Help me articulate why this rant vs. NY Mosque is wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The President finally came out in favor of the first amendment. A bit late, but at least he is unequivocal: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/08/obama_offers_support_to_islamic_center_near_ground.php?ref=fpblg

I was impressed that he did that, given that a sizable portion of the country thinks he already is a Muslim. This has got to be a no-win situation for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was impressed that he did that, given that a sizable portion of the country thinks he already is a Muslim. This has got to be a no-win situation for him.

Since the Tea Partiers are very big on the Constitution, won't a lot of them be intellectually honest enough to respect the First Amendment?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was impressed that he did that, given that a sizable portion of the country thinks he already is a Muslim. This has got to be a no-win situation for him.

Since the Tea Partiers are very big on the Constitution, won't a lot of them be intellectually honest enough to respect the First Amendment?

LOL. Good one.

[Anonymous]

Obama says he was commenting on the right to build the mosque not the wisdom of the location. Palin tweeted that he should comment on the wisdom. I think he should say that it is a bad idea for him to comment on decisions by religious leaders, but that he is quite willing to comment on politicians, and although it is anyone's right to question the mosque, he considers it unwise for politicians like Palin to turn it into a political issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama says he was commenting on the right to build the mosque not the wisdom of the location. Palin tweeted that he should comment on the wisdom. I think he should say that it is a bad idea for him to comment on decisions by religious leaders, but that he is quite willing to comment on politicians, and although it is anyone's right to question the mosque, he considers it unwise for politicians like Palin to turn it into a political issue.

The president is not sworn to protect our wisdom. He did take an oath to protect our rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was impressed that he did that, given that a sizable portion of the country thinks he already is a Muslim. This has got to be a no-win situation for him.

Since the Tea Partiers are very big on the Constitution, won't a lot of them be intellectually honest enough to respect the First Amendment?

In any other situation, they would be ready to defend freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to do what you want with your property. But you need to be the right religion, hold the right opinion, and have property that is not in their neighborhood. Oh, wait, the neighborhood actually approved this. Well, I guess it's their neighborhood when they are standing on the street corner picketing.

[Anonymous]

The complainers don't get that Obama is not committing a sin of omission by not commenting on the wisdom of the location, is is actively deciding that it is not his job to comment on it. I think he is still being too subtle; he should be loudly accusing the Republicans of committing a sin of commission by fanning the flames of religious tension.

Why do Democrats let Republicans frame the issues?

[Anonymous]

1. Opposition to the mosque is wrong because it is a place of worship and such rights are protected by the Constitution.

2. 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 criminals who happened to be of the Moslem faith. Although they claimed to commit their heinous acts for religious reasons they cannot co-opt the entire Moslem faith and as such other Moslems cannot be held responsible for the crimes of a particular sect within the entire religious group.

3. Inclusion opposed exclusion is the best approach to avoiding a reoccurrence of such crimes. During the World Wars of the 20th Century, Germany and Japan both felt excluded and underappreciated in a world dominated by the British, French, and Americans and it ended in disasters. During the post war era Japan, Germany, and later China became equitably included into the scheme of international trade which has contributed to international stability. We even buy things from Vietnam today.

4. Churchill once said and I para-phrase, (There is no such thing as a permanent enemy, or a permanent ally). If we want to have peace with the Moslem world we must respect Moslem people as equals, honor their civil rights, and set a place for them at the international table of diplomacy.

5. 113,000 Americans died in WWI, 330,000 Americans died in WWII, 58,0000+ Americans died in Vietnam yet we are allies or trading partners with all of these countries today. We need to defuse whatever hostility that exists between the U.S. and the Moslem world today. Building a mosque at ground zero will neither hurt nor help those who died on 9/11, but it may help to connect our cultures which could result in a more peaceful future for us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, from Cordoba's website:
"The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide."

Sounds really dangerous to me!

Will the Mosque and all these wonderful services be only for Muslims or will Muslims open for all religions. Freedom of religion goes both ways. Also, to OP, remmember we have something called "free speech" in this country so you may not care for the subject but you have no right to stop the rant.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Will the Mosque and all these wonderful services be only for Muslims or will Muslims open for all religions. Freedom of religion goes both ways.

Can you please explain where in the Constitution it says that members of a religion must open their facilities to members of other religions? I'm pretty sure that you don't have even a basic understanding of the "freedom of religion".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, from Cordoba's website:
"The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide."

Sounds really dangerous to me!

Will the Mosque and all these wonderful services be only for Muslims or will Muslims open for all religions. Freedom of religion goes both ways. Also, to OP, remmember we have something called "free speech" in this country so you may not care for the subject but you have no right to stop the rant.

FWIW, freedom of religion does not mean that a religion is obligated to let non-believers in.

That said, yes both Cordoba House and the Mosque will let people of all faiths in. It says so on the site. So now are you sold, or do you have another complaint?

[Anonymous]

If 51 Park is too close, how far do you want the "No Muslims zone" to be? 1/4 mile? 1 mile? All of Manhattan?

[Anonymous]

It's almost impossible to park in Manhattan and they want to give Muslims 51 parking places? Why should they get such special treatment?

What's that? An address? Never mind.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Will the Mosque and all these wonderful services be only for Muslims or will Muslims open for all religions. Freedom of religion goes both ways.

Can you please explain where in the Constitution it says that members of a religion must open their facilities to members of other religions? I'm pretty sure that you don't have even a basic understanding of the "freedom of religion".

Don't be obtuse, Jeff. Remark was "tongue in cheek."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The complainers don't get that Obama is not committing a sin of omission by not commenting on the wisdom of the location, is is actively deciding that it is not his job to comment on it. I think he is still being too subtle; he should be loudly accusing the Republicans of committing a sin of commission by fanning the flames of religious tension.
Why do Democrats let Republicans frame the issues?

Harry Reid, (D, NV) and Senate Majority Leader and in the political race of his life, just came out against building the Mosque. He will not be the only DEM to do so. Once you get in office, you have to do what you have to do to stay in office.