Critical thinking and political matters.

Do you see how you just contradicted yourself?

Intrepid wrote:

Do you see how you just contradicted yourself?

I don't think he is able to at this point. He is, unfortunately, setting a classic example of how difficult it can sometimes be to critically examine poliltical issues.

Since, as you have just said, I (and others) have the right to express our disapproval of the mosque, and since that disapproval, along with other legal measures, may prevent the building of the mosque on that site, it follows that I (and others) do have the right to prevent the building of the mosque. And of course, we do. Just as the builders have the right to build it. I think that you, like many, are still confused by the distinction between having a right, and whether it is right to exercise that right. I think that what you wanted to say is that although I have the right to express my disapproval, I was not right to express my disapproval. Now, isn't that what you really want to say?

Quote:

In a democracy, citizen always have not only the right to express their views, but in most circumstance should be allowed to exercise that right.

Really? I think you shouldn't be saying anything and if enough of us agree then you should just shut up. Wow.. that's easy. And it didn't really interfere with your rights.

Of course, we should point out that you are a serial liar, you helped George Bush crash planes into the WTC towers and given the opportunity you would be willing to molest children. But, you know, we are just discussing it on the off chance you might change your mind. You still have your rights after all.

Intrepid wrote:

Do you see how you just contradicted yourself?

I don't think he is able to at this point. He is, unfortunately, setting a classic example of how difficult it can sometimes be to critically examine poliltical issues.

Quote:

And, of course, if that cannot settle the conflict, then if the two parties feel strongly enough, they may have to go to the courts. I hope you can get that.

But if they go to court, it will be a Constitutional issue. You argued that it had nothing to do with the Constitution and now you introduce it as the final solution.

Do you see how you just contradicted yourself?

kennethamy wrote:

Ahab wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Offended by the building?" Your use of emotion (offended) to determine its rightness or wrongness is where you miss the total issue as it concerns this particular topic. That some people are offended that Muslims wish to build a mosque two blocks away from ground zero is based in bigotry; there's no other explanation. Nobody would have complained if they were planning to build a catholic church on that same site.

Were you addressing this to kennethamy?
I agree with you that nobody woud would have complained if Caotholics or Protestants or Jews were building at the same site. That is why kennethamy's claim that the constitutional right to practice one's religion is a red herrring in this dispute is false. This is a clear case of religious discrimination.

If Jews or Catholics had been the ones who committed the 9/11 atrocity, then there certainly would have been complaints about their building on that site. Therefore, you have no reason (on that ground) to think that this present case is one of religious discrimination.

The Muslims that are building on this site did not commit those atrocities. You are restricting their right to practice their religion becasue other Muslims committed those atrocities. Clear case of religious discrimination.

Using your logic we shold restrict all Catholic buildings from being constructed near schools because of the all the child molestations committed by Catholic priests.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with the religious issue, but with what group of people (or any religion) who do dastardly things, and the symbolism of that site as associated with those dastardly people.

Perhaps you could clarify this? Why are you associating the construction of some religious buildings with dastardly people? Looks like you are discriminating against them on the basis of their religion to me.

parados wrote:

Quote:

And, of course, if that cannot settle the conflict, then if the two parties feel strongly enough, they may have to go to the courts. I hope you can get that.

But if they go to court, it will be a Constitutional issue. You argued that it had nothing to do with the Constitution and now you introduce it as the final solution.

Courts decide on matters other than constitutional matters. Whether I owe money to a physician may go to a court, but that is hardly a constitutional matter. Only the U.S. Supreme Court decides only constitutional issues. You are welcome, you need not thank me for this civics lesson.

The dastardly people were the terrorists. The construction is a symbol which many people believe justifies what the terrorists did, and defies those who have been harmed by the terrorists.

Had the terrorists been Scientologists, or Mormons, it would have been the same thing. If they had been Shriners or Elks, it would have been the same thing.

How simple can I make it for you? I am cudgeling my brains, and I cannot see how to simplify it for you. I am already closing in on being simplistic.

Courts decide on matters other than constitutional matters. Whether I owe money to a physician may go to a court, but that is hardly a constitutional matter.

Only the U.S. Supreme Court decides only constitutional issues. You are welcome, you need not thank me for this civics lesson.

Don't you get it? He would deny any religion from building a church, if the terrorist belonged to that faith.

He totally ignores the Constitution by doing so, but that's okay, because he says so. It doesn't matter that the majority belonging to any church are all innocent of the dastardly deed; they must all pay the price.

That's logic to him.

Intrepid wrote:

Do you see how you just contradicted yourself?

Since I did not, I do not. Hit and run remark: you say I contradicted myself by asking a loaded question, and then, before explaining how I did, off you zoom into the night. Hit and run.

kennethamy wrote:

Courts decide on matters other than constitutional matters. Whether I owe money to a physician may go to a court, but that is hardly a constitutional matter.

Of course courts decide other things than constitutional matters. I never said they didn't.
This is NOT a case of owing money to a physician. This is a case that would be preventing the building of a mosque. It is a religious issue and that makes it a constitutional issue. No matter how you try to claim it isn't about religion the courts won't see it any differently.