mosque near ground zero ?

[Fast_Eddie]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seems pretty clear to me. Wanna exercise your religion by building a Mosque? Constitution says you can. Not a lot of gray area there.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seems pretty clear to me. Wanna exercise your religion by building a Mosque? Constitution says you can. Not a lot of gray area there.

No one is disputing that. Even the pollsters have found that those who oppose the mosque being built agree that the Cordoba folks have a constitutional right to pursue their faith, and build a mosque anywhere they want. However, there's also the free speech part of the 1st Amendment that suggests that folks have a right to voice opposition, question motives, inquire about funding, etc.

Maybe the question needs to be different:

For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that the press discovered that the funding for building the mosque / community center largely was sourced from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, for instance. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Or maybe traced to Hamas? This might suggest that the stated purpose of the mosque as an "outreach center" was a sham, and instead an "in your face" to the people of this country, and the families of the workers, fire fighters and others who died on 9/11. What then?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No one is disputing that. Even the pollsters have found that those who oppose the mosque being built agree that the Cordoba folks have a constitutional right to pursue their faith, and build a mosque anywhere they want. However, there's also the free speech part of the 1st Amendment that suggests that folks have a right to voice opposition, question motives, inquire about funding, etc.

Conversely, nobody is disputing the rights of mosque opponents to voice their opinion. What is at issue here is government reacting/pandering to these unconstitutional demands. What is unseemly here is that politicians who swore an oath to uphold the constitution are deliberately using the mosque as a wedge issue when the constitution expressly forbids any governmental actions against it.

Originally Posted by whell

For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that the press discovered that the funding for building the mosque / community center largely was sourced from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, for instance. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Or maybe traced to Hamas? This might suggest that the stated purpose of the mosque as an "outreach center" was a sham, and instead an "in your face" to the people of this country, and the families of the workers, fire fighters and others who died on 9/11. What then?

For the sake of discussion, let's just suppose that a particular media company is acting as a proxy for a political party in creating a wedge issue that is, on its face, unconstitutional. Shouldn't they be called out as bigoted, underhanded SOB's who are willing to shred the constitution for their own political benefit?

As to your question, Saudi Arabia is an ally in our fight against Al Qaeda (believe it or not). Hell, Dubya even pranced around hand-in-hand with its leader like a smitten schoolboy. And if Saudi is willing to fund a cultural center with the goal of improved relations between the Muslim world and the US, what of it?

As for Hamas, didn't we (the Bush administration) openly support the election that put Hamas into power in Gaza?

As for the "in your face"gesture, isn't the Imam who is responsible for the cultural center plans the same fellow who travelled the Middle East at the behest of Dubya preaching a message of moderation to the Muslim world?

In the words of "My Cousin Vinny," your argument does not hold water.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Conversely, nobody is disputing the rights of mosque opponents to voice their opinion. What is at issue here is government reacting/pandering to these unconstitutional demands. What is unseemly here is that politicians who swore an oath to uphold the constitution are deliberately using the mosque as a wedge issue when the constitution expressly forbids any governmental actions against it.

We don't disagree here, except to the degree that citizens in NY are contacting their elected representatives about the issue. This does appear to be happening, and those officials, R's & D's alike, should appropriately represent the interests of their constituents.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

We don't disagree here, except to the degree that citizens in NY are contacting their elected representatives about the issue. This does appear to be happening, and those officials, R's & D's alike, should appropriately represent the interests of their constituents.

I hear ya, but constituents demanding an unconstitional action happen to be wrong and it isn't in their interests to have their sworn representatives pander to these unconstitutional demands. Politicians have a responsibility to be statesmen and to educate the electorate when the electorate's demands run counter to the nation's founding document.

What if the electorate came to its senses, felt justifiable outrage at being manipulated by Murdoch and Co., and demanded that politicians shut down the New York Post and Fox News for manufacturing this wedge issue. Are you OK with that or would you have First Amendment concerns (the same amendment protecting the mosque, BTW)?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

For the sake of discussion, let's just suppose that a particular media company is acting as a proxy for a political party in creating a wedge issue that is, on its face, unconstitutional. Shouldn't they be called out as bigoted, underhanded SOB's who are willing to shred the constitution for their own political benefit?

I'm getting weary of the overt and oblique references to Fox news. I've already posted how both parties benefit financially from media contributions. I don't necessarily buy the "media is biased" crap from either the left of the right, in the various forms that the arguments present themselves. Let's move along.

Originally Posted by finnbow

As for Hamas, didn't we (the Bush administration) openly support the election that put Hamas into power in Gaza?

Yup. Would it have been preferable for the US to control both the electoral process and the outcome of the election?

Originally Posted by finnbow

As to your question, Saudi Arabia is an ally in our fight against Al Qaeda (believe it or not). Hell, Dubya even pranced around hand-in-hand with its leader like a smitten schoolboy. And if Saudi is willing to fund a cultural center with the goal of improved relations between the Muslim world and the US, what of it?

As for the "in your face"gesture, isn't the Imam who is responsible for the cultural center plans the same fellow who travelled the Middle East at the behest of Dubya preaching a message of moderation to the Muslim world?

In the words of "My Cousin Vinny," your argument does not hold water.

We've been kissing but in the Middle East for 50 years. Its become our default foreign policy from one administration to the next. As to whether Saudi Arabia is a true ally, I'd suggest that our policy is that we'd like them to be (as evidenced not only by your gratuitous "smitten schoolboy" comment, but also by President Obama's bowing). In contrast, the Saudi's policy appears to make them our ally when it suits them. You may not agree with the points in the post below, but I suspect they paint the picture pretty well.

http://www.danielpipes.org/995/the-s...audi-relations

[piece-itpete]

This isn't a manufactured wedge issue. People are truly passionate about it for better or worse.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

This isn't a manufactured wedge issue. People are truly passionate about it for better or worse.

Pete

and as always people are scared of what they don't understand

this is the real problem

moslems are just all the same

everyone one of the hundreds of millions of them are just like the 19 who took down the WTC.

as usual it all comes down to primal responses over educated reasoning

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I hear ya, but constituents demanding an unconstitional action happen to be wrong and it isn't in their interests to have their sworn representatives pander to these unconstitutional demands. Politicians have a responsibility to be statesmen and to educate the electorate when the electorate's demands run counter to the nation's founding document.

I've not heard of or seen any pols trying to use the machinery of government to stop the mosque from being built. I've heard some rumors in the media about Governor Patterson offering state owned land as on option. That's about it. So it would appear, for now, statesmanship is prevailing.

Originally Posted by finnbow

What if the electorate came to its senses, felt justifiable outrage at being manipulated by Murdoch and Co., and demanded that politicians shut down the New York Post and Fox News for manufacturing this wedge issue. Are you OK with that or would you have First Amendment concerns (the same amendment protecting the mosque, BTW)?

Yawn.

EDIT - one thing that just struck me. I actually heard Carl Rove on one of your favorite radio shows yesterday - Hannity () - cautioning Repubs running this year for election against using the Cordoba mosque as a campaign issue. That contrasts mightily with Harry Reid, a continent away from New York over in Nevada, using this as a campaign issue suggesting the mosque shouldn't be built.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

and as always people are scared of what they don't understand

this is the real problem

moslems are just all the same

everyone one of the hundreds of millions of them are just like the 19 who took down the WTC.

as usual it all comes down to primal responses over educated reasoning

I suspect folks know more about this that you give them credit for.