Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center

[JayC]

let them build a mosque somewhere else.

And good luck to them finding a quality crew to build it. No non muslim construction worker in NYC will touch that job.

Maybe they can find enuogh of their kind to build it. I wonder if they will even be able to find suppliers.

I think the truth is they'll have no trouble finding workers and suppliers... because people get mad but won't do anything constructive about it. All they tend to do is whine to the government and ask them to fix it... when it's not something the government can legally fix. This an a poor understanding of the consitution and freedom has caused the disaster we call home today.

I'm happy to provide plenty of examples of this behavior by the public if you'd like

[Mike.357]

I think Islam ought to be banned the hell out of the country.

And from interviews I have seen with contruction workes in NYC there is no one who will work this project.

Islam is a cult full of maniacal murderers masquerading as a religion.

[strickj]

Also, I'm not aware of a public institution where bibles and christian prayer are not allowed, but muslim prayer rooms are... can you cite 2 examples of this?.

Yes and no. Christian prayer is allowed. Along with every other religion.

Muslim (and other religions) are allowed extra allowances to prayer (or days off for their holidays) based on their religious believes.

This upsets Christians because they feel others are getting more then them.

In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This act demanded many religious accommodations to be made on public property.

[eapking]

There is a huge difference between Clinton and Obama.

Clinton, first and foremost is a politician. He could lie his way out of anything, including impeachment.

Obama is a complete idealogue, first, and a narcissistic

but mediocre politician second. I don't see how he could

win a second term. Hillary is going to challenge him in

the primary. If the democrats have any redemption at all,

they will realize their mistake of Obama and will do the swap. Otherwise, it will be a huge blunder to keep him on the ticket. The democrat party is ruined because of him. The republican party may be right behind them, also. Hillary has learned from a pro and she will get the nod this time.

Agreed. But a lot will depend on who the Repubs trot out there. Or maybe who the left foists upon us due to their cross over voting in the Primaries (re: McCain). I might get slammed for this, but as much as I like Palin, I don't think she could weather the race and would not get elected. We'll end up with 4 more years of the Big O, or maybe worse...Hillary.

[JayC]

Yes and no. Christian prayer is allowed. Along with every other religion.

Muslim (and other religions) are allowed extra allowances to prayer (or days off for their holidays) based on their religious believes.

This upsets Christians because they feel others are getting more then them.

So because most Christian holidays are already recognized by our government and taken off.. some Christians feel Muslims are getting more than them? Has any Christian at a government school been denied the ability to take off a legitimate religious holiday when they make the request?

I'm sorry but you're describing the Government staying out of religion... Which is exactly what we should want them to do.

[Guest DeadEye]

Isnt there something about Religious Freedom in the Constitution??????????????????

[Worriedman]

Isnt there something about Religious Freedom in the Constitution??????????????????

In the Constitution, there is only this relative to religion, Article VI decries a prohibition on religious tests as a condition for holding public office.

In the Bill of Rights however, The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

And that bunch of extremist from the Westboro Baptist Church who picket the funerals of our fallen soldiers deserve exactly the same protection from the government on their actions that the Muslims do on this issue. The Imam who is pushing this is a Wahabist, and Islam is a theocracy, not a religion. Sharia Law lies in the wake of this dreadnought.

[Mike.357]

So because most Christian holidays are already recognized by our government and taken off.. some Christians feel Muslims are getting more than them? Has any Christian at a government school been denied the ability to take off a legitimate religious holiday when they make the request?

I'm sorry but you're describing the Government staying out of religion... Which is exactly what we should want them to do.

what was described is a seperate standard, there is a school schedule, days off etc... What is not fair is that they get extra days off, the whole school is not off just certain people lay out. They still get all the "normal" time off. Give the Muslim kids off on September 11 too while you are at it.

[TGO David]

So because most Christian holidays are already recognized by our government and taken off.. some Christians feel Muslims are getting more than them? Has any Christian at a government school been denied the ability to take off a legitimate religious holiday when they make the request?

I'm sorry but you're describing the Government staying out of religion... Which is exactly what we should want them to do.

Jay, sometimes your devotion to the spirit of political correctness seems nothing more than the sort of ideological anal lubricant often used in the sodomy of our Constitution.

Cheers.

[TGO David]

And for the record, while JayC is hell bent on beating the Constitutional "dead horse" of religious freedoms into the ground, allow me to don my cape and play the role of Captain Obvious for the moment. Our Constitution guarantees each of us the freedom of whatever religious beliefs we find appealing to us. It does NOT, however, guarantee us the opportunity to build a church, mosque, temple or prayer shanty wherever we damn well please. That's up to local municipalities, and if the no-bulls**t attitude of the few New Yorkers I know is any indication of the general species, I doubt this plan is going to get any traction except for among the ideologues and liberal loons. The common working stiff? He's the guy who is still mad as hell about the whole 9/11 thing and not about to forget what they did to us.

[Rightwinger]

yep

[towerclimber37]

I can see where Jay C is coming from...but I also see his failing. David, I don't think it's wrong to cling to the constitution and follow it's edicts..but I also think that Jay C should read more of the Federalist papers. This type of situation has happened before. Blindly following the constitution without applying it's principles to every day life is a sure receipe for disaster.

I'm thinking that a corky's bbq will be on one side of this mosque and Greg Gutfield's Islamic gay bar will be on the other side of it.

[TGO David]

I can see where Jay C is coming from...but I also see his failing. David, I don't think it's wrong to cling to the constitution and follow it's edicts..but I also think that Jay C should read more of the Federalist papers. This type of situation has happened before. Blindly following the constitution without applying it's principles to every day life is a sure receipe for disaster.

I'm thinking that a corky's bbq will be on one side of this mosque and Greg Gutfield's Islamic gay bar will be on the other side of it.

Honestly I figure a smoldering ruin will quickly be between the two joints you listed.

[JayC]

what was described is a seperate standard, there is a school schedule, days off etc... What is not fair is that they get extra days off, the whole school is not off just certain people lay out. They still get all the "normal" time off. Give the Muslim kids off on September 11 too while you are at it.

Where I grew up as a kid, children of farmers got to take 2 weeks off during planting season and again some time off in the fall for the harvest. All you needed was a note from your parents that you were working on the family farm.

It didn't seem fair to me then

Fair is different than the government favoring one religion over another... I don't see that happening all that often.

[JayC]

And for the record, while JayC is hell bent on beating the Constitutional "dead horse" of religious freedoms into the ground, allow me to don my cape and play the role of Captain Obvious for the moment. Our Constitution guarantees each of us the freedom of whatever religious beliefs we find appealing to us. It does NOT, however, guarantee us the opportunity to build a church, mosque, temple or prayer shanty wherever we damn well please. That's up to local municipalities, and if the no-bulls**t attitude of the few New Yorkers I know is any indication of the general species, I doubt this plan is going to get any traction except for among the ideologues and liberal loons. The common working stiff? He's the guy who is still mad as hell about the whole 9/11 thing and not about to forget what they did to us.

I'm sorry David, but I'm an the most political incorrect person you would ever meet I'm not arguing for Muslims... only to keep the government away from my own religious beliefs and the freedom to exercise them as I wish.

As for your argument that the 1st Amendment doesn't cover the building of churches, but only freedom of worship... I'd disagree and state that there are nearly 40-60 SCOTUS rulings which seem to disagree with your opinion on the matter. BTW freedom of worship is a progressive trap IMHO, it's freedom to exercise your religious beliefs which encompasses a lot more than just praying in your home.

I agree that local zoning boards can have zoning laws, but according to very settled SCOTUS case law, they may not have special rules regarding religious institutions. I'd suggest reading Cantwell v CT 1940 :

The Supreme Court ruled that any law granting a public body the function of determining if a cause is religious or not violates the First Amendment.

Obviously in my opinion any zoning ordinance which singled out religious projects would be unconstitutional, and surely in zoning board ruling that denied an application because of the religion of the applicants would clearly violate the 1st Amendment under current case law.

So, yes government can regulate zoning... but can't require anything special because a site may or may not be used for religious activities. Or at least that is how I read the case law. So, yes we have a right to build churches, mosques and temples on private land as long as we meet the general zoning requirements of the site in question.

Now, if citizens want to put a stop to this... I'm ALL for it... I'm just against the government getting involved.

[JayC]

I can see where Jay C is coming from...but I also see his failing. David, I don't think it's wrong to cling to the constitution and follow it's edicts..but I also think that Jay C should read more of the Federalist papers. This type of situation has happened before. Blindly following the constitution without applying it's principles to every day life is a sure receipe for disaster.

I'm thinking that a corky's bbq will be on one side of this mosque and Greg Gutfield's Islamic gay bar will be on the other side of it.

BTW I have read all 85 of the Federalist Papers, and a number of the Anti-Federalist papers by 'Cato' and 'Brutus'.

It's my belief that by weakening Muslim's freedom of religion and the free exercise of that religion we put at risk over own religious freedoms down the road. Christians will be a minority in the United States if trends continue, and I suspect future Christians will look back and question why we so weakened our current religious freedoms... maybe I'm wrong...

I'm all for stopping the mosque from being built... I was all for turning Afghanistan into a glass parking lot... and frankly I think that very well may be the best 'exit' strategy we have left I have no love for people trying to force their religion on others... nuke them until they glow and shoot them in the dark but US citizens have God given rights protected by the Constitution, and last time I checked we are a country of laws not a country of public outrage.

I'm not blind to the dangerous radical religions present to myself and this country.... I just want to be very careful because the progressives are trying very hard to make Christians look just as evil and backwards as Muslim's... what are we to do in the future when we're labeled radical? And the government can start to interfere with our religious freedoms?

If my choice is between weakening my religious freedom to stop this mosque, or running the risk that a homegrown terrorist becomes radicalized in this mosque and kills a bunch of people... I'm sorry I'm a bit too selfish to give up my freedoms for possible security. The risk from home grown terrorists is much lower than the risk of our own government IMHO.

[JG55]

here's a link to see exactly where and why the Mosque is called ground zero mosque. Take a look..

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16201&posts=1

[JG55]

Sunday, August 15, 2010

"Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project."

Said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. Click here to take apoll about this statement: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-to-be-clear-president-is-not.html

What's the worst thing about Burton's statement?

It disrespects Ground Zero to characterize it as just another "local project."

The President really did change his position, and it's a lie to deny that.

The President dips into local matters when he wants to, such as Skip Gates and the Cambridge cop.

It's legalistic hair-splitting again instead of saying something clear that people can understand.

ADDED: I almost feel sorry for Obama and the Democrats for their misfortune that this is the issue that has come to the fore at this time.

At least one Republican, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seized on the confusion. “Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade,”

Palin wrote on Facebook

....

Democratic aides say that, at the very least, the president has again knocked his party's candidates off local messages and forced them to talk about a national issue that doesn't appear likely to play well with important swing voters.

These officials planned to spend this weekend talking about Social Security’s 75th anniversary....

"The main reaction is 'Why? Why now?’" said one House Democratic leadership aide. "It's just another day off message. There have been a lot of days off message.

The chief of staff to one politically vulnerable House Democrat said it "probably alienates a lot of independent voters" and "it's not a good issue to be talking about right now."

He said he suspects "there are a lot of (Democrats) who are spooked in tough districts today" and "a lot of Republicans licking their chops right now."

Almost. The Democrats would love to do the same thing to the Republicans. They wouldn't hesitate to exploit something that captures the public's attention and provides leverage for the political arguments they like to make. Remember the Mark Foley incident in 2006.

Posted by Ann Althouse at 11:43 AM

Tags: 9/11, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Islam, NYC, Obama stumbles

Edited August 16, 2010 by JG55

[leroy]

Folks:_______________

A few things to think about. First I agree with the idea that we have freedom of religion in this country; and that this freedom is guranteed by the Constitution. That means freedom to practice any religion, so long as the tenants and practices of that religion do not violate existing law (...e.g. -- child sacrifice, temple prostitution --- you get the picture...). That means that Islam, which I believe is both a religious and political world view can be practiced anywhere there are followers who gather together for worship.

This brings us to the issue of the "Ground Zero" Mosque. Those who oppose the choice of this specific location of this project should buy the ground zero property. That is the best way to stop any project (...religious or otherwise...) which requires a real estate location. This has the effect of diverting that particular location to the uses of the owners. The government (...both federal, local, and state...) should stay out of the mosque location issue.

All that being said; there is no doubt in my mind that the secret sponsors of radical Islam (...read that the Saudis and other oil sheik nations that we do business with...) are working mightily behind the scenes to give the nutty among their fiefdoms a tangible token of the "Victory of Islam" over the USA (...whether it is, in fact, a victory or not...). I believe that "token" or shrine is the proposed Ground Zero Mosque. If those parties that are interested in this issue wish to stop this project; land purchase is the solution. No courts, no political arguments (…and demagoguery…), no constitutional issues, no nothing except dollars to buy the property. My guess is that since that since the oil fiefdoms have plenty of money and that the folks who own the ground zero property worship the god of money, this aint going to happen. That means that the nutty will get their shrine, and New Yorkers will get a new mosque. Either way, I would much prefer no meddling in the constitutional issues in regard to freedom of religion and property rights. Remember, folks generally get what they ask for.

Oh, by the way, I think it is great that Nobama and other foolish polititians are talking about this; even endorsing it. They are busy making more and more people mad about this. I say, never interupt your enemies while they are digging their own graves and making making more enemies out of former friends. I say; "Keep talking!!!".

Food for thought.

Leroy

Edited August 16, 2010 by leroy
format

[Guest RevScottie]

It's my belief that by weakening Muslim's freedom of religion and the free exercise of that religion we put at risk over own religious freedoms down the road.

JayC is 100% correct on this. What if it were a Baptist church wanting to build an outreach center in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood. Should they be able to block the building just because of a difference in religious beliefs?

You guys who oppose this are on a very slippery slope. How far is far enough away from Ground Zero for Muslims to worship? 1 block, 3 blocks, 1/2 mile? Who determines that? Do we establish certain zoning where only certain religions are allowed?

[JayC]

+10,000

I totally agree, the way to address this is by legal and nonviolent means which do not involve the government. There is a second building needed to construct this mosque... raise the money and buy it instead... $1 for every American outraged by this mosque will be plenty of money.

Document the project and boycott any business that is involved... banks, builders, etc...

But, the government stepping in and blocking this mosque is not a solution we should be calling for.. imho.

Folks:_______________

A few things to think about. First I agree with the idea that we have freedom of religion in this country; and that this freedom is guranteed by the Constitution. That means freedom to practice any religion, so long as the tenants and practices of that religion do not violate existing law (...e.g. -- child sacrifice, temple prostitution --- you get the picture...). That means that Islam, which I believe is both a religious and political world view can be practiced anywhere there are followers who gather together for worship.

This brings us to the issue of the "Ground Zero" Mosque. Those who oppose the choice of this specific location of this project should buy the ground zero property. That is the best way to stop any project (...religious or otherwise...) which requires a real estate location. This has the effect of diverting that particular location to the uses of the owners. The government (...both federal, local, and state...) should stay out of the mosque location issue.

All that being said; there is no doubt in my mind that the secret sponsors of radical Islam (...read that the Saudis and other oil sheik nations that we do business with...) are working mightily behind the scenes to give the nutty among their fiefdoms a tangible token of the "Victory of Islam" over the USA (...whether it is, in fact, a victory or not...). I believe that "token" or shrine is the proposed Ground Zero Mosque. If those parties that are interested in this issue wish to stop this project; land purchase is the solution. No courts, no political arguments (…and demagoguery…), no constitutional issues, no nothing except dollars to buy the property. My guess is that since that since the oil fiefdoms have plenty of money and that the folks who own the ground zero property worship the god of money, this aint going to happen. That means that the nutty will get their shrine, and New Yorkers will get a new mosque. Either way, I would much prefer no meddling in the constitutional issues in regard to freedom of religion and property rights. Remember, folks generally get what they ask for.

Oh, by the way, I think it is great that Nobama and other foolish polititians are talking about this; even endorsing it. They are busy making more and more people mad about this. I say, never interupt your enemies while they are digging their own graves and making making more enemies out of former friends. I say; "Keep talking!!!".

Food for thought.

Leroy

[Guest 270win]

I will be surprised if that mosque ever really gets built. The construction business in the NYC/NJ area is heavily unionized. Those fools picked they wrong place to build their 'peace center' if they even want to get it built because no unionized construction worker will work that project.

The area close to Ground Zero is some of the most EXPENSIVE real estate in the country. That is also a heavily commercial/business area. Why a mosque there? You would be a fool to build a 'peace center' on expensive land like that. If you truly want to build a 'peace center', you would want to get along with people. Getting along with people does not mean picking a place that ticks off people. The whole deal is nothing but a slap in the face/victory monument/peeing on America. These people don't want to assimilate/make peace, they want to irritate a fresh wound. If they didn't they'd pick a more sensible location.

[TGO David]

I get so damned tired of the "slippery slope" argument. Political correctness is a web of bull**** that just slows people down from doing what is right. Does anyone even care what is RIGHT or WRONG anymore, or are we so progressive now that we're forbidden from seeing black and white and forced to spend eternity debating shades of gray?

[Guest RevScottie]

I get so damned tired of the "slippery slope" argument. Political correctness is a web of bull**** that just slows people down from doing what is right. Does anyone even care what is RIGHT or WRONG anymore, or are we so progressive now that we're forbidden from seeing black and white and forced to spend eternity debating shades of gray?

This has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the rights the founders of this nation gave us. If you discriminate against one religion just because you don't agree with their views what makes you think that when someone disagrees with your views that you won't be discriminated against? No one asks that you agree with the idea but Muslims are Americans too and they have the same rights that I do.

[Oh Shoot]

This has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the rights the founders of this nation gave us. If you discriminate against one religion just because you don't agree with their views what makes you think that when someone disagrees with your views that you won't be discriminated against? No one asks that you agree with the idea but Muslims are Americans too and they have the same rights that I do.

However reluctantly on an emotional level, I do agree.

David mentioned "right and wrong" and "black and white" and "political correctness".

All of those terms are to a certain extent moving targets, seems to me. All we ultimately have to go on is the Constitution and the federal, state, county, and municipal laws that have been found to conform to it.

It is within both the letter and spirit of the US Constitution to build a Catholic cathedral, a Jewish synagogue, a Hindu temple, or an Islamic mosque there.

A little additional perspective:

- The proposed mosque is actually two blocks away from ground zero, and is only 700 feet closer to Ground Zero than another existing mosque (or Islamic "prayer house", however you want to define it).

- You can not see Ground Zero from the existing building on the proposed mosque site, not will you be able to see it from the new mosque, unless something gets built on Ground Zero high enough to rise over existing buildings in between.

- There are at least 15 existing mosques/prayer houses in Manhattan already.

For those who claim that Islam is a political ideology based on conquest first, and a religion second, I would not necessarily disagree, but would also point to the first 1500 years or so of Christianity, where you could also legitimately claim the same for the primary manifestation of it -- the Catholic Church.

I sometimes really wonder whether a race war or religious war is going to occur first, or whether a big financial/social meltdown will dictate an every man for himself general anarchy. Surely, I see no rainbows.

- OS