Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?

Sure.  If the authorities find out they'll kill you, but other than that, you're good to go.

[Nitrogen]

So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?

No.  You don't have freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia like you do here in America.  Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy.  Proselytizing is illegal, and apostasy is punishable by death there.

[kgbsquirrel]

So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?

Tsk tsk, Ragnar. That's not a fair description at all.....   You would need a Christian Fundamentalist group to bomb or otherwise destroy the house of Abraham in Mecca first, and then try to set up a Baptist ministry next door.

[MicroBalrog]

So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?

Clearly, since you cannot set up a church in a city almost completely administered by the Waqf, the same model should be administered in free countries.

On the same argument, you cannot set up a mosque in the Vatican.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Clearly, since you cannot set up a church in a city almost completely administered by the Waqf, the same model should be administered in free countries.

On the same argument, you cannot set up a mosque in the Vatican.

That's not the same model and you know it.

[Nitrogen]

PS I'm really glad this thread hasn't been locked yet.  I'm really enjoying this discussion with ya'll.

[MicroBalrog]

That's not the same model and you know it.

Why is this not the same model? You are saying that Americans should act in the same manner as the most restrictive cities in any Islamic country, those effectively run by religious authorities (like the Waqf), towards Muslims as Muslims act towards Christians.

There are - as I pointed out - some areas in 'Christendom' where mosques are also not allowed. But this isn't how America is supposed to work.

[Leatherneck]

Nearly 70% of the American public is opposed to building the mosque on the designated site. The percentage is even higher in New York City.

Uhoh. I am part of that 70%. But I think we, what? Patriots? Conservatives? How about we members of the Armed Polite Society?
Anyhoo--We should be aware enough that the facts are:
1. It's their legal right to build on their property. We should actively defend this.
2. It's a terrible idea to do so because it is fundamentally offensive to very many Americans. It will alienate many more people than they claim to be "reaching out to."
3. If it's built, they will come. And there will be violence. Because this touches nerves rubbed raw by our endurance of so much mindless violence perpetrated by people who happen to be Muslim, justifying their actions by their personal version of their religion.

TC

[Monkeyleg]

Leatherneck nailed it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You are saying that...

No, I am not.

I am saying we (by 'we' I mean the local NYC authorities) should act the exact same way towards the proposed Cordoba development that they would act towards any other proposed development.  Being Muslim (or members of a politically correct class, or having the favor of powerful politicians, or...) does not grant you super special land development rights.  You're no different than anyone else, and you should be treated no differently.  

[MicroBalrog]

Would a church be banned from operating in the same area? No? Then neither should be the mosque.

[Leatherneck]

I am saying we (by 'we' I mean the local NYC authorities) should act the exact same way towards the proposed Cordoba development that they would act towards any other proposed development.

Respectfully, NO. We should not act as "they" would. We should act as we must, according to our Constitution and law.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying, HTG?

TC

[longeyes]

I'm surprised we let Muslims live here.  We should put them in camps since they are so dangerous.

Tongue in cheek or tongue somewhere else?

No one's talking about "camps"--as you well know--but someone, me, is asking who exactly directs our immigration policies.  In a Constitutional Republic such as we allegedly have we might want to know; we might also want some input in these decisions.

My view on all this is that tolerance toward the intolerant is radically foolish, and we have nothing to prove by destroying the country in the name of open-mindedness that is really just soft-headedness.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Would a church be banned from operating in the same area? No? Then neither should be the mosque.

There's at least one church there that's getting the runaround, yes.  My own local Lutheran church in IN had some issues expanding a few years ago.  This is normal and common and expected when it comes to land development.  Makes no difference whether the development is owned by religious folks vs seculars.  

Being in the press makes no difference either, for that matter.  Try putting up a broadcast tower in your backyard.  When you run in to trouble, loudly proclaim your free press rights are being violated.  See how far it gets you.

This ain't about the 1st amendment.  No how, no way.  Appeals to the 1A completely miss the point. 

The fundamental issue is whether the development is suitable for the location.  If a given church is unsuitable, then I'd fully expect it to be blocked/moved/altered/whatever.  Same for a mosque.  Or a newspaper publisher.  Or a farm, nightclub, skyscraper, anything.

Being Muslim doesn't give you special dispensation to build in grossly inappropriate locations.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Respectfully, NO. We should not act as "they" would. We should act as we must, according to our Constitution and law.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying, HTG?

TC

Misunderstanding.  Sorry, probably my fault.

What I mean is that NYC should act towards the Cordoba mosque in exactly the same way NYC would act towards any other proposed development.

[Leatherneck]

What I mean is that NYC should act towards the Cordoba mosque in exactly the same way NYC would act towards any other proposed development.

Got it. Agree.

TC

[Leatherneck]

What I mean is that NYC should act towards the Cordoba mosque in exactly the same way NYC would act towards any other proposed development.

Which raises the question of why the orthodox church that is trying to rebuild their church that was destroyed on 9/11 is encountering problems and delays. Do you know what's up with that?

TC

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I get the impression the port authority wants their land.  I don't know this for fact, but I'd wager that the port authority really wanted that land back in the 60's when they built the WTC the first time.  A church really isn't appropriate right on top of a major financial office development.  But since the church was there first, by a good half century, there probably wasn't much they could do about it at the time.

Now that there isn't a church there any more, it becomes a lot easier for the city to realize their city planning ideas.

[MechAg94]

I wonder if this would even be an issue if they would have simply rebuilt the towers 10 feet taller than the old ones. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

OK, let's try this:

Nearly 70% of the American public is opposed to building the mosque on the designated site. The percentage is even higher in New York City.

Given such a strong reaction against the proposal, why are those involved with the mosque determined to build it on that spot? Why won't they consider a spot across town or even ten blocks away, but instead insist on that spot?

I'd like to hear an answer from anyone supporting the building of the mosque.

strangely enough i saw a survey where folks actually in manhattan are less bothered than folks elsewhere

[roo_ster]

strangely enough i saw a survey where folks actually in manhattan are less bothered than folks elsewhere

Hmm, every poll I've seen says a majority of New Yorkers think the GZM is a bad idea.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

this poll said that too  just that the majority was barely one in manhattan.  might be cause those folks know that they already worship at the coat factory  and in the street outside

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

local folks say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081906580.html?hpid=topnews

and it puts to rest the bogus claim that  gov patterson offered em land elsewhere

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

heres the manhattan poll
http://dnainfo.com/20100701/manhattan/manhattanites-support-mosque-near-ground-zero-poll-finds

[Iapetus]

Put in by the Marines and under the control of the US Military? Not a problem.

Funded by terrorist backers and dedicated to celebrating Islam's victory over the Great Satan? Quite the problem.

Have you any evidence that this mosque is:
a) funded by terrorist backers?
b) dedicated to celebrating Islam's victory over the Great Satan?