AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

Quote:

I think that should be debated between folks that have a stake in this historical site, including the relatives of those that died there, New York City officials, plus other agencies as well like maybe Homeland Security, etc.

If you had a relative who died at the WTC site on 9/11, you would have proclaimed it. So, it sounds like you are about to absent yourself from the debate.

Oh, one of my relatives died at Auschwitz and was elevated on the road toward sainthood. I guess that makes me capable of debating the Final Solution.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I can have an opinion that there could and perhaps should be a perimeter around Ground Zero that has special zoning regulations, but I don't claim to know what that perimeter should be exactly. I think that should be debated and determined by various authorities and interests involved.

The entire point of this discussion here however is that we can express our opinion about whether it is reasonable for local authorities to disallow a mosque within a perimeter distance of Ground Zero, and as I said, it would be appropriate for them to consult others like pertinent agencies and surviving relatives to help them make that determination.

2 Replies

In an unrelated issue, I listened to Ed Shultz, liberal talk show personality, today, and the best that he could offer was criticism of John Boehner for playing too much golf. When a caller called in and pointed out Obama's much golfing, that was somehow different, and so was Michelle Obama's vacationing, no problem. And at the beginning of the show, Shultz was bragging about having to make a tee time. Go figure!!!! I never heard much in the way of meaningful analysis of anything, but I admit I didn't listen very long, as it got tiresome pretty quickly.

0 Replies

@okie,

The only "authority" that matters is the US Constitution. It's too bad people like you don't understand anything about America and tolerance.

0 Replies

@okie,

I stand by my original statement.
I do not oppose building the mosque, and will gladly go help them build it.

I think you are in the wrong here okie.
The mosque is not being built on ground zero, they are not proposing to put huge minarets on it, nor are they proposing destroying any existing structures (that I know of).

They are proposing remodeling and reclaiming an already abandoned building, and I have no problem with that.
The Muslim community of NY is allowed to have a mosque if they want, and since they have already gotten permission from the city, I really dont understand why anyone is complaining about it.

As I said, you should be more worried about the strip clubs, bars, and peep shows within 2 blocks of Ground Zero.

2 Replies

@okie,

I see that you're still undecided on how large the "no-religion" area around the WTC site should be, but that you seem to think that a building just two blocks away - even if it cannot be seen from the WTC site - is too close. Seems reasonable.

I'm sure you'd agree with me that a religious building just half a block away from Ground Zero is most definitely too close. It's also If you check the map shown below, you'll see the location of St. Paul's Chapel, standing on the block immediately next to the site of the terrorist attacks:

I don't know what the people who continued running the church after 9/11 were possibly thinking... Maybe that it's some kind of monument symbolizing the triumph of Christianity over Islam or something... But I'm sure reasonable people can agree that they've already had plenty of time to close down that place in the immediate vicinity to a site of such national importance. I say let's give this place and similar religious buildings in the no-First-Amendment zone a time frame of 10 years, counting from 9/11. This church would then have to be closed down on 9/11/2011.

Actually, the church problem is pretty simple, just move it somewhere away from the area that should have special zoning and no religious buildings now. If the Christian folks say that it is not a monument to the triumph of Christianity over Islam in the light of 9/11, then it should not matter at all that it is moved somewhere else away from the 9/11 site. After all why would they want to invite controversy by staying at that location? Simply move it, problem solved.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

The entire point of this discussion here however is that we can express our opinion about whether it is reasonable for local authorities to disallow. . .

But, YOU SAID that those who lost relatives in the collapse should set such boundaries. So, which way is it?

BTW, that you would propose there should be any sort of boundary sounds precisely like a criticism you and the rest of the right continually
level at liberals.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Three cheers for MM.

0 Replies

Not long after 9/11, I remember listening to a woman who was a chaperone for a school trip to NYC talk about what they did. She listed the sites visited, finishing with, "and, of course, ground zero."

Really? "Of course?" I would never have considered ground zero a must see.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I stand by my original statement.
I do not oppose building the mosque, and will gladly go help them build it.

I think you are in the wrong here okie.
The mosque is not being built on ground zero, they are not proposing to put huge minarets on it, nor are they proposing destroying any existing structures (that I know of).

They are proposing remodeling and reclaiming an already abandoned building, and I have no problem with that.
The Muslim community of NY is allowed to have a mosque if they want, and since they have already gotten permission from the city, I really dont understand why anyone is complaining about it.

As I said, you should be more worried about the strip clubs, bars, and peep shows within 2 blocks of Ground Zero.

mm, you have done more to sway my thinking on this subject than anyone else. Personally, I don't really care, as I have been to Manhattan one time and never saw anything there I cared to go back to see. The main thing was Ellis Island, which we toured, because my dad immigrated and came through Ellis Island in 1928, from Denmark. That and the Statue of Liberty was impressive and frankly moving when I thought of my dad being adventurous and motivated enough to come here for a better life.

If I had lost a relative at Ground Zero, I would probably be more dead set against the mosque, as I think mm that if the Islamic community did not wish to offend America, they would simply move the mosque much further away, but I think it actually portrays their arrogance to some extent by placing it as close as they think they can get by with. Again, I have no problem with Muslims if they are law abiding, but I think the religion as a whole has done not much to denounce and oppose terrorist acts around the world. I am worried that if we cow tow to them, their mosques, and more political correctness in schools and other issues in an effort to being politically correct, I do not think it will lead to better things. It seems that many Democrats and liberals are already far more benevolent to Islam than they are Christianity, which seems way out of whack if you consider our roots as a nation.

But as I have said, I don't care that much personally and I am certainly not going to participate in some march or protest or anything like that. It is not an over riding issue to me, but I think it would have made much more sense for New York to simply institute a bit stricter zoning regulations to move things such as this further away to avoid the negative issue that only genders more strife. And you can go help them build it if you want in an effort to make a great impression that we are religiously tolerant or something, but I am certainly not going to do it. Nor would I go help build any church or temple anywhere because I really don't believe what man builds as basically an edifice to his own religious grandeur is sacred or that wonderful in any way.

Anyway, thanks for your input and answering my question.

1 Reply

Quote:

If I had lost a relative at Ground Zero, I would probably be more dead set against the mosque

Why? Because all Muslims are the same?

Quote:

Again, I have no problem with Muslims if they are law abiding,

Wait, what? You just said you are dead set against law abiding people building a church. Do you have a problem with law abiding muslims, or not?

Quote:

but I think the religion as a whole has done not much to denounce and oppose terrorist acts around the world. I am worried that if we cow tow to them, their mosques, and more political correctness in schools and other issues in an effort to being politically correct, I do not think it will lead to better things.

This is a Slippery Slope fallacy.

Quote:

It seems that many Democrats and liberals are already far more benevolent to Islam than they are Christianity, which seems way out of whack if you consider our roots as a nation.

I detest all religions equally and impartially. They are all one form of foolishness or another, for the weak-minded. But lots of people seem to like them, so why not allow them to enjoy their lives?

Quote:

But as I have said, I don't care that much personally and I am certainly not going to participate in some march or protest or anything like that. It is not an over riding issue to me, but I think it would have made much more sense for New York to simply institute a bit stricter zoning regulations to move things such as this further away to avoid the negative issue that only genders more strife.

What 'regulations?' How would you write regulations that discriminate against Muslims? I don't see how you expect that would survive a court challenge.

Quote:

And you can go help them build it if you want in an effort to make a great impression that we are religiously tolerant or something, but I am certainly not going to do it. Nor would I go help build any church or temple anywhere because I really don't believe what man builds as basically an edifice to his own religious grandeur is sacred or that wonderful in any way.

This I do agree with - but then again, neither is the site of 9/11. It is not sacred or consecrated. It's just a place.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
The entire point of this discussion here however is that we can express our opinion about whether it is reasonable for local authorities to disallow. . .

But, YOU SAID that those who lost relatives in the collapse should set such boundaries. So, which way is it?

No, I did not. This is but another example wherein you make up stuff or distort what I have said. To repeat what I have said, I believe relatives of the victims or representatives of group or groups that represent them should be able to provide input to the local authorities in this matter. In other words, if I was part of the local authority forumulating policy on this, I would invite their input into the zoning considerations, along with the input of other pertinent agencies that have a stake in the future of this area and its national significance. I see that as simple common sense, pom, in the course of trying to do a decent job of it.

Quote:

BTW, that you would propose there should be any sort of boundary sounds precisely like a criticism you and the rest of the right continually
level at liberals.

I have never proposed or argued that cities and counties should not institute zoning regulations for their local areas, in fact I am in favor of those. For example, I would not think it appropriate for Walmart to be able to build a super center right next to me, or some other commercial or industrial installation, because it is not zoned commercial, it is zoned residential which it should be. The main thing I have said about Democrats is that there is too much regulation, but I have never said we should have none. We simply need reasonable regulation, and certainly they need it in Manhattan, especially now following 9/11 around Ground Zero.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This I do agree with - but then again, neither is the site of 9/11. It is not sacred or consecrated. It's just a place.

Cycloptichorn

I read all of your post and as usual have many disagreements, but for now I will only address your last point. I do not disagree with you actually, but it isn't what we think, it is what most Americans may think. For example, do you believe the Gettysburg Battlefield is a sacred place? I happen to know someone that studies and specializes in Civil War history and publications, and I know for a fact that he would consider the battlefield sites of the Civil War sacred, and he is involved in an organization that keeps tabs on those areas in efforts to protect the areas and adjacent ground, especially sites that are not yet parks and protected.

So I think it would make much more sense to recognize now the national significance of Ground Zero and consider for all involved what is reasonable for the site including a reasonable perimeter. Nobody is denying religious rights or private property rights when reasonable zoning regulations are instituted.

Last point, and this is one I think you and most people are ignoring. If this is not a religious shrine or memorial in the eyes of Muslims, and the location has no significance to them as relates to Ground Zero, then it should be a very simple matter for them to simply agree to move it to avoid the offense to 9/11 victims and a huge proportion of Americans for that matter. Instead, I think it may be a case of "in your face" attitude, we are going to build this edifice as close to Ground Zero as we can, and therein lies the problem as I see it. Such only increases resentments and strife. I think we need to assert our rights to zone this area as is appropriate and lawful instead of doing what is politically correct, but again that is up to the city authorities to do it along with all reasonable input from appropriate people and agencies as I have already described.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

then it should be a very simple matter for them to simply agree to move it to avoid the offense to 9/11 victims and a huge proportion of Americans for that matter.

Why should they? Why would anyone be offended? Be specific.

In the same way that you and others have said that America should not kowtow to Islaam, I am telling you that what America REALLY shouldn't kowtow to is idiocy. Being offended by this thing is idiotic and the only justification for it lies in bigotry. Giving in to that would be the absolute worst thing that we can do.

Ron Paul said it really well the other day - this is an opportunity for America to show that we really mean what we say. It's easy to talk about equality when there is no contention over the issue; but when the rubber meets the road, do we mean what we say?

Do you propose that there be an anti-Muslim zone around the WTC site, Okie? Or what? You keep mentioning Zoning and regulations, but you aren't specific. And I would point out that the Zoning board already approved this site....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
then it should be a very simple matter for them to simply agree to move it to avoid the offense to 9/11 victims and a huge proportion of Americans for that matter.

Why should they? Why would anyone be offended? Be specific.

You can't be that dense, can you cyclops? What if this had been a group of Jerry Falwell or some other Christian group fanatics that flew the planes into the towers? Would people be offended if they built a Crystal Cathedral or some such thing where the mosque is to be built?

Quote:

In the same way that you and others have said that America should not kowtow to Islaam, I am telling you that what America REALLY shouldn't kowtow to is idiocy. Being offended by this thing is idiotic and the only justification for it lies in bigotry. Giving in to that would be the absolute worst thing that we can do.

Again, it is not bigotry, it is common sense. Surely you have enough sense and understanding of history to know the Islamic mission is to overcome or conquer Western Civilization, and so 9/11 is a pretty large event in the course of history, and this area is very significant. I remain thinking it is a simple matter to not give into the powers that want to build an edifice to themselves and their efforts here.

Quote:

Ron Paul said it really well the other day - this is an opportunity for America to show that we really mean what we say. It's easy to talk about equality when there is no contention over the issue; but when the rubber meets the road, do we mean what we say?

Do you propose that there be an anti-Muslim zone around the WTC site, Okie? Or what? You keep mentioning Zoning and regulations, but you aren't specific. And I would point out that the Zoning board already approved this site....

Cycloptichorn

Ron Paul may be succumbing to political correctness as well. If the zoning board already approved the site, then let them go ahead, fine, I don't really care, but I think they may have made a mistake on this one.

I would not propose any anti-Muslim zone around the site, are you nuts, cyclops, but I would probably have said let us grandfather in what was there before the planes hit, but let us prohibit any further religious temples or cathedrals in the area within a reasonable distance, especially those of several stories maybe. This would just be common sense zoning considerations, cyclops, for an area that has extreme national significance and sacred meaning to many, that should not be intruded upon by other new religious installations or buildings in the way of temples, cathedrals, or mosques. I think the majority of the American people would certainly support a reasonable policy as I have described, and we could avoid the political correctness and resentments that will result from this.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

You can't be that dense, can you cyclops? What if this had been a group of Jerry Falwell or some other Christian group fanatics that flew the planes into the towers? Would people be offended if they built a Crystal Cathedral or some such thing where the mosque is to be built?

No, why should they be offended? Should all Christians be tarred by the acts of a few of them? Of course not. This is what I refer to as 'idiocy.' It makes no logical sense.

Quote:

Again, it is not bigotry, it is common sense. Surely you have enough sense and understanding of history to know the Islamic mission is to overcome or conquer Western Civilization

This is a false assertion on your part. Unlike you, I have studied the history of Islaam in depth and can say with confidence that they have no 'mission' to overcome or conquer the West, at all. You just made this up. And it's statements like this that make people think you are a bigot, because it is profoundly ignorant and insulting to them.

Quote:

. This would just be common sense zoning considerations, cyclops, for an area that has extreme national significance and sacred meaning to many, that should not be intruded upon by other new religious installations or buildings in the way of temples, cathedrals, or mosques.

So, you claim that this site is SO SACRED that no other temples or churches should be built anywhere close to it? I disagree, and further I point out that there is no provision for 'sacredness' in US Law in any fashion. There is no legal or moral right to bl0ck these people from building whatever they like in the space...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, you claim that this site is SO SACRED that no other temples or churches should be built anywhere close to it? I disagree, and further I point out that there is no provision for 'sacredness' in US Law in any fashion. There is no legal or moral right to bl0ck these people from building whatever they like in the space...

Cycloptichorn

I believe that U.S. law and all citizens do consider some sites to be hallowed, such as Gettysburg Battlefield or the Battle of the Little Bighorn, and I will bet that there would be plenty of people making sure certain things or anything is not built too close to these sites. I don't know if I would consider them sacred, probably not, but I think at least some indian tribes for example do consider the Bighorn Battlefield sacred, as it represented one of the last big stands that Native Americans made against the encroachment and settlement of Europeans into Western North America.

I believe there is not only a legal and moral right to block building of some things in this area, but I believe there is a legal and moral responsibility to do so in a reasonable and sensible manner. The site should be left to stand for what it is, in and of itself, without the addition of other competing interests in the immediate area, especially a mosque that signifies and monumentalizes the supposed religious power and faith that apparently motivated the perpetrators of 9/11 to murder about 3,000 innocent Americans at nearby Ground Zero. If we are responsible Americans, no, we should not allow that to happen.

Again, I will go with what the local authorities decide, and they apparently already have, but that does not obligate me to agreement with them, as I think they are making a mistake if it has been approved. It is not my decision to make, but I can still express an opinion about how it should have been done.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, They have been declared historical sites with many restrictions to build on it; but the restrictions are for everybody. It doesn't pick any group, religion, or organization; it's everybody.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, you claim that this site is SO SACRED that no other temples or churches should be built anywhere close to it? I disagree, and further I point out that there is no provision for 'sacredness' in US Law in any fashion. There is no legal or moral right to bl0ck these people from building whatever they like in the space...

Cycloptichorn

I believe that U.S. law and all citizens do consider some sites to be hallowed,

Really? What portion of the law? I think you just sorta made it up.

And it certainly isn't 'all citiziens' who consider sites to be hallowed; I'm a citizen, and I don't consider anywhere to be 'hallowed ground.' Ground is ground.

Quote:

I believe there is not only a legal and moral right to block building of some things in this area, but I believe there is a legal and moral responsibility to do so in a reasonable and sensible manner.

There are no legal rights to block building of Mosques, based on religious bigotry. Neither are there moral rights. If you believe there are either, point out exactly what they are: point to the law in question that supports your position, and lay out the specific moral case for why it shouldn't be built - and do try and avoid bigotry and lumping all Muslims together while you do it, because I'll pick that apart in 2 seconds which is boring.

Quote:

The site should be left to stand for what it is, in and of itself, without the addition of other competing interests in the immediate area

A mosque is a competing interest to the 9/11 site? In what way?

Quote:

especially a mosque that signifies and monumentalizes the supposed religious power and faith that apparently motivated the perpetrators of 9/11 to murder about 3,000 innocent Americans at nearby Ground Zero.

You are using suppositions and assumptions to build a moral case. That is foolish. You have no evidence that the mosque has anything to do with 9/11 at all - other than the bigotry of lumping all Muslims together.

Quote:

If we are responsible Americans, no, we should not allow that to happen.

You've retreated into assertions and bigotry here. If we are responsible Americans, we will uphold our traditions of Religious Equality - even when some are offended by it, because that's the way we do things.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

That is why we need to be careful to make restrictions in Manhattan universal, such as no more building of religious cathedrals, temples, or mosques, within a perimeter around Ground Zero, except for what was there prior that could be grandfathered in. The reason that restriction of religious installations is reasonable is because 9/11 has tremendous religious ramifications, that should be self evident.

3 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know