Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

..That place woud be hanging out naked and just begging for something vindictive to happen.

Try attending a lecture at the 92nd St Y, a jewish center - you'll have to go through 2 security checks, present IDs, get subjected to pat-down if their metal detector beeps, etc etc. That's year-round, not a special response to any particular warning. The Moslems can do the same downtown.

Obama tried to ride the fence because he was looking at the politics of the issue. We need a leader who is clear one way or another. We need plenty of leaders from both parties being crystal clear. Haven't heard a peep from a lot of them. Too scared to take a stand.

sumac wrote:

Obama tried to ride the fence because he was looking at the politics of the issue. We need a leader who is clear one way or another. We need plenty of leaders from both parties being crystal clear. Haven't heard a peep from a lot of them. Too scared to take a stand.

Yeah, because we take our orders from THEM, right ????????
WE work for THEM.

It doesn't matter why they want to build a new mosque or who funds it. It doesn't matter if it's being or not being sensitive anymore than the vatican building a cathedral in the Bronx or the jews building a synagogue in queens or the scientologists building a whatever in L.A. It doesn't matter because the US constitution says it doesn't matter.

dyslexia wrote:

It doesn't matter why they want to build a new mosque or who funds it. It doesn't matter if it's being or not being sensitive anymore than the vatican building a cathedral in the Bronx or the jews building a synagogue in queens or the scientologists building a whatever in L.A. It doesn't matter because the US constitution says it doesn't matter.

There is no such group as "the jews." There are "some Jews" that might want to build a synagogue somewhere. Hopefully, it would be close enough to your abode to bring you much happiness.

So far Khan reports that there has been little interest from the Arabs to fund his dream, and I am pretty sure that it will stay that way.

Unfortunately it is not only the usual suspects. I haven't heard that many democrats coming to the defense of Muslims having the right to build a mosque anywhere they want or trying to tone down heated rhetoric of associating all Muslims with the extremist Muslims. Reid was going on about the "sensitivity" and then Obama sort came to the support and then sort of back tracked and then tried to clarify his back track. He needs to come out strong and clear with one of speeches

like the mayor of NY did.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

sumac wrote:

Obama tried to ride the fence because he was looking at the politics of the issue. We need a leader who is clear one way or another. We need plenty of leaders from both parties being crystal clear. Haven't heard a peep from a lot of them. Too scared to take a stand.

Yeah, because we take our orders from THEM, right ????????
WE work for THEM.

Who is THEM, bigot?

Cycloptichorn

failures art wrote:

...Interesting point. I think that the gamble is that this will help them. [...] If it works, it's creeps me out.
If it doesn't work, I'll be a little encouraged...

Creep you out - why? Either you believe in something or you don't - this ambivalence is hypocritical. Most senior Republicans support Park 51, the rest are outliers. Read article linked by Ossobuco on previous page showing mosque opponents are undercutting Gen. Petraeus's effort in Afghanistan:

Quote:

..Bernie Kerik .. smuggled a Twitter message out of prison to register his rage at the ground zero desecration. As my colleague Clyde Haberman reminded us, such was Kerik’s previous reverence for the burial ground of 9/11 that he appropriated an apartment overlooking the site (and designated for recovery workers) for an extramarital affair.

Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

Here's Ron Paul on what is really driving this:

Quote:

Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

...

If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

...

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

And he's absolutely right.

Cycloptichorn