I got an email suggesting that being against a facility affiliated with Islam at a specific location in Manhattan may reflect qualities of "jerk" but not necessarily "bigot."
Mind boggling.
Religious prejudice is no less bigotry than racial prejudice, and may be even more so. Do we really want to be making public policy in America on the basis of which combination of myth and supernatural being a particular group believes in?
Policy linked to religion is oppressive by its nature to non-believers. Whether protection against this oppression is in our Constitution or not, it should be. Every conservative in America should certainly agree with that.
Submitted by ARScharfenberg on Tue, 08/24/2010 - 4:11pm.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree here with "what choices the people of New York make on this issue"
It doesn't matter what choices they (want to) make it isn't up to the people of New York on this one, if they are allowed by the zoning board to build let 'em build, they are 100% in the right.
Marshall's answer on this one was a non-answer, Burr's was calculated but you could tell he wouldn't mind if the Constitution excluded Muslims. The only answer on this one I agreed with was Beitler's. “The Constitution protects the religious rights of all religions and the right not to believe. The Constitution also protects the rights of organizations and individuals to own and administer legally owned property...Everything else is irrelevant.”
I'm still allowed to be a civil libertarian and a Democrat right, or do I need like Elaine did, to make a statement that falls flat on its face to make sure I don't offend anyone. This is as important an issue in NC as NY and anywhere else people want to build religious buildings and honor our principles.
Beitler got the substance right, and used to issue get some badly needed attention.
Marshall steered around of the issue, a neutral and pragmatic position, and somewhat disappointing to me.
Burr pandered to bigots and extremists.
___________________
I'll give kudos to Beitler, too. In fact, Libertarians have the progressive policy positions in many areas. Too bad they take everything to the extreme.
Submitted by tommycrat on Tue, 08/24/2010 - 4:44pm.
This mosque thing is not about race or bigotry or religious intolerance. I am amazed that there are people that honestly believe that those against putting a mosque next to where 3,000 people died at the hands of muslim extremists are radicals. How absurd is that?
This is about the message that is being sent to the radical islamists that what they did in America is "just" and "honorable" per Islamic belief. Anyone that thinks this is being "accepting" of religious beliefs is truly naive. The "right" of these people to build the mosque there is not in question. The interest of the people of America and those families that lost loved ones in that attack IS in question.
Anyone that doesn't see this as an afront to these people and to what our country stands for should go back to the country they come from. True Americans don't buy the rhetoric and spin that the muslims and the radical far left are putting out about this mosque. It isn't right and we know it.
From where I stand, this is only about the US Constitution - and the affront is to those people who have chosen to believe in a different mythical creature than the one most Americans believe in.
And if you're going to start sending people back to whatever country they came from, make sure you get a ticket for yourself. My ancestors were native Americans. Unless you are also a native American, you are an illegal immigrant as far as I'm concerned.
Submitted by tommycrat on Tue, 08/24/2010 - 5:18pm.
Bringing up "native Americans" in this argument is ludicrous. No one believes that native Americans weren't taken advantage of and didn't have their very country taken away from them.
What in the hell does that have to do with the radical Islamics doing what they're doing to our country now?
You being a part-native American gives me reason to not post this here out of respect. But, since I am a patriot for America and since I believe that we must and should do what is best for the America of today, I have to disagree with your presentation.
Sorry if I'm not going to give away my citizenship because I am not partly a native American.
What I have to say on this issue is far more than that and hopefully most of the people here can see my point. If not, I am disappointed.
I am sure usernamehere and Scharrison and Brunette and LoftT and others that defend you, James, and agree with you in most cases regardless of your presentations will support you against what I've said. You are a very good man and I do not question that. You do need to support what you support and I do not question that either.
have as much to do with this issue as radical Islam has to do with this issue ... which is exactly nothing ... and is exactly my point.
Just to say it, people who want to impose their prejudices to restrict the freedoms of other religions should consider whether they really belong in this country.
James
PS Take some time to sift through the blog history here with Brunette, et al., and you'll find plenty of disagreements on many fronts. No one here is in lockstep with anyone else. From what I can tell, most are independent thinkers and strong supporters of the liberties affirmed in the Constitution.
Submitted by tommycrat on Tue, 08/24/2010 - 7:42pm.
Native Americans have as much to do with this issue as radical Islam has to do with this issue ... which is exactly nothing ... and is exactly my point.
I missed your non-point when you brought up the Native American issue. Sorry.
I like this blog and have read the posts for a very long time. I know what you are saying about those contributors I brought up but I also know that these people want your acknowledgement and respect and inclusion and even though they do indeed disagree with you on some statements, they are dedicated to you with obvious vigor.
It really isn't worth much more discussion really.
68% of the people in America are against this mosque being built next to groundzero not because they think the muslims don't have the "right" to do it but because they believe it isn't "right" to do it for reasons I have mentioned above. I do not know of many people that would argue that the muslims shouldn't be able to build their mosque and that don't know they can do it because of the constitution's freedom of religion provisions. It is a sad argument by anyone that wants to make those against this mosque so close to groundzero out to be anti-constitution. That is not the issue no matter how much some people want to make it out that way.
PS - I agree with you about Richard Burr. Elaine Marshall is the far better candidate for the state of North Carolina. I think this is what this line of discussion began with so I wanted to express my opinion on it before we go too far off in some other direction.
It's sorta like the Japanese wanting to build a shrine to their fallen soldiers at Pearl Harbor. Elsewhere, where the japanese fought and died, as did so many of our own, it's at least marginally acceptable because there wasn't the element of surprise and treachery.
Myself...I think this debate has about as much in common with religious freedom as Glenn Beck has in common with truth.
Submitted by momoaizo on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 1:58pm.
away from ground zero and not even in direct sight line has to do with ground zero? The Pentagon was attacked too but they have an Muslim temple....WTF? Where exactly or rather how far away from ground zero should they build? Is our moon too far?
Submitted by ARScharfenberg on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 3:07pm.
I get it, I don't think this was the best idea in the world. If emotions didn't interfere with ones rational brain we'd be fine but they do so it probably isn't in anyone's best interest to build a Islamic community center and mosque there but in many other states people are flipping their proverbial shit for no reason other than prejudice.
I hear on the news excuses for prejudice like Sharia law and 9/11 and none of it is intelligent or well thought out and Newt and others are (whatever the religious version of race baiting is) it is pathetic. The Times letters to the editor today on this issue are good, especially the one from the mother of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans.
However this debate IS about everyone's rights, if we want to continue to stand up for what we believe in we support this mosque no matter what. The Constitution isn't subtle in this respect it is pretty damn clear.
Submitted by tommycrat on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 4:29pm.
Very few people in our country are saying that building this mosque in close proximity to the Twin Towers is not the right of those that want to do that. Emotions are running high in this, as you are saying ARS. The people of America saw the attacks by the Islamic radicals as being an attack by people of the Muslim, or Islamic, faith and that is not what this was but was by the RADICALS. That is why there is such a backlash and such a reaction to this Mosque. If you speak to those that are against this, you will see them saying they know this is a right of these people. Afterall, this is what our country is all about and what the people of our country have gone to war about and have died for. It is more than that and I am amazed that we have people that don't see what the "more" is that this is about.
The American families that had members that lost their lives in that attack on those buildings are in majority against the mosque being built there. To them, it is not about a constitutional right or zoning laws and so forth. To them, it is saying "radical Islam can perpetrate this atrocity on our citizens and then use our laws and our constitutional rights to stick their finger in our eye". That is what these people believe and that is how the vast majority of Americans think. Personally, that is what I think. Muslims aren't building this where they're wanting to build it to "mend fences" or "be inclusive" as is what they're saying from where I sit. Whoever thinks that is naive. Build it ten blocks from there and make it a testiment to those that lost their lives in that attack INCLUDING ANY MUSLIMS. That would do FAR more than what the Imam and the muslims want to do here. This is not all that difficult to understand. And, this IS NOT political. If someone thinks that only republicans are against this are, again, naive. This is a loser for those that want to say that this is something liberals and democrats want and republicans don't want are ignorant and it is going to come back to bite them in the end.
Submitted by Brunette on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 4:53pm.
Are you kidding? A community center two blocks away from "Ground Zero" with a prayer room is a stick in the eye to families who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks?
Those of us who believe that it is a perfectly natural location for a community center that includes a prayer room are just "naive?"
Why on earth would I NOT take the muslims who wish to build this community center at their word? Why would I assume that they have reasons other than to build fences and be inclusive? I cant believe you're making the argument that anyone who accepts the idea of this as anything other than an intentional insult is naive. What an ignorant, bigoted, crass perspective you have.
Again, to lump all moslems in with radical islam is not just stupid but wretchedly stupid, and it plays directly into the desire of the terrorists to ensure that Americans feel at war with the religion of Islam.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Submitted by tommycrat on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 5:32pm.
To me, it is naive to believe much of what you have said here to defend this mosque close to where the radical Islamic perpetrators killed 3,000 people in their attack on America.
I believe it is a "stick in the eye" of Americans as does 68% of Americans. You believe differently and I respect your feelings. I believe it is "naive" to think that the Imam is wanting to bring Muslims together with mainstream America. The teachings of Islam is not to "co-exist" with any other religion rather to convert all to Islam. This, by the way, is why regardless of the "peace talk efforts" that have happened throughout our history and that are going on now between the Palestinians and Israel, peace will never happen with Palestinians until the quest of eliminating Jews and Isreal is seen. There is no argument to that.
It is naive, to me, to believe that the Imam and those that are wanting this mosque built so close to groundzero isn't wanting to do that to send a message to the radical Islamists that they have won a particular victory over America. I have seen the radical left's depiction of how I feel as,how did you put it?, "ignorant, bigoted and crass". That is part of the talking points of those that are proponents of the mosque. You are not dealing with someone that doesn't know what people like you are told to say.
It is good that we can discuss this here on this blog. The national "conversation" shows that you are in the significant minority here but that does not necessarily mean your quest to have this mosque where the Imam and the Islamists want it to be won't happen.
There are radicals on every side of every issue in our country. I see you as one of those radicals on the "for" side of this issue against the extreme majority in our country.
Submitted by tommycrat on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 6:08pm.
I am not sure if you're saying what is being said in my messages here on this subject are "talking points" from conservative sources or not but it sure does look that way. If that is what you are saying you are wrong in that.
I say what I believe from a myriad of sources few of which are the ones you mentioned above. The "me too, you too" response is weak, at best.
I think we would do this blog and each other a very big service by not going any further in this discussion.
Submitted by scharrison on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 9:24pm.
about "doing this blog a service", but I don't for one second believe that you really care about that. In fact, I believe your main goal is to do as much disservice as you can, by inserting yourself and your views (which you are well aware will be antagonizing) into threads in an attempt to generate a negative response.
See, I've been doing this blog a service for quite a while now, and I've witnessed this same behavior so many times I could write a fricking thesis on it.
If you come here just to hang out and chat, fine. But if you're here to intentionally disrupt, whether it's from a genuine ideological/political mindset or an unhealthy addiction to conflict, then we are going to have a problem.
Submitted by Brunette on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 6:32pm.
What is so very sad is that you are unable to separate what a handful of radical lunatics did from a religion that has every bit as much claim to respect as that of Judaism or Christianity.
What is so very sad is that you would elevate an emotional and irrational reaction above the very principles for which our servicemen and women commit their lives to the military.
What is pathetic and inexcusably stupid is the adherence to this irrational reaction after having plenty of time to think about it.
Enjoy your mobocracy.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Submitted by Brunette on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 7:15pm.
I can appreciate why you would want to close off comments with your last words, but I think some points were left unaddressed that deserved articulation.
Something tells me that the idea of mouthing off and then calling for the subject to be closed is a tactic you've tried before.
I suppose it's the best you could do.
Too bad.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Just to say it Mr. Senator
It's none of your goddamn business what choices the people of New York make on this issue.
And if you were going to weigh in, you should at least defer to that little scrap of parchment called the US Constitution.
Asshole.
PS
I got an email suggesting that being against a facility affiliated with Islam at a specific location in Manhattan may reflect qualities of "jerk" but not necessarily "bigot."
Mind boggling.
Religious prejudice is no less bigotry than racial prejudice, and may be even more so. Do we really want to be making public policy in America on the basis of which combination of myth and supernatural being a particular group believes in?
Policy linked to religion is oppressive by its nature to non-believers. Whether protection against this oppression is in our Constitution or not, it should be. Every conservative in America should certainly agree with that.
I'm going to go ahead and
I'm going to go ahead and disagree here with "what choices the people of New York make on this issue"
It doesn't matter what choices they (want to) make it isn't up to the people of New York on this one, if they are allowed by the zoning board to build let 'em build, they are 100% in the right.
Marshall's answer on this one was a non-answer, Burr's was calculated but you could tell he wouldn't mind if the Constitution excluded Muslims. The only answer on this one I agreed with was Beitler's. “The Constitution protects the religious rights of all religions and the right not to believe. The Constitution also protects the rights of organizations and individuals to own and administer legally owned property...Everything else is irrelevant.”
I'm still allowed to be a civil libertarian and a Democrat right, or do I need like Elaine did, to make a statement that falls flat on its face to make sure I don't offend anyone. This is as important an issue in NC as NY and anywhere else people want to build religious buildings and honor our principles.
Kudos to Beitler.
Sort of agree
Beitler got the substance right, and used to issue get some badly needed attention.
Marshall steered around of the issue, a neutral and pragmatic position, and somewhat disappointing to me.
Burr pandered to bigots and extremists.
___________________
I'll give kudos to Beitler, too. In fact, Libertarians have the progressive policy positions in many areas. Too bad they take everything to the extreme.
Common sense should prevail here
This mosque thing is not about race or bigotry or religious intolerance. I am amazed that there are people that honestly believe that those against putting a mosque next to where 3,000 people died at the hands of muslim extremists are radicals. How absurd is that?
This is about the message that is being sent to the radical islamists that what they did in America is "just" and "honorable" per Islamic belief. Anyone that thinks this is being "accepting" of religious beliefs is truly naive. The "right" of these people to build the mosque there is not in question. The interest of the people of America and those families that lost loved ones in that attack IS in question.
Anyone that doesn't see this as an afront to these people and to what our country stands for should go back to the country they come from. True Americans don't buy the rhetoric and spin that the muslims and the radical far left are putting out about this mosque. It isn't right and we know it.
Your comment is confusing.
Your comment is confusing.
From where I stand, this is only about the US Constitution - and the affront is to those people who have chosen to believe in a different mythical creature than the one most Americans believe in.
And if you're going to start sending people back to whatever country they came from, make sure you get a ticket for yourself. My ancestors were native Americans. Unless you are also a native American, you are an illegal immigrant as far as I'm concerned.
This is not about "native Americans"
Bringing up "native Americans" in this argument is ludicrous. No one believes that native Americans weren't taken advantage of and didn't have their very country taken away from them.
What in the hell does that have to do with the radical Islamics doing what they're doing to our country now?
You being a part-native American gives me reason to not post this here out of respect. But, since I am a patriot for America and since I believe that we must and should do what is best for the America of today, I have to disagree with your presentation.
Sorry if I'm not going to give away my citizenship because I am not partly a native American.
What I have to say on this issue is far more than that and hopefully most of the people here can see my point. If not, I am disappointed.
I am sure usernamehere and Scharrison and Brunette and LoftT and others that defend you, James, and agree with you in most cases regardless of your presentations will support you against what I've said. You are a very good man and I do not question that. You do need to support what you support and I do not question that either.
Thank you for responding to me though.
Native Americans
have as much to do with this issue as radical Islam has to do with this issue ... which is exactly nothing ... and is exactly my point.
Just to say it, people who want to impose their prejudices to restrict the freedoms of other religions should consider whether they really belong in this country.
James
PS Take some time to sift through the blog history here with Brunette, et al., and you'll find plenty of disagreements on many fronts. No one here is in lockstep with anyone else. From what I can tell, most are independent thinkers and strong supporters of the liberties affirmed in the Constitution.
I didn't see this
I missed your non-point when you brought up the Native American issue. Sorry.
I like this blog and have read the posts for a very long time. I know what you are saying about those contributors I brought up but I also know that these people want your acknowledgement and respect and inclusion and even though they do indeed disagree with you on some statements, they are dedicated to you with obvious vigor.
It really isn't worth much more discussion really.
68% of the people in America are against this mosque being built next to groundzero not because they think the muslims don't have the "right" to do it but because they believe it isn't "right" to do it for reasons I have mentioned above. I do not know of many people that would argue that the muslims shouldn't be able to build their mosque and that don't know they can do it because of the constitution's freedom of religion provisions. It is a sad argument by anyone that wants to make those against this mosque so close to groundzero out to be anti-constitution. That is not the issue no matter how much some people want to make it out that way.
PS - I agree with you about Richard Burr. Elaine Marshall is the far better candidate for the state of North Carolina. I think this is what this line of discussion began with so I wanted to express my opinion on it before we go too far off in some other direction.
Thanks
I've been a bit of a grump today and apologize for being short with you. I usually welcome new folks with much more grace than this.
I agree with the essence of your comment.
It's sorta like the Japanese wanting to build a shrine to their fallen soldiers at Pearl Harbor. Elsewhere, where the japanese fought and died, as did so many of our own, it's at least marginally acceptable because there wasn't the element of surprise and treachery.
Myself...I think this debate has about as much in common with religious freedom as Glenn Beck has in common with truth.
PS...welcome.
Stan Bozarth
Could someone please explain what 2 blocks
away from ground zero and not even in direct sight line has to do with ground zero? The Pentagon was attacked too but they have an Muslim temple....WTF? Where exactly or rather how far away from ground zero should they build? Is our moon too far?
I get it, I don't think this
I get it, I don't think this was the best idea in the world. If emotions didn't interfere with ones rational brain we'd be fine but they do so it probably isn't in anyone's best interest to build a Islamic community center and mosque there but in many other states people are flipping their proverbial shit for no reason other than prejudice.
I hear on the news excuses for prejudice like Sharia law and 9/11 and none of it is intelligent or well thought out and Newt and others are (whatever the religious version of race baiting is) it is pathetic. The Times letters to the editor today on this issue are good, especially the one from the mother of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans.
However this debate IS about everyone's rights, if we want to continue to stand up for what we believe in we support this mosque no matter what. The Constitution isn't subtle in this respect it is pretty damn clear.
So many look at this in the wrong way imo
Very few people in our country are saying that building this mosque in close proximity to the Twin Towers is not the right of those that want to do that. Emotions are running high in this, as you are saying ARS. The people of America saw the attacks by the Islamic radicals as being an attack by people of the Muslim, or Islamic, faith and that is not what this was but was by the RADICALS. That is why there is such a backlash and such a reaction to this Mosque. If you speak to those that are against this, you will see them saying they know this is a right of these people. Afterall, this is what our country is all about and what the people of our country have gone to war about and have died for. It is more than that and I am amazed that we have people that don't see what the "more" is that this is about.
The American families that had members that lost their lives in that attack on those buildings are in majority against the mosque being built there. To them, it is not about a constitutional right or zoning laws and so forth. To them, it is saying "radical Islam can perpetrate this atrocity on our citizens and then use our laws and our constitutional rights to stick their finger in our eye". That is what these people believe and that is how the vast majority of Americans think. Personally, that is what I think. Muslims aren't building this where they're wanting to build it to "mend fences" or "be inclusive" as is what they're saying from where I sit. Whoever thinks that is naive. Build it ten blocks from there and make it a testiment to those that lost their lives in that attack INCLUDING ANY MUSLIMS. That would do FAR more than what the Imam and the muslims want to do here. This is not all that difficult to understand. And, this IS NOT political. If someone thinks that only republicans are against this are, again, naive. This is a loser for those that want to say that this is something liberals and democrats want and republicans don't want are ignorant and it is going to come back to bite them in the end.
Naive?
Are you kidding? A community center two blocks away from "Ground Zero" with a prayer room is a stick in the eye to families who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks?
Those of us who believe that it is a perfectly natural location for a community center that includes a prayer room are just "naive?"
Why on earth would I NOT take the muslims who wish to build this community center at their word? Why would I assume that they have reasons other than to build fences and be inclusive? I cant believe you're making the argument that anyone who accepts the idea of this as anything other than an intentional insult is naive. What an ignorant, bigoted, crass perspective you have.
Again, to lump all moslems in with radical islam is not just stupid but wretchedly stupid, and it plays directly into the desire of the terrorists to ensure that Americans feel at war with the religion of Islam.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Yes, naive
To me, it is naive to believe much of what you have said here to defend this mosque close to where the radical Islamic perpetrators killed 3,000 people in their attack on America.
I believe it is a "stick in the eye" of Americans as does 68% of Americans. You believe differently and I respect your feelings. I believe it is "naive" to think that the Imam is wanting to bring Muslims together with mainstream America. The teachings of Islam is not to "co-exist" with any other religion rather to convert all to Islam. This, by the way, is why regardless of the "peace talk efforts" that have happened throughout our history and that are going on now between the Palestinians and Israel, peace will never happen with Palestinians until the quest of eliminating Jews and Isreal is seen. There is no argument to that.
It is naive, to me, to believe that the Imam and those that are wanting this mosque built so close to groundzero isn't wanting to do that to send a message to the radical Islamists that they have won a particular victory over America. I have seen the radical left's depiction of how I feel as,how did you put it?, "ignorant, bigoted and crass". That is part of the talking points of those that are proponents of the mosque. You are not dealing with someone that doesn't know what people like you are told to say.
It is good that we can discuss this here on this blog. The national "conversation" shows that you are in the significant minority here but that does not necessarily mean your quest to have this mosque where the Imam and the Islamists want it to be won't happen.
There are radicals on every side of every issue in our country. I see you as one of those radicals on the "for" side of this issue against the extreme majority in our country.
"Told to say"?
Most of the talking points you've brought up here are straight off the script from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Neal Boortz.
If anybody here's been "programmed" by propaganda artists, it's you.
I call it like I see it
I am not sure if you're saying what is being said in my messages here on this subject are "talking points" from conservative sources or not but it sure does look that way. If that is what you are saying you are wrong in that.
I say what I believe from a myriad of sources few of which are the ones you mentioned above. The "me too, you too" response is weak, at best.
I think we would do this blog and each other a very big service by not going any further in this discussion.
Thanks for your stated concern
about "doing this blog a service", but I don't for one second believe that you really care about that. In fact, I believe your main goal is to do as much disservice as you can, by inserting yourself and your views (which you are well aware will be antagonizing) into threads in an attempt to generate a negative response.
See, I've been doing this blog a service for quite a while now, and I've witnessed this same behavior so many times I could write a fricking thesis on it.
If you come here just to hang out and chat, fine. But if you're here to intentionally disrupt, whether it's from a genuine ideological/political mindset or an unhealthy addiction to conflict, then we are going to have a problem.
How very sad
What is so very sad is that you are unable to separate what a handful of radical lunatics did from a religion that has every bit as much claim to respect as that of Judaism or Christianity.
What is so very sad is that you would elevate an emotional and irrational reaction above the very principles for which our servicemen and women commit their lives to the military.
What is pathetic and inexcusably stupid is the adherence to this irrational reaction after having plenty of time to think about it.
Enjoy your mobocracy.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I was right
I was right in saying this. Any doubt, read the post above.
Well, for your own conscience's sake, perhaps
I can appreciate why you would want to close off comments with your last words, but I think some points were left unaddressed that deserved articulation.
Something tells me that the idea of mouthing off and then calling for the subject to be closed is a tactic you've tried before.
I suppose it's the best you could do.
Too bad.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke