Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Europe hasn't had mass immigration quite like this before--there are some examples, but nothing quite like this and across the continent--

Mass non-white immigration to Western Europe began after the War due to the need for cheap labour. In terms of the various Muslim communities, the most important decades were actually the 1960s and 1970s. It's really only a new thing in historical terms. And it isn't true to say that it's 'across the continent' as such; as is always the case immigration has largely affected certain parts of certain cities. Now, the socio-cultural response is quite a bit wider, of course (as are some of the political responses), but that's different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was never as high as in the United States anyway. Especially in areas where essentially the only church was the state church.

[Bull Moose Base]

Of course Obama backs it......what President doesn't pander

to Islamic voters?

Actually, I do think everyone is missing that his real audience last night was the Islamic world.  Obama, as he always has, is trying to foil Al Qaeda's attempts to cast their struggle as Islam against America.  He's trying to instead drive a wedge between extremists and the mainstream Muslim world and focusing the attention of the latter on the fact that Muslims have equal protection under the law in the USA.  Obviously, a wise communications strategy.  Throwing a wrench in Al Qaeda's messaging is actually a completely appropriate response to 9/11.

Even if you accepted the charge that the mosque is a deliberate provocation, what is the sense in responding to it the way extremists would like you to?

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

The only possible reason to go against this is seeded in bigotry.

Did you read my post? Clearly not.

While I'm sure there are some racist people who oppose it on those grounds, it's more to do with human emotions. And emotions aren't rational.

For people like us who weren't directly affected by 9/11, we can think about it rationally. For those who lost loved ones will have a harder time doing so. That doesn't make them racist.

Also, while we're on the subject of race, the Liberals need to stop playing the race card at every opportunity. Not only is it a wrong assumption more times than not, it also greatly devalues the issue of race. Stop it.

[Lunar]

The only possible reason to go against this is seeded in bigotry.

Did you read my post? Clearly not.

While I'm sure there are some racist people who oppose it on those grounds, it's more to do with human emotions. And emotions aren't rational.

For people like us who weren't directly affected by 9/11, we can think about it rationally. For those who lost loved ones will have a harder time doing so. That doesn't make them racist.

Also, while we're on the subject of race, the Liberals need to stop playing the race card at every opportunity. Not only is it a wrong assumption more times than not, it also greatly devalues the issue of race. Stop it.

Whoah.

#1) The post you're quoting isn't from a liberal

#2) The post you're quoting does not play "the race card."  There is no "race card" here.

[Lunar]

However, there's no doubt that it's insensitive.

I thought the same thing at first.  But after reading more into the issue:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/26/2010-05-26_the_truth_about_the_mosque_the_leader_of_proposed_muslim_center_near_ground_zero.html

You know that this whole "debate" is BS

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Muslim New Yorkers were victims on 9/11, like Christian, Jewish, and atheist New Yorkers.  There is already a mosque two more blocks away in lower Manhattan.  Anyone who wants to address the issue legitimately needs to exist in between the "outraged, but it should be legal" and "this will help heal the wounds, and should be legal" realms of discussion.

[Zarn]

The only possible reason to go against this is seeded in bigotry.

Did you read my post? Clearly not.

While I'm sure there are some racist people who oppose it on those grounds, it's more to do with human emotions. And emotions aren't rational.

For people like us who weren't directly affected by 9/11, we can think about it rationally. For those who lost loved ones will have a harder time doing so. That doesn't make them racist.

Also, while we're on the subject of race, the Liberals need to stop playing the race card at every opportunity. Not only is it a wrong assumption more times than not, it also greatly devalues the issue of race. Stop it.

I'm a die hard New Yorker and a libertarian. I'm a highly religious Roman Catholic, and I even believe the Catholics had the right to intervene for the sake of pilgrimage security.

Islam is not the culprit any more than Timothy McVeigh makes Roman Catholicism the culprit. It's okay to have Roman Catholic churches in Oklahoma City.

Basing anything off of emotion is what gives us abortions and bigotry.

[Lunar]

The only possible reason to go against this is seeded in bigotry.

Did you read my post? Clearly not.

While I'm sure there are some racist people who oppose it on those grounds, it's more to do with human emotions. And emotions aren't rational.

For people like us who weren't directly affected by 9/11, we can think about it rationally. For those who lost loved ones will have a harder time doing so. That doesn't make them racist.

Also, while we're on the subject of race, the Liberals need to stop playing the race card at every opportunity. Not only is it a wrong assumption more times than not, it also greatly devalues the issue of race. Stop it.

I'm a die hard New Yorker and a libertarian. I'm a highly religious Roman Catholic, and I even believe the Catholics had the right to intervene for the sake of pilgrimage security.

Islam is not the culprit any more than Timothy McVeigh makes Roman Catholicism the culprit. It's okay to have Roman Catholic churches in Oklahoma City.

Basing anything off of emotion is what gives us abortions and bigotry.

#FF post.

[Zarn]

Thank you, Lunar. That actually means a lot to me.

*Tries not to get too emotional*

Edit: Though I guess that I should mention that I'm a registered Republican, too.

[Lunar]

Hah, you'll have fun in your primary voting between the crazy guy and the loser then.

It should be said again that there are multiple debates on this issue.  When it comes down to it, the debate as to whether the mosque is a healing influence or a negative influence is irrelevant.   The fact of the matter is that the Constitution of the United States of America protects even the most repugnant forms of free speech.  And, I think the median interpretation of what this mosque stands for, defends, and represents, isn't even in the same stratosphere as a neo-nazi hate rally, which we would all agree is still be protected by the Constitution even if we find it disgusting.  

[Zarn]

FYI, I already voted for the ex-football player, because he did not reek of tea. I would not be too upset with an Adler win, although that is still +1 for Pelosi being speaker.

I also voted for Christie in 2009, so Lonegan would not be nominated.

That said, you are right that perspective and positive and negative influence should not be considered. If people do not value the liberties of one another, then true liberty does not exist.

[Lunar]

You mean the Charger Runyan?    Did he even have a Tea Party primary opponent?  Primary elections in NJ aren't very exciting this cycle, pardon my ignorance

[Zarn]

You mean the Charger Runyan?    Did he even have a Tea Party primary opponent?  Primary elections in NJ aren't very exciting this cycle, pardon my ignorance

Justin Murphy was backed by the West Jersey Tea Party.

He was also an Ex-Eagle... provides name familiarity. They loved him as a player around here.

[MODU]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_ea778048-17db-5d2d-a8a5-49a7c0134d4f.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now if this isn't proof he's a Muslim... Seriously though, I'm somewhat surprised he's willing to be so "direct" in public.

I'm fairly sure this has already been mentioned, but Obama isn't "backing" the mosque.  He says that they have the right to build it (especially city the city hasn't blocked the effort).  Two different meanings.

[Lunar]

But everyone who's not insane knows that they have the right to build it, it's not like Republican politicians magically forgot the idea of property rights -- you can't tell me anyone in D.C. really thinks the government can't tell you not to kill endangered species on your private property, but the government can control which God you pray to on your private property.

More importantly, why would Obama speak on this non-federal issue if his intentions were completely bland and bureaucratic

[Ronnie]

I really think this is a silly issue.  As long as this isn't harming other people, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Lunar, c'mon, while it's not a federal issue, the President weighing in on an issue which everyone thinks is related to 9/11 is standard fare.

Everyone needs to calm down.  What he said was (translated into plain english)

1)  They have a right to build it, and

2)  It's a dumb f****ng idea.


If he omitted #1 everyone would be jumpin' ugly, saying he doesn't understand the fundamental principles of our nation and he added #2, which is what he really thinks.

I hate when Presidents "clarify" what they mean when they didn't say anything wrong to begin with.

[The Vorlon]

I guess this one boils down to what is"legal" versus what is respectful and tolerant of others.

If I bought a piece of property next to one of the Nazi death camps it would be "legal" to build a educational exhibit highlighting all the wonderful achievements of Adolf Hitler (Autobahns, national health care, expanded support for the arts, etc...) but it would certainly be deeply, massively, hurtfully,  and profoundly insensitive to do so....

If the true objective of those wishing to build this mosque is indeed to build bridges to others, this is a strange way of doing so. -

Legally, they have no obligation to do so, but at the very least they have a moral obligation to the very highest degree of transparency and openness if their intentions are what they say they are.

[Verily]

Lunar, c'mon, while it's not a federal issue, the President weighing in on an issue which everyone thinks is related to 9/11 is standard fare.

Everyone needs to calm down.  What he said was (translated into plain english)

1)  They have a right to build it, and

2)  It's a dumb f****ng idea.


If he omitted #1 everyone would be jumpin' ugly, saying he doesn't understand the fundamental principles of our nation and he added #2, which is what he really thinks.

I hate when Presidents "clarify" what they mean when they didn't say anything wrong to begin with.

Except it's not a "dumb ing idea". Aside from the people getting their panties in a twist on TV about it, all of whom are blatantly doing so only for political gain, no one would care if they weren't told that they should care. Certainly the "9/11 families" whom everyone claims to be defending don't care--if they did, you'd think FOX would have found an angry family member to blast across the TV screens by now.

No one getting angry about this has any emotional investment in the WTC, and claiming otherwise is pure bullsh**t.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Lunar, c'mon, while it's not a federal issue, the President weighing in on an issue which everyone thinks is related to 9/11 is standard fare.

Everyone needs to calm down.  What he said was (translated into plain english)

1)  They have a right to build it, and

2)  It's a dumb f****ng idea.


If he omitted #1 everyone would be jumpin' ugly, saying he doesn't understand the fundamental principles of our nation and he added #2, which is what he really thinks.

I hate when Presidents "clarify" what they mean when they didn't say anything wrong to begin with.

Except it's not a "dumb ing idea". Aside from the people getting their panties in a twist on TV about it, all of whom are blatantly doing so only for political gain, no one would care if they weren't told that they should care. Certainly the "9/11 families" whom everyone claims to be defending don't care--if they did, you'd think FOX would have found an angry family member to blast across the TV screens by now.

No one getting angry about this has any emotional investment in the WTC, and claiming otherwise is pure bullsh**t.

If he didn't come out and say it was dumb (which he did), the political fallout would be overwhelming.  While your last sentence is correct, why is necessary to have an emotional "investment" in the WTC?  If you didn't live in NYC or lose someone in the towers or planes you have no right to feel strongly about this?  (I could care less, I don't feel strongly, I'm just asking)

[patrick1]

Lunar, c'mon, while it's not a federal issue, the President weighing in on an issue which everyone thinks is related to 9/11 is standard fare.

Everyone needs to calm down.  What he said was (translated into plain english)

1)  They have a right to build it, and

2)  It's a dumb f****ng idea.


If he omitted #1 everyone would be jumpin' ugly, saying he doesn't understand the fundamental principles of our nation and he added #2, which is what he really thinks.

I hate when Presidents "clarify" what they mean when they didn't say anything wrong to begin with.

Except it's not a "dumb ing idea". Aside from the people getting their panties in a twist on TV about it, all of whom are blatantly doing so only for political gain, no one would care if they weren't told that they should care. Certainly the "9/11 families" whom everyone claims to be defending don't care--if they did, you'd think FOX would have found an angry family member to blast across the TV screens by now.

No one getting angry about this has any emotional investment in the WTC, and claiming otherwise is pure bullsh**t.

Verily, that is not exactly true either.  While there is certainly not unanimity among the 9/11 families, many have gone on record and been at the meetings opposing the Mosque.  Fox has had a few interviews with these people.  

Here is Debra Burlingames'  group http://www.911familiesforamerica.org which has embedded interviews of her with Fox.

[Brittain33]

Here is Debra Burlingames'  group http://www.911familiesforamerica.org which has embedded interviews of her with Fox.

I don't dispute her loss, but Debra Burlingame has been a right-wing activist for a decade, and represents her own agenda more than any sizable number of 9/11 families. If you take 3,000 victims and multiply them by the number of close relatives they have, it's no surprise you'll find at least one who has strong political views and television savvy to carry it off. I don't see why it's relevant. She doesn't have a personal veto over government policy, much less the 1st Amendment. 

[Brittain33]

If I bought a piece of property next to one of the Nazi death camps it would be "legal" to build a educational exhibit highlighting all the wonderful achievements of Adolf Hitler (Autobahns, national health care, expanded support for the arts, etc...) but it would certainly be deeply, massively, hurtfully,  and profoundly insensitive to do so....

Cordoba House is the antithesis of al Qaeda's views and approach to Islam, not a monument to its ideals or an explanation of the good things al Qaeda accomplished. Islam is not defined by what al Qaeda did, nor should you cheer on the effort to crush or marginalize moderate Islam by misrepresenting Cordoba House. Osama bin Laden would bomb it if he could. I doubt Hitler would shut down a museum dedicated to his glory.

[Devilman88]

Why not just build a building that everyone can go to and pray to whatever god they want?? That would be the best way to reach out and show that not all of Islam believers are bad...

[The Vorlon]

If I bought a piece of property next to one of the Nazi death camps it would be "legal" to build a educational exhibit highlighting all the wonderful achievements of Adolf Hitler (Autobahns, national health care, expanded support for the arts, etc...) but it would certainly be deeply, massively, hurtfully,  and profoundly insensitive to do so....

Cordoba House is the antithesis of al Qaeda's views and approach to Islam, not a monument to its ideals or an explanation of the good things al Qaeda accomplished. Islam is not defined by what al Qaeda did, nor should you cheer on the effort to crush or marginalize moderate Islam by misrepresenting Cordoba House. Osama bin Laden would bomb it if he could. I doubt Hitler would shut down a museum dedicated to his glory.

Question to you......

Given the totality of the situation, do you think the proposed location for the mosque is insensitive to the legitimate pain felt by 9/11 survivors, New York, and indeed much of the nation?

[The Vorlon]

If I bought a piece of property next to one of the Nazi death camps it would be "legal" to build a educational exhibit highlighting all the wonderful achievements of Adolf Hitler (Autobahns, national health care, expanded support for the arts, etc...) but it would certainly be deeply, massively, hurtfully,  and profoundly insensitive to do so....

Cordoba House is the antithesis of al Qaeda's views and approach to Islam, not a monument to its ideals or an explanation of the good things al Qaeda accomplished. Islam is not defined by what al Qaeda did, nor should you cheer on the effort to crush or marginalize moderate Islam by misrepresenting Cordoba House. Osama bin Laden would bomb it if he could. I doubt Hitler would shut down a museum dedicated to his glory.

Also...

If Cordoba House represents moderate Islam, transparency with respect to the sources of funding, the leadership behind construction, etc, should not be a problem - indeed would be totally consistent with with the teachings of "Islam" - a religion of peace...

yes?