended to hurt American feelings, which is 100% in your mind and has no actual basis in reality.

Finally, in what ways are the opponents of the mosque acting with "cowardice".

Because you guys are freaking out over a mosque, as if all Muslims want to kill us. When it's ***just a building where people go to worship***.

(And even as I type that, I expect that in the back of your minds some of you REALLY DO THINK all Muslims want to kill us, as the basis of their religion.)

You wish we would stop? Why aren't you "proud" that your fellow Americans are making themselves heard in a peaceful debate about an issue that is controversial to some? .

I am proud that we all live in a country that you can say what you want. I wish that you would stop, for the same reason that I wish Fred Phelps would stop protesting funerals of fallen soldiers. And for the same reason I wish the Klan wouldn't march, the Aryan Nation would go away, and Britney Spears would stop flashing her coochie at paparazzi. In short, I wish they would all stop embarassing America. That doesn't mean I support taking away their free speech.

You have just as much a right to complain and whine about Muslim Americans building a church, as I do to complain about your complaining. *That* is free speech.

I just think if you ***really*** had a commitment to freedom for everyone - and not just for people you like - you wouldn't have as much of a problem with this church.

What you define as a "characteristic of the Left" is one that you are showing, in your own reaction to this Muslim center.

#35Yes I've... (Below threshold)
914:

#35


Yes I've heard about it. And no, it already existed so it is not an attempt to exploit 911.

#34 - Oh? So one of you was... (Below threshold)

#34 - Oh? So one of you was actually impacted. I'm sorry to hear that. How about the rest of you? Anyone else?

And Rick, are you going to demand that the Pentagon remove it's place of worship for Muslims?

Re: # 30 - So, do you actua... (Below threshold)

Re: # 30 - So, do you actually have an answer? Should all Christians be judged by the example set by Fred Phelps?

Yes, or no?

Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, CEO... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, CEO of Cordoba Initiative and Imam of Masjid al-Farah(a New York city Mosque) for 25 years, author of three Islamic books commented that "The closest Mosque to this area is a dozen blocks away.

Well Rance, who would know better? Looks like your info is suspect.

#40Masjid Manhatta... (Below threshold)
Rance:

#40

Masjid Manhattan
20 Warren Street

Jim x: "No, it's completely... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x: "No, it's completely relevant."

No, it's not.

Jim x: "It shows how conservatives want to grandstand and play victims as if they've loved New York all their lives..."

False. Ridiculously so. Which means it's probably par for the course for you.

Jim x: "...- when many of the same conservatives before 9/11 talked about New York like it was a Sodom & Gomorrah that was a blight on civilization."

How many of the "same conservatives"?

Please provide examples. Do you always make such adolescent assertions?

Jim x: "Yes. And there's a spot inside the Pentagon, for Muslims to worship."

Yes. Since the military has members of all faiths, all faiths have sanctuaries in the Pentagon wherein they can practice their faith.

Duh.

Jim x: "Inside the ***same building that was attacked***."

Again, duh. Jim x, if we "full of rage and cowardice" guys oppose all mosques, why haven't there been any protests at all mosques including this one?

Jim x: "They don't have a problem with it."

Who is "they"? Do you mean the military? Why would the military have a "problem" with "it"? If military members had a "problem with it", how would you even know, given that the UCMJ would preclude any protesting or other like actions which would indicate disapproval?

You aren't very quick, are you?

Jim x: "But you guys do,...."

Please define "you guys", and please provide the evidence that these "guys" (which includes me I guess), oppose the Pentagon facilities wherein muslims can worship?

Jim x: ".. for a building in a city that most of you have never even visited and probably would hate if you did."

Hmm, why would any conservative or independent or liberal opponent of building a mosque close to the WTC site hate the Pentagon?

And why would you, Jim x, assume that the individuals commenting on this blog have never visited the Pentagon?

Why don't you just ask if any had (even though it isn't relevant)?

See, once again, most of Jim x's commentary is structured in a way that is designed to try and stifle the debate.

Again, a hallmark of the left.

Okay, I realize I've come o... (Below threshold)

Okay, I realize I've come on here and been very confrontational. So that probably gives a lot of resistance towards what I have to say, and understandably so.

With that in mind, I think it would be worth your while to read this article here. It covers the center mentioned in # 41.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html?src=mv

jim x: "Re: # 30 - So, do y... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x: "Re: # 30 - So, do you actually have an answer? Should all Christians be judged by the example set by Fred Phelps?"

By the actions of you, Jim x, and your fellow leftists, you have provided the answer.

Not only does the modern left hold all Christians accountable for the actions of any other Christian, you also hold all living Christians accountable for the actions of any Christians throughout history.

So your question to me is laughable.

Again, this a standard leftist tactic.

No, it's not.<... (Below threshold)

No, it's not.

I say it is. Your saying no doesn't automatically negate it, nor does my yes automatically prove it. We can push that around all day, so that's a draw.

Yes. Since the military has members of all faiths, all faiths have sanctuaries in the Pentagon wherein they can practice their faith.

Duh.

But American civilians don't have members of all faiths? So American civilians in New York **shouldn't** have a sanctuary where they worship, as long as it fits in with all local zoning laws and ordinances?

Double duh.

How many of the "same conservatives"?

You know what? Maybe not many of the same. I just consider it coming from same camp. I just recall hearing all through the seventies, eighties and nineties how New York was hellbound and doomed to failure because it was corrupting youth with drugs and sex, and because it dared to allow people to do whatever they want - **especially** gays, which was a huge problem for conservatives. And also because the challenging art and punk music came out from NY and intentionally offended all those good mainstream American values.

Googling around, I didn't find specific statements from currently known conservatives. So I retract that.

I do think a bit of this was behind Pat Robertson's infamous "the gays and ACLU are responsible for 9/11, because 9/11 was God's wrath" speech - I think he thought in the back of his mind that it's fine for New York to be punished because it was "evil". But of course I can't read his mind, so that'll have to remain my opinion.

Why would the military have a "problem" with "it"?

They shouldn't have a problem with it, and I'm glad they don't. What I don't understand, is why you have a problem with a mosque that is several blocks away from the WTC, in an area where other mosques are turning away people because they're too crowded.

What's interesting to me, after you saying "I'm not too quick", is that you seem to miss the entire point of bringing up the Pentagon Muslim center. You apparently don't understand that I'm bringing it up as an ***analogy***.

So I'll try to make it clear for you:

Pentagon is to Muslim worship area, as
WTC area is to this Mosque.

If the Pentagon doesn't have a problem with an area for Muslims to worship, why should civilians have such a problem with this Muslim center.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

See, once again, most of... (Below threshold)

See, once again, most of Jim x's commentary is structured in a way that is designed to try and stifle the debate.

See, your accusations here come from not actually understanding my argument - and then accusing me of trying to stifle the debate.

Should I accuse you now of exhibiting a hallmark of the Right?

Or will you just actually understand my argument now, and respond to that?

Jim x: "You have just as mu... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x: "You have just as much a right to complain and whine about Muslim Americans building a church, as I do to complain about your complaining. *That* is free speech."

Apparently you don't believe that as you have requested my side "stop", whereas I have said nothing of the sort regarding your side to comment.

Jim x: "I just think if you ***really*** had a commitment to freedom for everyone - and not just for people you like - you wouldn't have as much of a problem with this church."

Really, given your comments on this thread you really aren't the right individual to utilize as the arbiter of what others actually think, believe or are motivated by.

Hilarious that you keep throwing out that rhetorical device. It's almost like you are a Freshman psych major trying to elicit certain responses in certain ways.

Poor jim x.He keep... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Poor jim x.

He keeps trying.

Lets try to break this down a bit:

Jim x: "So I'll try to make it clear for you:

Pentagon is to Muslim worship area, as
WTC area is to this Mosque."

Except that it's not. The Pentagon is required to make available a worship space for all recognized faiths. This is by law. Is a mosque near ground zero required by law? I'll give you time to "look up the answer".

Do you see now why your analogy is "silly" and sophomoric? We'll just make it more concise and call it an "Anology Fail".

Jim x: "If the Pentagon doesn't have a problem with an area for Muslims to worship, why should civilians have such a problem with this Muslim center."

Where to start? Ok, lets start with "the Pentagon" is a building. The last time I checked, most buildings are rather reluctant to open up about their feelings.

If you mean to reference military members, my earlier comments stand. First, why would military members object to a space for muslims in the Pentagon to practice their faith which is required by law? Secondly and most importantly, and you were clearly too dense to pick up on this earlier, military members would be precluded by the UCMJ to "protest" such a facility.

Do you understand what I'm saying now Jim x?

Jim x pretending at being c... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x pretending at being cerebral and reasonable: "Or will you just actually understand my argument now, and respond to that?"

The real Jim x (attempting to just understand the arguments of his opponents and strictly respond to that): "While you people, who I'm willing to bet weren't friends with a single person who was killed, are freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate."

Hilarious.

Apparently you don't bel... (Below threshold)

Apparently you don't believe that as you have requested my side "stop", whereas I have said nothing of the sort regarding your side to comment.

Apparently you don't want to understand. I explained this to you with the example of Fred Phelps.

Do you wish Fred Phelps would stop protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers? I know I do.

Do you want Fred Phelps' rights of free speech taken away? I know I do not.

And no, you haven't asked me to stop. Instead, you've felt comfortable throwing out childish insults. Which is your right, but which in my opinion is considerably less mature.

Really, given your comments on this thread you really aren't the right individual to utilize as the arbiter of what others actually think, believe or are motivated by.

I know you are, but what am I?

But if you want to skip past the various forms of putdowns and get to actually discussing things, please feel free to let me know.

Hilarious that you keep throwing out that rhetorical device.

You mean the one called "reasoning"?

new jim x: "And no, you hav... (Below threshold)
Drago:

new jim x: "And no, you haven't asked me to stop. Instead, you've felt comfortable throwing out childish insults."

old jim x: ""While you people, who I'm willing to bet weren't friends with a single person who was killed, are freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate."

Wow, Drago. I don't know ho... (Below threshold)

Wow, Drago. I don't know how I can possibly be more clear.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I have from the beginning.

What you still don't understand, is that you are completely misunderstanding my argument.

I am constructing an analogy. In an analogy, two different but similar things are compared, so one can draw insights from their overall differences.

In part one of the analogy, I reference the Pentagon and its Muslim center. This is a center that exists within a building that was actually attacked on 9/11.

In part two of this analogy, I reference the area of lower Manhattan around the WTC site, and the proposed building of this mosque.

Are we clear so far? I'm comparing these two.

Now let's look at how you respond to this analogy:

"The last time I checked, the Pentagon is a building."

The last time I checked, the around the WTC is a group of buildings. They don't have feelings either.

But if you want to actually address the argument, you'd face that the Pentagon is run by human beings - and the area around the WTC is run by human beings.

I mean, come on. Talk about nitpicking to avoid the central issue.

Personally, I don't really ... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

Personally, I don't really care if there is a mosque built that close to ground zero. In some ways, that might be a good thing. If done in the right way. Personally, from what I can tell from comments made by various Muslim leaders, like the Hamas guy quoted above, many of them feel like this mosque will be a slap in the face to Americans and New Yorkers. If that's the case, it is reasonable for folks to object to it. It's not the mosque, per se, it's the intent of building it there.

Jim x, you neglected to res... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x, you neglected to respond to the obvious failure of your "analogy" (we'll just refer to it as "The Analogy that wasn't....")

Care to?

Dane, there is already a mo... (Below threshold)
Pat:

Dane, there is already a mosque 12 blocks away from the former World Trade Center.

DOH

Jim x, I've already address... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x, I've already addressed, several times, why your analogy does not hold water.

As for this:

Jim x: "But if you want to actually address the argument, you'd face that the Pentagon is run by human beings - and the area around the WTC is run by human beings."

I did indeed address this. Specifically. Twice.

Again, it's standard lefty practice to pretend that the actual substantive issue was not addressed thereby making it easier to insert the necesssary strawman argument for the lefty to "win".

Yawn.

Pentagon is to Muslim wo... (Below threshold)

Pentagon is to Muslim worship area, as
WTC area is to this Mosque."

Except that it's not. The Pentagon is required to make available a worship space for all recognized faiths. This is by law. Is a mosque near ground zero required by law? I'll give you time to "look up the answer".

Look it up yourself. It's called the 1st Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless I'm mistaken, there isn't an exception saying: "Unless it's Muslims 200 years from now trying to build a cultural center 4 blocks away from the World Trade Center."

You see, just as the Pentagon is required to *make available a place of worship*, so that it can comply with the first amendment and subsequent law, so ***our country at large*** is required to at least **allow** the building of a place of worship, as long as it complies with local ordinances.

You see?

Jim, i think the point that... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

Jim, i think the point that they were making somewhere up there is that the Muslim prayer location in the Pentagon pre-dates 9/11 and is there in order to serve the needs of Muslims working at the Pentagon. In accordance with pre-existing law and policy. Nobody is protesting the building of a new Mosque at the Pentagon, because that isn't the situation there.

The Ground Zero mosque is a new building in a location choice seen by many as an intentional provocation. Seen by many Muslims as a provocation as well, by the way, on both sides of the issue.

Do you see the difference and why your comparison doesn't work? The situations are too dissimilar.

Wow! Jim X, Dane, etc. firs... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Wow! Jim X, Dane, etc. first say we are haters for wanting the Mosque not to be a ground zero. Haters. Excercising our free speech rights is hateful when conservatives do it. Jim X., JT, a prolific poster here at Wizbang is not a Christian and he has similar views. What say you?

If this "community center" is to be opened, is it open to all faiths? Can any faith worship there? Tell me Jim X. Is it a true "community center"? You are not very bright, I can tell. Everyone but you seems to know what is at hand here. Except you know the opinion of 10 million NYC folks. You know the motivation of the Imam. You know where the money is coming from. You must. You speak with such clarity. You sould like you are with F.A.I.R. ww

the ever-flailing Jim x: "L... (Below threshold)
Drago:

the ever-flailing Jim x: "Look it up yourself. It's called the 1st Amendment."

Seriously? That's it?

Here we go again. No one is arguing that muslims don't have a 1st Amendment right to build a place of worship whereever the laws allow the construction of a place of worship,.

This is your straw-man argument, again. And again. And again.

Look, why can't you just admit that your analogy does not hold since the Pentagon is required by law to provide a sanctuary for all recognized faiths, but that the 1st Amendment merely proscribes Federal Government from establishing an official religion or interfering with or prohibiting the free exercise of a religion?

In the first case, the Pentagon is required to provide the space.

In the second case, the Government is simply not supposed to interfere.

Clearly not an analogous situation.

You clearly do not "see" or "understand" this point. Which is not subtle. Not in the least.

Jim x, I've already addr... (Below threshold)

Jim x, I've already addressed, several times, why your analogy does not hold water.

Right. And every time you addressed it, it was a fail that was refuted.

Shall i call this the standard Righty practice, of not actually answering a difficult question?

How about this: I'll actually go back through the comments and show how I've refuted them.

Your response in # 42 -

Yes. Since the military has members of all faiths, all faiths have sanctuaries in the Pentagon wherein they can practice their faith.

Was responded to and refuted in # 45:

But American civilians don't have members of all faiths? So American civilians in New York **shouldn't** have a sanctuary where they worship, as long as it fits in with all local zoning laws and ordinances?

Your comment in # 48,

The Pentagon is required to make available a worship space for all recognized faiths. This is by law. Is a mosque near ground zero required by law? I'll give you time to "look up the answer

Was responded to and refuted in # 57,

Look it up yourself. It's called the 1st Amendment...You see, just as the Pentagon is required to *make available a place of worship*, so that it can comply with the first amendment and subsequent law, so ***our country at large*** is required to at least **allow** the building of a place of worship, as long as it complies with local ordinances.

Now - are they any other of your arguments which I have missed, which you claim I have not refuted?

Otherwise, please explain how the above responses of mine do NOT refute you.

Since of course, you would hate to actually be using the "...standard lefty practice to pretend that the actual substantive issue was not addressed thereby making it easier to insert the necesssary strawman argument for the lefty to "win".'

I mean, you would never do that right?

So, prove me wrong and show directly how my arguments do not refute yours.

Should be easy, right?

ke_future is clearly someon... (Below threshold)
Drago:

ke_future is clearly someone who "gets" it.

To review: In the first cas... (Below threshold)
Drago:

To review: In the first case, the Pentagon is required to provide the space.

In the second case, the Government is simply not supposed to interfere.

Clearly not an analogous situation.

You clearly do not "see" or "understand" this point. Which is not subtle. Not in the least.

This point is even less subtle than before, yet it eludes jim x.

No one is arguing that M... (Below threshold)

No one is arguing that Muslims don't have a 1st Amendment right to build a place of worship whereever the laws allow the construction of a place of worship,.

Great! Thanks for clearing up this misunderstanding on my part.

Just so I'm clear here - you are going on record saying that there's nothing that should be done about this mosque, it should NOT be forced to move somewhere else. This is just something we have to deal with, as part of being Americans - just like Fred Phelps being a jackass and Britney Speers flashing her coochie because she's too lazy for underwear.

Right?

So then, there's no need for conservatives to keep whining about this center. Right?

In the first case, the P... (Below threshold)

In the first case, the Pentagon is required to provide the space.

In the second case, the Government is simply not supposed to interfere.

OK. Great.

So if you agree that the Government is not supposed to interfere, then do you approve of Bloomberg for supporting their right to have a church? And do you approve Obama's statement in support of the same?

If so, great. If not, why not?

"I'm just speechless."</... (Below threshold)

"I'm just speechless."

We wish, Jim.

Jim x, seriously, the non-s... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim x, seriously, the non-sequitor-ish "logic" of your followon questions are even more ridiculous than our inability to understand your analogy fail.

jim x is working furiously ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x is working furiously to create strawmen while simultaneously putting words in other peoples mouths.

I'm now officially pegging my estimate of jim x's age at 24.

Jim, i think the point t... (Below threshold)

Jim, i think the point that they were making somewhere up there is that the Muslim prayer location in the Pentagon pre-dates 9/11...[while]
The Ground Zero mosque is a new building in a location choice seen by many as an intentional provocation. Seen by many Muslims as a provocation as well, by the way, on both sides of the issue.

I understand that aspect of the argument. I just don't see how the difference between "currently existing" or "proposed to be built" is relevant.

If you look into the situation of the two Muslim centers that currently exist in that area - one four blocks away, and one 12 blocks away - they are both overcrowded and turning away people who want to peaceably worship.

So if innocent people feel a need to have a space of worship, whether it's before or after an event which is ****completely unconnected to them****, like the 9/11 attacks, is irrelevant.

This bears repeating: these moderate American muslims had ***absolutely nothing to do with it.*** So if they're building a church upsets other people, then that's something the other people basically should sack up and get a grip on.

What I think is going on is that ANY building of a new Muslim center in NY - and really, across the country - is unpopular right now, because many people blame 9/11 on Islam.

Which, to me, is like blaming the murder of Abortion doctors on Christianity. What you have in both situations are some loony tunes who are making everyone look bad.

jim x: "I understand that a... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x: "I understand that aspect of the argument. I just don't see how the difference between "currently existing" or "proposed to be built" is relevant."

Clearly.

Jim x, seriously, the no... (Below threshold)

Jim x, seriously, the non-sequitor-ish "logic" of your followon questions are even more ridiculous than our inability to understand your analogy fail.

Drago, "non sequitir" means literally "does not follow".

You stated directly in your response to my analogy, that:

"In the second case, the Government is simply not supposed to interfere."

My question:

"So if you agree that the Government is not supposed to interfere, then do you approve of Bloomberg for supporting their right to have a church? And do you approve Obama's statement in support of the same?"

***Clearly*** follows directly from your statement - as well as your previous claim,

No one is arguing that Muslims don't have a 1st Amendment right to build a place of worship whereever the laws allow the construction of a place of worship,

As you can see, my question directly follows from your statement.

So, please either prove how my question **does not** follow from your statement - or, actually step up and answer the question.

Clearly.Ind... (Below threshold)

Clearly.

Indeed. Which is why I made the distinction I just did.

Since you apparently think I'm completely wrong, please explain why the difference between "currently existing" or "proposed to be built" is relevant" ?

If I am so obviously wrong, that should be very easy for you.

Since we all agree that Muslims as a group are not responsible for 9/11. Right?

jim x, I have already expla... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x, I have already explained clearly, completely, several times why your analogy compleely fails.

I don't know now if you are simply being argumentative, if you are simply obtuse, or some combination thereof.

Suffice to say that anyone reading this blog with even a modicum of logical reasoning ability will see thru your silly attempts at obfuscation.

Some people sure get off on... (Below threshold)
914:

Some people sure get off on beatin a dead horse to death.

So, Drago, to sum up:... (Below threshold)

So, Drago, to sum up:

1. You have claimed, multiple times, to have addressed why my analogy didn't work. So I listed your arguments again in # 61, and my responses, and asked you to show how I didn't refute your arguments. You have not done this.

2. ke_future posted an argument that the main difference between the Pentagon's having a center for Muslims to worship and these Muslims wanting a new center, is that the Pentagon's center existed before 9/11. I stated:

I just don't see how the difference between "currently existing" or "proposed to be built" is relevant...if innocent people feel a need to have a space of worship, whether it's before or after an event which is ****completely unconnected to them****, like the 9/11 attacks, is irrelevant.

That argument has not been responded to either.

3. You claimed my follow-up questions were non sequitirs. I showed how they directly followed from previous statements, and asked you to show how they did not. You have not done this.

4. Finally, and most central, you claimed that:

No one is arguing that Muslims don't have a 1st Amendment right to build a place of worship whereever the laws allow the construction of a place of worship

I then stated that, if that was the case, you should have no problem with Bloomberg and Obama's statements in support of their right to build this center.

You have refused to answer this as well.

In fact, rather than answer any of these questions in a straightforward manner, you choose to accuse me of obfuscation.

Isn't that interesting.

If this "community cente... (Below threshold)

If this "community center" is to be opened, is it open to all faiths? Can any faith worship there?

Can Muslims go in and worship at synagogues?

More importantly, how does that matter? Religions are free to include or exclude anyone they want, as long as they obey the law.

You are not very bright, I can tell.

What an incisive, logical argument.

Except you know the opinion of 10 million NYC folks.

I know the opinion of the locals, because they allowed it to go ahead with no issues.

Are you saying they were zapped by Muslim mind-control rays or something?

You know the motivation of the Imam. You know where the money is coming from.

You mean, from followers of the same religion, like basically every single religion everywhere ever?

You sould like you are with F.A.I.R.

You sound like you're with the KKK. But that's your right. And it's my right to tell you where I think you're wrong.

jim x: "You sound like you'... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x: "You sound like you're with the KKK."

That is unfair. He does not sound like a former senior Democrat Senator from West Virginia.

Jim, you can't see the diff... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

Jim, you can't see the difference between a pre-existing location that provided a service for some time in a non-provocative way, and a new location that is in a provocative and controversial location? Seriously?

Look at the picture, the location of the new mosque is just a couple of blocks from the GZ crater that was caused by other muslims in the name of their faith. To locate a Mosque in this location is insensive at best, and provocative at worst. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse about the imagery and message that it provides.

How about building a Synagogue at the wailing wall? Would you support that?

I'm not saying that all Muslims are complicit in 9/11. But Muslims did undertake it. And many in the Muslim world celebrated. With that in mind, don't you see why some people don't think a mosque should be built so close?

Thanks Drago. Only liberal ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Thanks Drago. Only liberal KKK officials can serve as a US senator for the dems.

Jim X., I live by a huge Jewish Community Center. Many people, myself included, go there for shows, work out, plays, etc. They do not check my "faith" card. You see, it is a true community center. Why I put the Imam's community center is because community centers serve EVERYONE in that community. Like the YMCA or the YWCA. Christian organizations that allow all faiths at their community centers. I know you are either stupid or just being obtuse. Now, is the Imam's "community center" open to all faiths? Please answer. If not, then why call it a community center? I know. Most here do. But you have a hard time figuring this out. Please don't resort to your juvenile name calling and spewing "hate mongers" etc. It is beneath even you. ww

That is unfair. He does ... (Below threshold)

That is unfair. He does not sound like a former senior Democrat Senator from West Virginia.

You're right, he doesn't. Senator Byrd repented.

Jim, you can't see the d... (Below threshold)

Jim, you can't see the difference between a pre-existing location that provided a service for some time in a non-provocative way, and a new location that is in a provocative and controversial location? Seriously?

I can see the difference. I just don't see how it's relevant.

Since we all agree that the 9/11 attacks don't reflect the desires of American Muslims - right? If we agree that, then why does it matter if the center is constructed after 9/11, or before it?

If the difference is that people find it offensive *afterwards*, I still don't see how that is any more relevant than Fred Phelps offending people.

It sucks to be offended, but if we're going to be true to our ideals as Americans then it's something we're going to sack up and deal with - because we'd rather be offended than prohibit free assembly or exercise of religion that we find offensive.

I guess it comes down to wh... (Below threshold)

I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Muslims are innocent until proven guilty.

I think they are. In that case, I don't see why there should be any more of a problem with them building this center, as there is with Fred Phelps and his jackass protests, or any other number of things that we put up with because we love America.

Let us explore the jim x an... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Let us explore the jim x analogy:

jim x: "Pentagon is to Muslim worship area, as
WTC area is to this Mosque."

Hmmmm.

The Pentagon is a Federal facility. The WTC, not so much.

The Pentagon is, in fact, a military installation. The WTC, not so much.

The Pentagon, being a military installation of sufficient scope, is required to maintain worship faciliites for recognized faiths. The WTC is in no way "required" to maintain worship facilities for recognized faiths.

The Pentagon, prior to 9-11, had a muslim worship facility as required by law. The WTC, not so much.

Military members are not allowed to "protest" the presence of any worship facility mandated by law for military installations. There is no analogous statement for the WTC site.

Statutes and rules governing the building and/or maintaining worship facilities for military installations are created by the US Congress and the authority to ensure those rules and statutes are abided by reside in the Executive branch of the Federal Govt. Rules and statutes pertaining to the building and/or maintaining of any structure within the confines of NYC are governed by local ordinances.

So, except for the fact that every relevant issue governing the worship facilities at the Pentagon and the proposed mosque located near the WTC is radically different, jim x's analogy is "perfect".

And by "perfect", of course what I mean is astonishingly stupid.

jim x: "You're right, he do... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x: "You're right, he doesn't. Senator Byrd repented."

Really. For what did he repent, exactly? I mean, since according to you he repented, it shouldn't be too difficult to explain precisely what he repented for.

jim x: "I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Muslims are innocent until proven guilty."

Wow. An absolute legion of strawmen being offered up by jim x.

It's nice to see jim x being really concerned about addressing the actual arguments of his opponents, as he is wont to demand of others. 'sarc off'

Now, is the Imam's "comm... (Below threshold)

Now, is the Imam's "community center" open to all faiths? Please answer. If not, then why call it a community center?

I don't know. I presume that any one who wants to enter can, and can stay as long as other people don't find them rude or disruptive. Just as I presume if people go into the YWHA or what-have-you, they can stay as long as they don't go around slaughtering hogs or screaming anti-semitic slurs.

But let's say that's not the case, and this center only allows in "provable muslims", however they check that. It can still be a community center - if it serves the *Muslim community*.

Which, if you read the article at the NY Times that I posted earlier in this thread, is actualluy quite large in the area of lower Manhattan. Which is why this center is proposed.

But let's take it a step further, and say that this "community center" really isn't a community center at all.

And?

I don't see why that is a reason why it shouldn't be built - or why Bloomberg or Obama should be criticized for supporting the right of Muslims to build it.

They should be able to build it because they aren't breaking any laws and the local zoning authority has approved it - Period.

This combination I found unintentionally amusing:

I know you are either stupid or just being obtuse...Please don't resort to your juvenile name calling and spewing "hate mongers" etc. It is beneath even you.

I only respond with name-calling once name-called. You who don't like to be called stupid, hateful, etc. etc. - refrain from doing that first and we can avoid that whole situation.

Here are some photos of the... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:
For what did he repent, ... (Below threshold)

For what did he repent, exactly? I mean, since according to you he repented, it shouldn't be too difficult to explain precisely what he repented for.

Sure! Here you go.

The Google is an amazing thing. Here's what "senator byrd repented KKK" turned up:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062803119.html

The West Virginian, who died Monday at 92, deeply regretted his segregationist past, which included a year as a member of the Ku Klux Klan and at least several more years as a Klan sympathizer. He eventually became a passionate advocate for civil rights, and he was one of the most vocal supporters of legislation making the birthday of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday.

Oh, and there's also an interesting site you may have heard of called Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_byrd#Race_and_race_relations

In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's (NAACP)[66] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003-2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100 percent for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other senators received that approval rating in the session. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."

And there you have it.

Latest, newest member of th... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Latest, newest member of the (according to jim x)"KKK" sounding destructors of the Constitution and all things good in this world???

Harry Reid.

From Ace of Spades (quoted from Ed Henry of CNN tweet):

"Reid spokesman: "First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Sen Reid respects that but thinks .. mosque should be built someplace else"

Hmmm, would it be fair of us to point out that Harry Reid actually is a "leader" of the democrat party?

Would that be too mean?

Would it also be mean to point out that Robert Byrd didn't just "join" the KKK, he actually started his own chapter.

Would it be fair to ask if any African-Americans were lynched during that period of time in Robert Byrd's area of "KKK operations"?

Does anyone ever wonder why no one in the press ever even thought to ask that question?

Hey jim x, if the article y... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Hey jim x, if the article you cite doesn't even mention the fact that Byrd started his own chapter of the KKK and doesn't mention that he was actually the Grand Kleagle of his chapter, would it be fair of us to ask "what else was left out of this comprehensive review of Robert Byrds time in the Klan?"

Let us explore Drago's resp... (Below threshold)

Let us explore Drago's response to my analogy.

The Pentagon is a Federal facility. The WTC, not so much.

But both the Pentagon and the WTC area of New York are both areas of the United States, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and specifically the First Amendment.

The Pentagon is, in fact, a military installation.

And the US military is bound uphold and follow the Constitution. Just as is New York City.

The Pentagon, being a military installation of sufficient scope, is required to maintain worship faciliites for recognized faiths.

Yes - specifically because of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Are we in agreement so far? If not, please state which of the former statements of mine you disagree with.

The WTC is in no way "required" to maintain worship facilities for recognized faiths.

No, it is not. But it is forbidden by the Constitution, in both the spirit of the law **and** in applied law stemming from it for two centuries, to forbid innocent civilians from constructing buildings anywhere they like to, as long as they obey local ordinances and Federal laws.

The Pentagon, prior to 9-11, had a muslim worship facility as required by law. The WTC, not so much.

No - you're wrong. As you well know, this area of NY already had TWO mosques. One 4 blocks away from the WTC site, and one 12 blocks away.

Military members are not allowed to "protest" the presence of any worship facility mandated by law for military installations. There is no analogous statement for the WTC site.

Sure. Seeing as how I'm *not* saying people are or should be prevented from protesting this center, I don't see how that's relevant.

I think people doing that are as wrong-headed as Fred Phelps - but that's their right, and it's my right to say I think they're wrong-headed.

Statutes and rules governing the building and/or maintaining worship facilities for military installations are created by the US Congress and the authority to ensure those rules and statutes are abided by reside in the Executive branch of the Federal Govt.

Right - and supreme among those statutes and rules is the 1st Amendment.

Rules and statutes pertaining to the building and/or maintaining of any structure within the confines of NYC are governed by local ordinances.

Right - as long as they also are in compliance with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution and it's 1st Amendment.

So, except for the fact that every relevant issue governing the worship facilities at the Pentagon and the proposed mosque located near the WTC is radically different, jim x's analogy is "perfect".

Sure - if by "radically different" you mean "pursuing a similar policy in two separate contexts, both of which involve following the 1st amendment".

And by "perfect", of course what I mean is astonishingly stupid.

Sure - if by "astonishingly stupid" you mean "presenting a logic which I don't like, so I respond with immature insults".

Which also is your right, in accordance with the 1st amendment.

Hey jim x, if the articl... (Below threshold)

Hey jim x, if the article you cite doesn't even mention the fact that Byrd started his own chapter of the KKK and doesn't mention that he was actually the Grand Kleagle of his chapter, would it be fair of us to ask "what else was left out of this comprehensive review of Robert Byrds time in the Klan?"

Sure. Go ahead and Google away. But unless you can show Robert Byrd did not repent, then the record shows that Byrd repented.

Jim, many people don't put ... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

Jim, many people don't put up with that ass Phelps. He gets counter-protested all of the time. Personally, I love it when the bikers counter protest him. That's hilarious. So, I guess we are treating this mosque the same. People don't like it, so they are protesting.

Here's the deal, Jim. People are insulted by the idea of a mosque so close to a place where so many were killed by muslims. That's reality. And a natural reaction.

You don't see why the differnce between a pre-existing facility at the pentagon and a new building so close is relevant? If this was a case of a Mosque already existing this close to the towers, or the rebuilding of a mosque that was damaged or destroyed, I bet you would see a lot less concern with it. It's neither.

It can, and will, be seen as Muslims celebrating the death and destruction caused by other muslims. I don't understand how you don't get that.

Hmmm, would it be fair o... (Below threshold)

Hmmm, would it be fair of us to point out that Harry Reid actually is a "leader" of the democrat party?

No, Drago, that wouldn't be mean at all. That would actually be factual. I disagree with Reid, and think he's wrong in this. I think Barack Obama, who as President is the de facto leader of Democratic policy, is right.

But if Barack Obama, or any other member of the Democratic Party or **any** party thinks that this Muslim center should be built elsewhere just because it makes people uncomfortable - I utterly disagree and think they're wrong.

I think people of all walks of life should just sack up and accept being offended, if we're going to all be adults and keep the US the greatest country in the world.

jim x, what exactly, did Ro... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x, what exactly, did Robert Byrd do during his stint as the Grand Kleagle and founding member of his KKK chapter?

What activities did he engage in? Were any innocent people harmed by his activities?

What, exactly, did he repent for?

So, I guess if Charles Manson were to say "I regret my youthful indescretions as the leader of a rambunctious group of young people who sometimes went too far", would that be good enough for you?

According to the new "Jim x rule for apologizing for past misdeeds...if you're a democrat", it would appear the answer would be "yes".

Here's the deal, Jim. Pe... (Below threshold)

Here's the deal, Jim. People are insulted by the idea of a mosque so close to a place where so many were killed by muslims. That's reality. And a natural reaction.

Sure. And understood. I think it's an emotional reaction rather than a rational one - because, unlike Fred Phelps' actions, I don't consider the intent to build this mosque to be a deliberate insult.

You don't see why the differnce between a pre-existing facility at the pentagon and a new building so close is relevant?...It can, and will, be seen as Muslims celebrating the death and destruction caused by other muslims. I don't understand how you don't get that.

I do get that it can be seen that way. When I say "it's not relevant", I mean specifically that it isn't relevant in any legal **or** objectively reasoned sense.

I know others here have claimed that they aren't opposed to Muslims having the right to do this. But I have my doubts about that. I think that if that were the case, they wouldn't have any problem with Bloomberg or Obama supporting the Muslim's rights, for the exact reasons that they stated.

Instead, I see Bloomberg and Obama criticized for making Constitutional arguments that are absolutely accurate, both in the letter of the law and the spirit of America.

There's a whole bunch of churches and religions I don't like. But they should all be free to build churches wherever they want, as long as they're innocent of criems and obeying local ordinances. To me, that's pretty much the beginning and end of the whole discussion.

jim x: "But if Barack Obama... (Below threshold)
Drago:

jim x: "But if Barack Obama, or any other member of the Democratic Party or **any** party thinks that this Muslim center should be built elsewhere just because it makes people uncomfortable - I utterly disagree and think they're wrong."

Hmmmm.

Conservative/Independent says "build it elsewhere", jim x responds "KKK!!", destroyer of the constitution!!!

democrat says "build it elsewhere", jim x gently responds "...I think they're wrong."

Wow. What a difference a single letter suffix makes....when it's a "D".....

So, I guess if Charles M... (Below threshold)

So, I guess if Charles Manson were to say "I regret my youthful indescretions as the leader of a rambunctious group of young people who sometimes went too far", would that be good enough for you?

Since Manson was a sociopathic murderer-by-proxy, it is questionable that he would be able to be sincere or empathic about anything. Being a sociopath is a condition that's nearly impossible to change, even from a very early age.

But if Manson were not a sociopath, and could reliably prove that he had actually repented with his actions and not merely his words, then I would accept that repented.

That doesn't mean I'd ever let him out of jail though.

According to the new "Ji... (Below threshold)

According to the new "Jim x rule for apologizing for past misdeeds...if you're a democrat", it would appear the answer would be "yes".

No, Drago. Show me a Republican who proves he's repented for some awful thing with deeds and not merely words, and I'll accept it.

Feel free to provide some examples.

Sorry Jim X, but "regrettin... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

Sorry Jim X, but "regretting" something and "repenting" are different. Which you should know.

Conservative/Independent... (Below threshold)

Conservative/Independent says "build it elsewhere", jim x responds "KKK!!", destroyer of the constitution!!!

democrat says "build it elsewhere", jim x gently responds "...I think they're wrong."

No, Drago, sigh. How much do I have to walk things back?

When ww said this:

You know the motivation of the Imam. You know where the money is coming from. You must. You speak with such clarity. You sould like you are with F.A.I.R.

...which is clearly implying those who are building this have shadowy ulterior motives, I responded with:

You sound like you're with the KKK.

You'll notice Reid isn't implying that the Muslims behind this have some sort of shadowy plot. He is saying the mosque should be moved because it makes people feel uncomfortable.

Do you see the difference? ww is implying that Muslims are guilty, without having any knowledge. That's "guilty until proven innocent", which is prejudice, which is well exemplified by the KKK. Hence my strong response.

Reid is saying that a mosque making people feel uncomfortable is a good enough reason to move it. I disagree with this, but at least it isn't saying "guilty until proven innocent". Hence my more relaxed response.

See?

Sorry Jim X, but "regret... (Below threshold)

Sorry Jim X, but "regretting" something and "repenting" are different. Which you should know.

Sorry Rodney, but vocally supporting making Martin Luther King day a national holiday and getting a 100% rating from the NAACP, is more than just "regretting". It is proving yourself with actions and not merely words - which is the only gauge of true repentance.

While you people, ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:
While you people, who I'm willing to bet weren't friends with a single person who was killed, are freaking out in a lather of cowardice and hate.

JimX,
Not that it matters, but
I've been to NY many times for work and pleasure
My sister and her husband both worked in the WTC 7, but were evac'ed in time.
One of my best friends worked in WTC 2, but had stayed home from work that day.
One of my college roommates worked in WTC 2 and did go into work and did not make it out.
I remember being evac;d from the high rise I worked in in Philly that day, and sitting in center city bar waiting for traffic to clear enough to get home. Desperate to get word on my sister and friends. Getting busy circuits. Only getting through after hours (that seemed like days) to friends in Elizabeth and Hoboken who watched the plumes from windows and roof tops. Not knowing if my sister was alive until the morning of Wednesday the 12th. Not finding out about my friends until the weekend.

While I'm not worked up in lather about muslims, cowardly, hateful or some other kind, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to shove it up your ass.
Hard.
Often.

Here is a photo of the actu... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Here is a photo of the actual site of Ground zero. I don't see the Burlington Coat Factory, perhaps conservatives could have a fence, so we could know where muslims might be able to go or build.

Dear SCSIWuzzy,Ple... (Below threshold)

Dear SCSIWuzzy,

Please note in your own statement that:

I'm not worked up in lather about muslims, cowardly, hateful or some other kind,

So my statements about those conservatives who *are* so lathered doesn't apply to you.

You've both actually been through something - *and* you're not a keyboard commando who's typing with one hand about the Muslim Menace.

So in that case:

a) either realize those statements of mine don't apply to you, or

b) please shove it out your own ass, so it can pass your head on the way out.

As hard and often as it takes until your head moves.

jim, you may not consider i... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

jim, you may not consider it a deliberate insult. others do. and is there something wrong with an emotional response? you wave off the feelings of people so blithely. is there nothing that would invoke an emotional response in you?

Now that we've completed th... (Below threshold)

Now that we've completed that tit-for-tat, here's the larger deal:

SCSIWuzzy, I happen to not have seen you on these articles, talking about how horrible the idea of this building is, or impugning all sorts of sinister motives to the Muslims involved, and/or saying how Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself for stating that the First Amendment applies here, just because it actually does.

In that case, I find it also interesting that you did live and work near the WTC, and you did lose someone you knew there.

That confirms to me that people who have actual life experience both being in the melting pot of New York *and* being near 9/11 on that day, probably find it easier to realize that the Muslims who want to build this center are not the people who attacked us.

jim, you may not conside... (Below threshold)

jim, you may not consider it a deliberate insult. others do. and is there something wrong with an emotional response? you wave off the feelings of people so blithely. is there nothing that would invoke an emotional response in you?

ke, I don't think there's anything wrong with an emotional response. I just draw the line where people take it into territory that restricts the lives of people who are innocent of actual crimes.

Others can *perceive* something as a deliberate insult. But people can take the same thing any number of different ways. If there is no evidence of a deliberate intent to insult, then I especially think people should take a chill pill.

So I fully support the right of everyone here to think and say that this is an awful, terrible thing that Muslims are doing.

But when people take that into the territory of "they shouldn't be able to do that. Someone should stop them," then I think they start to approach that line.

It can be a fuzzy border. I get that. So I try to draw the line in what I think is a common place between all of us - the shared contract that is the US Constitution.

So if people here are saying this is a terrible thing that these Muslims are doing - **but they still should be able to do it because this is a free country** - then I agree.

But if that's what people here are saying, I don't honestly see how they can square that with being against Barack Obama's speech - because literally all that he is saying is that these American Muslims have a Constitutional right to build that center.

That's my take on it.

No JimX. I don't want this... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

No JimX. I don't want this Mosque built. And I never said otherwise.
Not because they are muslim. But because many of the muslims associated with this endeavor have a history of being in support of terrorists and not having (IMO) the best interests of their fellow Americans (not counting the Saudi $$ men of course) in mind.
If I honestly thought these folks were doing this to build a bridge, rather than a beachhead/thumb in our eye, I'd be somewhat supportive. I'd still suggest they move a little further down from Ground Zero. Maybe to a muslim neighborhood, or to a neighborhood in need of the investment if there are no muslim neighborhoods in Manhattan (plenty to be found in NJ and the boroughs).
Just like I would suggest not opening a McDonald's near the Hiroshima Memorial. Bad taste.
But I do believe these are agent provocateurs, hiding behind the 1st Amendment. And I have yet to hear a good argument for this particular site other than "because the Constitution says they can". Much like the arguments for the Piss Christ art display years ago... I never heard defense of the art, only of the artists right to do so...

Jim x and Drago, you guys a... (Below threshold)
green44:

Jim x and Drago, you guys are just name calling now. I stopped reading your rants about a good 3/4 of the way down.
This is a lose/lose situation.
Its not a 'leftist' vs 'conservative' argument.
Stop categorizing people.





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy