Critical thinking and political matters.

David, I was arguing against this statement.

Consolidated Edison which owns a part of the site decides it would be wrong its property to the Muslim group, the building will not be erected on that site, and arguing whether the structure ought not to be built may persuade them not to sell the property. [There is something rong with the sentence structure here; it is incomplete and unintelligible.]

Ken listed a reason for Con Ed refusing to sell and that reason was not "to retain their property rights" but rather
is to prevent the building of the mosque.

kennethamy wrote:

President Obama argued that just as any members of a religion have the right to build a religious structure at the site, so do Muslims.

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so.

This is how you frame the issue. Others, including me, frame it as a case of religious discrimination and bigotry by the likes of Pat Robertson. And once you frame it in those terms, it becomes irrelevant whether the opponents try to impose their bigotry through legal pressure or through bullying in the media.

I disagree Obama's argument was a red herring, and submit that it was a perfectly valid argument. His only "sin" is that he framed the issue in different terms than you did.

I see your point and would agree. This should not affect policy. But, the additional hurt does exist and is not necessarily a 'cover' for something more nefarious, at least not in those with the real pain. Now, who knows why the politicians do or say anything.

Thomas wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

President Obama argued that just as any members of a religion have the right to build a religious structure at the site, so do Muslims.

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so.

This is how you frame the issue. Others, including me, frame it as a case of religious discrimination and bigotry by the likes of Pat Robertson. And once you frame it in those terms, it becomes irrelevant whether the opponents try to impose their bigotry through legal pressure or through bullying in the media.

I disagree Obama's argument was a red herring, and submit that it was a perfectly valid argument. His only "sin" is that he framed the issue in different terms than you did.

Kenny is wrong because the rights are rights because they are right... If doing anything has no victims then it cannot be wrong to do it...If society cannot produce an injured party from gay marriage then it should be a right... The preumption that people must defend a right before it is accepted is fundamentally wrong... The burden of proof should be squarely on those in society who would deny the rights -people say they need- to prove them injurious... Free enterprize and private property could not pass that test for its victims are everywhere who have not already been buried... The reason people now give for their assault even on the very rights they enjoy to launch their assaults is that it does not fit with their sense of morality... No one should be concerned with the morality of so many hypocrites who will not even follow their own religion, but who grasp after money and power as their true gods...It is they in their quest for power who have put us into conflict with the Muslims who have more in common with us than even the Jews, and it is their idolitry that has brought attacks on us... If we were christians, no people would be our enemy, but the so called christians who run America are enemies of most of the population of this land and the whole earth... They have too much freedom, and they think we have too many rights... We do not have too many rights...

Quote:

The arguments about constitutional rights are arguments not based on the constition interpreted as law, they are based on the average ideologicaland emotional connection the public has about the constitution.

No. The constitution would allow for the building of the mosque. That isn't subjective or emotional in any way and is clearly based on the Constitution interpreted as law. Unless you can show an instance where the constitution doesn't allow the building of religious building because it might offend someone there is no basis for your statement.

Quote:

You may be upset about the mosque but you are likely ideologically incapable of calling the 1st amendment unjust and the mosque should be covered by the 1st amendment so your emotions against the mosque are unfounded.

There is no "should be covered". There is only "is covered."

Of course not. Bigotry should not influence policy nor be tolerated no matter how hard or soft.

you win

We may be sympathetic to the 'hurt', but we should not allow it to affect our behaviors.

The attachment to the ideal of reduced emotion is an emotion during philosophical pursuit. It is one strong enough for you to take the time to argue against what I have said.

It takes quite a bit of commitment to the ideal to truely objectivly look at something assuming one isn't a sociopath.

parados wrote:

Give me one example of restricting someone's right to do something while they were still able to do it.

If a mob of White Supremacists started beating up Blacks in Central Park, and the New York Police Department did nothing about it, that technically wouldn't violate the Blacks' constitutional rights. Technically, constitutional rights are against the government, not private individuals, and technically, the police has no affirmative duty to enforce the law. (Debra_Law had a thread about it long ago.)

But that just goes to show that technical arguments are inadequate for resolving matters matter like these.

Now in an emotional sense, and out of respect and concern for the feelings of the sufferers of 911 who see this mosque as an affront to their immense loss,