Most debates are differences in opinion due to factors other than prejudice or a bad motive. A lot of debates are based on misinformation, which is totally different. The idea at that point (unless you like just flinging poo and vilifying people as a hobby) is to clear the air of misinformation and discuss the matter on its merits. Of course, you have to see both sides of the debate and where they are coming from in order to get past the knee jerk, "you are a bigot" reaction and uncover the misinformation. This is an excellent question. It is difficult. Of course, people have differed wildly over what the Constitution means since the day it was ratified. That is why we have a Supreme Court. As Donny Most said, I do not recall many people arguing that there is a bona fide legal argument against the center being built. The debate seems to be whether it should be built there. This argument ignores, among other things, that land in Manhattan is...you know...scarce. Oh...FWIW, any criticism of Obama over this issue is IMO unwarranted.
It started out that way, but it's grown well beyond that now. There are campaigns against new mosques in Tennessee, California, and other places as well. One of the leaders of the American Family Association said no more mosques, period. The NY one started it, but it's growing into more of an anti-Mosque movement in general. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...l_conservative_defends_his_no_more_mosque.php Bryan Fischer, who wrote a blog post this week arguing that the U.S. should have "no more mosques, period," explained to TPM today that "every single mosque is a potential terror training center or recruitment center for jihad" and thus "you cannot claim first amendment protections if your religious organization is engaged in subversive activities." Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the American Family Association, is hardly a fringe figure on the right. He's scheduled to speak at the Value Voters Summit in September alongside Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mitch McConnell -- and the AFA is a sponsor of the event. Today in an interview with TPM, Fischer compared Muslims to the Hutaree militia, a Christian militia group in Michigan whose members were charged with plotting to attack police. ... It's not a big movement yet, but it's certainly growing.
It is, but I think it's more of a leadership statement; there are probably people within the organization who disagree. Also, once that thing goes up, I think they'll be right there defending it against any harrassment.
Mr. Fischer must be a descendant of Senator McCarthy. This movement isn't mainstream. I would imagine a good many people here had never heard of it. I think the Constitution is clear that banning mosques is not what the Framers had in mind.
A few years ago, supporting torture wasn't mainstream. A few days ago, wanting to modify the 14th Amendment wasn't mainstream. Yet here we are.
True - certainly not mainstream, but also not non-existent. Carl Paladino, who has a very real shot of being the GOP nominee for Governor in New York, said he'd use the legal system to shut down the mosque. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/07/carl-paladino-id-use-eminent-d.html Probably not coincidentally, he's started rising in the polls in recent weeks when this became a hot topic: http://www.buffalonews.com/city/capital-connection/albany/article90696.ece So it's not like this is just fringe people. This is a legitimate candidate for NY Governor, along with a top person in one of the most influence social conservative organizations out there. I think what has happened is that the NY mosque basically opened the door for anyone who is anti-Islam to feel more and more comfortable publicly stating their views. It's certainly not the majority of the opposition, but it's also not a tiny minority. I have no evidence of this, but I bet if a poll asked if people supported using the legal system to prevent the mosque from being built, it would get a decent amount of support - in the 15-25% range at least (of the 60-70% opposition that most polls show).
It is rare that a debate have such a clear right and wrong as much as this one. "Being sensitive to 9/11 victims" The idea that a mosque there is offensive assumes that we equate Islam itself with 9/11, otherwise there is no reason for 9/11 families to be offended or hurt by this. Being a victim does not give them the right to be bigots. We should not be sensitive to it. The case is rather clear. I am surprised that educated people could be on the fence about this unless they are gripped by fear or hate.
There are like 5 strip bars that are closer to Ground Zero than this Rec Center. For those that are worried about the scarcity of land in manhattan, please go close down these places first.
Also, there are about 2 million Muslims that live in NYC. Please don't give me this crap about having to respect the wishes of NYC. Anyone that says something that asinine has obviously never been to the city. You can't go a block without seeing a Muslim running a business or doing something in their daily lives. Don't let politicians scare you to death. Only thing to fear is fear itself. They just want your vote in November.
The family of 9/11 victims like having strip clubs to go to when they visit Ground Zero. So no problem there.
When you start opposing churches being built within 2 miles of abortion clinics then we can talk about morality my friend. Until then, it's just hypocrisy.
Err.. whut? Do you mean churches built within 2 miles of abortion clinics that were bombed by people who were inspired by the Bible? Because, for one thing, an abortion clinic bombing, while horrible... is not, and will never be, comparable to the insane, malicious slaughter of 3,000 people... and two... using your reasoning, it would be like if someone was opposing building mosques near any skyscrapers, which kind of ignores the context of this whole argument.
There is a Dominican church of some sort right next to my home. They were doing some outdoor preaching and singing yesterday. Very loud speakers. Very annoying. Don't even speak English.
Sure - there wasn't as many people killed at the abortion clinic, but it's the same principle. If we are saying if a religious is tied to an act of violence, then no member of that religion should build an institution near that act of violence. That's the logic of opposing the downtown Manhattan Mosque (because it's not at ground zero). I just don't like that sort of hypocrisy. It's so obvious that the people actively protesting this mosque are just anti-Muslim, i mean look at their statements - Muslim is a jihadist religion blah blah blah. If that's there feelings, why don't they just go for banning Islam in the U.S.?
Come on. Each incident carries a certain amount of weight with it. That's like saying a grape and a watermelon are the same size simply because they're both fruit.
