Frank Smith Says NB: The Ground Zero Mosque, and Meaningless Oaths

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Ground Zero Mosque, and Meaningless Oaths

48 comments:

Anonymous said...: I am tired of hearing in the media about how this is private property and as owners of private property, they can do what they want with it.

According to Glenn Beck, a piece of the land needed to build this mosque currently is owned by Con Edison and was taken from private property owners through eminent domain and for the public use of NYC's power company.

This being the case, why should property currently held by a public utility company and taken from private hands "for public use" be transferred to accommodate the building of a mosque that as Glenn Beck put it, sticks a needle in the eyes of the thousands of family members who lost loved ones at the hands of Muslim terrorists in the the 9/11 attacks?; August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: I don't understand how a house of religious worship can be taken as an insult. They are not erecting a museum to terrorism. If we as a nation cannot differentiate between Islam and Terrorism then we have lost our way as Americans.

Before the 9/11 attacks there was a mosque inside the twin towers. When the towers came crashing down several Muslims lost their lives to terrorism right along with the Christians.

If the majority of this opposition was coming from the families of those who lost loved ones I might feel differently, but it isn't. It is coming from groups from outside of the State and outside the region. It is similar to the protests by a Texas group that happened when a Connecticut mosque wanted to expand.

We need to remember that freedom of religion and right to worship is one of the principals this country was founded upon. We should not turn our back on that and give into prejudice and Islamaphobia.; August 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: GROUND ZERO MOSQUE: THE REAL ISSUE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
08.18.2010

The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia Law with its requirement of Jihad and violence that is the nub of the issue.

There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and make it the legal system of the world; August 19, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: To Anonymous 2:

While you quote Dick Morris you do little to fact check his claims. The assertion that any mosque associated with Sharia Law is a "training camp" for terrorists and is bent on "destroying feminism" is pure ignorance. I'm not even a Muslim but even doing brief amounts of research on Sharia you can find that there are many different interpretations of Islamic law (other wise known as Sharia).

Arguments like this are no better than people who say Christians and Jews have a religion of hatred because passages in Psalms call for dashing infants upon the rocks and stoning people to death.

Furthermore, the assumption that a mosque run by Feisal Abdul Rauf "will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west" is just insane and over the top. At every turn Feisal Abdul Rauf has decried terrorism saying it has no place in Islam. When asked about the reason America is targeted he points out what he feels are some of the reasons terrorists target America and he brings up good points - even Glenn Beck said how the events of 9/11 have roots in past US actions.

I'm sorry, my stance isn't a popular one, but if you want to argue it at least use facts and not quotes from hate mongering articles with no journalistic integrity.

(And I'd like to note: I will put my name to my comments, even when I know many people won't agree.); August 19, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Nicholas Mercier said...While you quote Dick Morris you do little to fact check his claims....

Since Dick Morris is a prominent Democrat who worked in the Clinton White House, I thought he was trustworthy. I guess you are saying we can't trust any Democrats these days.; August 20, 2010 at 5:23 PM
SOMEONE WHO KNOWS! said...: Rush Limbaugh made a great point about this subject today. He likened this scenario to the Ku Klux Klan (whose imperial wizard lives right here in Connecticut) building their hall of worship right next door to the NAACP--purposely to stick a needle in the eye of the NAACP.

They may have the constitutional right to do it, but that doesn't make it right.

I wonder what Obama, the great defender of the right to worship, would say about that?; August 20, 2010 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm confused, Isn't Nick Mercier a Democrat and a member of the town committee?; August 20, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe Mr. Mercier needs to consider this report by a NYC reporter--certainly not an outsider as he put it:

The Constitution has nothing to say about whether Ground Zero mosque is right or wrong

S.E. Cupp (NY DAILY NEWS)

Though the country largely opposes plans to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero, apparently that common sense has yet to sway some elected officials, who have settled on a single line of reasoning in making their impassioned pleas: The Constitution says it's okay.

They arrived at this posture after throwing other unconvincing arguments against the wall. First it was an issue of "tolerance," that nebulous and utterly inscrutable liberal piety often used to scare off otherwise rational opposition. Then they tried to tell us that the mosque wasn't really a mosque, that it wasn't that close to Ground Zero, and that the folks behind the plans were well-intentioned moderates.

But those assertions having failed to win the hearts and minds of most of the country, the new tactic relies solely on the supremacy of the First Amendment.

And President Obama is just the latest public figure to voice his support using this declaration of constitutional might, joining Mayor Bloomberg and others in trumpeting the country's freedom of religion clause as the only real argument that matters on the issue.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan, Brooklyn) had this to say: "I commend President Obama's statement on the Cordoba House and his support of our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and separation of church and state."

Case closed, conversation over. Well, no offense to the Constitution, but so what? They're right, of course - the group behind the mosque has every legal right to build their house of worship wherever they like.

But what about common sense and decency? If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had either, he and his group would reconsider the location out of respect for the hordes of Americans, many of them 9/11 family members themselves, who think that this idea just plain stinks. And if it weren't for political correctness and our decidedly 21st century paranoia over offending Islam, our national leaders would proudly echo those sentiments.

Enough is enough. The speechifying and pontificating on the mosque's constitutionality are a distraction and a straw man. No one in serious circles who opposes the mosque at Ground Zero is suggesting it should be made illegal to build a Muslim house of worship near the site of the 9/11 attacks.

What they're trying to say, and largely to plugged ears on the left, is that having the right doesn't make it right.

But "right" is an inconvenient and ambiguous word where moral relativism is a legitimate credo, and it isn't discussed by intellectualizing mosque proponents because good and evil don't actually exist, we aren't fighting a war on Islamic extremism and American exceptionalism is, well, debatable at best.; August 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: To the Rush Limbaugh quote:

There is a slight problem with the analogy. You are comparing the KKK to the Islamic religion as a whole. If the Taliban was setting up a terrorist recruitment center there, yes I could believe it is a tasteless and spiteful action. The quote is implying that Islam and Mosques as a whole are nothing more than terrorist organizations.

If a religious group (say Baptists) wanted to build a Church next to the NAACP offices it would be stupid to for the NAACP to argue that just because some Baptists are members of the KKK that they are being insensitive by building their church there.

As to the NYC reporter:

He is right, most of the country is opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque, granted much of America has been misinformed as to the specifics of the Mosque. Many aren't aware that before the attacks there was a mosque in the World Trade Center. Many don't know the history behind choosing this location or enough about the practice of Islam to know why many areas have several mosques (since they answer a call to prayer 5 times a day and prayer is supposed to be communal it is a considerable burden when some Muslims who used to visit the WTC mosque now walk over a mile 5 times a day.)

The reporter also fails to mention that while most of country is opposed to the mosque most of Manhattan and NYC residents don't care. Yes, there is some opposition from true residents, but most local polls show ambivalence.

I could make analogies to illustrate why I don't think it's appropriate to use a "think of the victims" argument, but I would be repeating some of what I've said here and other places on this site. You don't have to agree with me, but I personally thing that this, among other anti-mosque protests that have happened in CT recently, are sending a terrible message of intolerance.; August 20, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: DEMOCRATS FOUNDED THE KU KLUX KLAN:

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 Republican whites died at the end of Democratic KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.; August 20, 2010 at 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Nicholas:

With all due respect, We in opposition to the Mosque at "Ground Zero" haven't lost our way as Americans, we are reestablishing it. Also, how do you know that the majority opposing the Mosque are from out of state and out of the region? Is that bad and are they not all Americans voicing an opinion? You mislead your usually coherent arguments by saying things like, "several Muslims lost their lives [ at Ground Zero ] along with the Christians. It is not only Christians that are complaing. I'm guessing that there were Atheists, Jews, Buddhists, etc. C'mon Nich, your usually lucid arguments on this subject seem a little cloudy.

Incidentally, Nich is not a Democrat nor is he a member of the DTC.; August 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: To Anonymous:

I apologize if my arguments are unclear. Allow me to clarify. Polls of just Manhattan show support for the Mosque, 46% to 36% with 18% not stating an opinion. As you widen the net farther and farther the polls oppose the Mosque by larger majorities till you get to the oft quoted figures showing 54% to 64% of Americans oppose the Mosque.

While there are members of 9/11 families who oppose the mosque there are also those who support it (Marvin Bethea, Herb Ouida, and the group September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows to name a few).

To further clarify my point from before - yes, I am aware that atheists, Buddhists, and others all died on 9/11. My point is that they were American. The attacks of 9/11 were an attack by extremists against all Americans regardless of religion, the extremists want us all dead. So why should a group of Americans who practice Islam be told they can't build their house of worship there?

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say those opposing the mosque are reclaiming their ways as Americans. How is opposing the construction of a house of worship (regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the religion) American? Yes, religious intolerance has occurred in our nations history, but I would hardly consider it the American way.

Let me just lay out my entire point in a short format so you can identify what point of my argument you disagree with.

1. A religion should not be held accountable for terrible acts committed by extremists in the name of that religion.

2. If 1. is true, then it would be fair to blame Islam as a whole for the events of 9/11.

3. If 2. is true, then it isn't appropriate to block or oppose the construction of a Mosque near the site of 9/11.

Now, we could debate any one of those points, most of the debate has been made over points 1 and 2. But I see very little evidence being offered to support opposing arguments to points 1 and 2.; August 21, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Donald Trump, one of the most prominent New Yorkers, weighed in on the ground zero mosque tonight on Geraldo.

Trump said it would be a huge insult to America to build this facility in the shadows of WTC. Trump's suggestion was that the imam should sell this piece of property for a small profit and build his mosque somewhere else in the city, far enough away from the WTC so that it is no longer an issue.

The Donald said if he were to follow this advice, it would be a "win" situation not only for Americans, but for his religion as well, because he would be showing America he and his people are sensitive to our feelings. Since the property is appraised at $20 million, and the imam only paid $4.8 million, it is certainly possible for him to sell it for a profit.

Trump also said that he knows there are suitable properties available in Manhattan that are a reasonable distance from ground zero that would accommodate this project, and if the imam would do this, he may even be viewed as a hero.; August 21, 2010 at 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Nich:

Does anyone know when the property desired for the proposed Mosque became available? Knowing the sentiment surrounding the Ground Zero property, I wonder why Musims especially or any other group or religion would choose to build their edifice there!
Time and time again polls are proven incorrect. Who knows why people answer pollsters questions? Who knows how those polled are chosen? And once again Nich, you said that all who died, regardless of their faith or lack thereof were Americans; of course you are sure about that?
You also said, " If we as a nation cannot differentiate between Islam and Terrorism then we have lost our way as Americans." That' the rub! Solid Americans have rights also; some Muslims in the USA as well as in other countries preach deathe to non Muslims, preach death to cartoonists who portray the Muslim Allah in a way that don't like. You want all Americans to differentiate between Islam and terrorists only the way you do; that's is tantamount to advancing Americanism as a religion. Nich, Americans haven't lost their way, they are just doing things their way, the way the US Constitution allows. Not all Romans threw Christians to the lions and not all Spaniards took part in the inquisition. That's why atrocities like that disappeared. I'm who I am regardless of your three point argument. I am not intolerant nor am I naive and I am certain that I am a "good" American.; August 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Donald Trump said the imam only bought the property a few months ago for $4.8 million, and it is valued at just about $20 million.

The other issue people are not talking about is that this does not include the entire property needed to build this facility. It will require the transfer to the Muslims of a piece of adjoining property that is currently owned by Consolidated Edison, the NYC power company, a piece of property that was taken from a private owner for "public use." According to Glenn Beck, the mosque can not be built without this ConEd parcel of land, so you will have the ConEd rate payers in NYC supporting this facility being built.; August 22, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: To Anonymous:

In response to this statement "Knowing the sentiment surrounding the Ground Zero property, I wonder why Musims especially or any other group or religion would choose to build their edifice there!" I wanted to provide some background information.

There was a Mosque inside of the WTC that serviced local Muslims. One of the cornerstones of the Muslim faith is praying 5 times a day. Prayer is supposed to be communal, which is why Mosques are very prevalent in areas with a large Muslim populations. When you have a few Muslims in an area they will often meet together to pray, as the number grows you build a mosque.

So in part one of the reasons they would look to build a mosque near the 9/11 site is that prior to 9/11 there was a mosque there. This is a fact that is often ignored.

As I said before, you don't have to agree with my 3 points, but they are a logical progression. Do you agree or disagree with my points? If you disagree then tell me why. That way I can try to understand your argument and where you are coming from. I understand that you don't agree with my argument, but I don't know why nor do I know what your argument against the mosque is. It makes it very hard to discuss the matter.; August 22, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Mercier is obviously avoiding the questions surrounding taking private property for "public use" as in the case of the parcel of land that was forcibly taken by Con Edison and will now be given to Muslims in order to insult the New Yorkers who lost loved ones when Muslims hijacked American planes and flew them into the Trade Center.; August 22, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: This is just a distraction to take attention away from the fact that Obama's plans have been one massive failure after another. He is trying to keep you talking about this mosque so you won't focus on how he and his fellow radicals in Congress are destroying this once great nation with once socialist move after another.; August 22, 2010 at 5:07 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: My apologies to anonymous but I'm not "avoiding questions" as no questions were raised. I am not an expert on eminent domain law, nor the specifics of the property in question. But a bit of quick research turns up the following:

Con Edison leased the property to Pomerantz (who owned the other property). When the Burlington Coat Factory was purchased they also paid $700,000 to take over the lease from the Con Edison facility. Essentially the lease contract transferred from Pomerantz to Soho Properties.

The lease was the type where the building was leased for an extremely long period of time (until 2071) at a flat rate of $33,000 per year. In the lease contract there was a buyout provisions (from what I've found these are a common in such long term leases) and Soho Properties is using that buyout clause to end the lease and purchase the property.

Part of the reason they would need both buildings is because they have a shared wall, so to tear down or extensively renovate one building would greatly effect the other. Technically they could demolish the building if they wished under the terms of the existing lease, but they are seeking to purchase it outright, most likely since they plan to have the Mosque still standing there past the lease termination date of 2071.

Sadly Glenn Beck failed to mention that under the current terms of their lease they could demolish the building and build on the site anyways. I'm sure he will get to that bit of the story later in another episode.; August 22, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Anonymous said...: This is the kind of radical extremism that Mr. Mercier seems to be defending by his continued denouncing of anyone who would oppose the muslim mosque at ground zero. Since when does "freedom of religion" protect threatening suicide bombings against Americans for opposing such an innocent house of worship? No church I have ever attended has ever threatened to bomb innocent civilians simply because they didn't get their way.

FOX NEWS BREAKING STORY:
Islamic radicals are seizing on protests against a planned Islamic community center near Manhattan's Ground Zero and anti-Muslim rhetoric elsewhere as a propaganda opportunity and are stepping up anti-U.S. chatter and threats on their websites.

One jihadist site vowed to conduct suicide bombings in Florida to avenge a threatened Koran burning, while others predicted an increase in terrorist recruits as a result of such actions.; August 23, 2010 at 1:36 AM
Nicholas Mercier said...: Again, your entire argument hinges on the fact that some Muslims (not ones associated with this proposed Mosque) are threatening people. By that same token we should stop people from protesting at abortion clinics peacefully because some extremists make threats against those same clinics. Or we should stop people from protesting animal cruelty because some people have threatened violence.

If you wish to not distinguish between the extremists of a group from the general population of that group that is fine, but why do you restrict that logic to only Muslims?; August 23, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Anonymous said...: If their goal is to promote peace shouldn't they take the 150 million dollars and doll it out to their faithful in need. Isn't that what
Mohamed would want. There are plenty of flood victims in Pakistan who need immediate food and shelter. What better way to promote peace than by helping the needy.; August 24, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: The motive of those who call on Americans to accept all religions, yet remain silent regarding religious oppression in other countries, should be held in question, especially when you consider the fact that much of that repression is state sponsored.; August 24, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Nicholas Mercier said...: "If their goal is to promote peace shouldn't they take the 150 million dollars and doll it out to their faithful in need. Isn't that what
Mohamed would want. There are plenty of flood victims in Pakistan who need immediate food and shelter. What better way to promote peace than by helping the needy."

The same could be said about hundreds of other religious organizations and people. This isn't an argument against building the Mosque (if they so choose) but an argument for them to spend their money in a completely different venture. One could just as easily argue that a Mosque teaching peace and tolerance will reach thousands of people over the years and do more than spending $150 million on charity would.

"The motive of those who call on Americans to accept all religions, yet remain silent regarding religious oppression in other countries, should be held in question, especially when you consider the fact that much of that repression is state sponsored."

As should we call on the motives of those who call on other countries to embrace religious tolerance and yet oppose religious tolerance in our own country. This blade clearly cuts both ways. I, for one, agree that we need to promote religious tolerance in all countries. However, changing the minds of countries not founded on the same principals as our own is difficult work. One way we can help to change the world is to lead by example.; August 24, 2010 at 5:35 PM
One Who Knows said...: I understand your points.

The Republican Party is mainly made up of mainstream Americans who support conservative values, but then there are a handful of kooks within the party who go around supporting things like the building of a mosque so close in the shadows of the former world trade center, that the landing gear from one of the aircraft fell on the site where this mosque is to be built, as an insult to every American who lost a loved one on 9/11.

We shouldn't blame the entire party for the actions of the few fringe elements.; August 24, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: "the building of a mosque so close in the shadows of the former world trade center, that the landing gear from one of the aircraft fell on the site where this mosque is to be built, as an insult to every American who lost a loved one on 9/11."

Very cute how rather than explain your stance against the mosque with a valid argument you instead decide to poke a little fun. Skillfully done, but it doesn't detract from the point that you haven't yet said why the mosque would be an insult or why you are against it's construction with an argument that stands up to scrutiny. The issue of the adjoining property is a matter of contract law, the issue it being a mosque (as mentioned before) is a none issue unless you want to hold all groups accountable for their fringe elements. Is there another issue that I haven't seen come up?; August 25, 2010 at 5:27 PM
One Who Knows said...: I have stated my opposition repeatedly, but someone is apparently too ignorant to understand why 70% of Americans are against this disgusting plan. The mosque is a knife in the back to every person who lost a loved one in the attacks of 9/11 at the hands of Muslim Terrorists.

If my position is so unreasonable, why is it that the leaders of this organization are now meeting with their opposition to work out a compromise location for this facility?

You apparently are unable to understand how a terrorist recruitment and training facility located near the site of the former World Trade Center is an insult to every American!

You must be a Democrat to be so out of touch with mainstream America!; August 25, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: If their motives are so friendly, then why are they so secretive about who is actually funding this mosque???

I'll bet this liberal loon has no answer for that one!; August 25, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: So all mosques are "terrorist recruitment and training facilities"? If that is the case why would moving it another 10, 20, 30, or even 40 blocks from the site be acceptable?; August 25, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...: "For centuries, Muslims built mosques where they won military victories. Now, they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero, where Islamic terrorists killed 3,000 Americans. It's like the Japanese building at Pearl Harbor."; August 26, 2010 at 12:37 AM
the view from the cheap seats said...: It appears to me that this guy will not be happy until a terrorist camp is built in his own New Britain neighborhood, but even then he probably wouldn't be satisfied until they built it directly next door to him so he could feel all comfy and cozy with his radical extremist, anti-American buddies.; August 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM
wayne s. said...: Liberals are doubling down on their support for this mosque. I'm hearing liberals say things like religious freedom and private property rights. When did liberals ever care about either of those? I'm also hearing things like it's two blocks away, there's no mosque, and it's meant to build bridges. I don't get it. The only thing I can take from their lunacy is that they feel an affinity for Islam in hating America. I'll start believing them when when I hear them standing up for Christians or Jews, too.; August 26, 2010 at 1:02 AM
Anonymous said...: My gosh..do these liberals ever quit? Now the race card is being used with Muslims...first Afro-Americans..then Mexican-Americans, now Muslim-Americans. They really are desperate for a vote since they have messed up America's economy and none of us have a job now and the housing market is ruined! I'm sure this Muslim mosque thing must be George Bush's fault too!; August 26, 2010 at 1:10 AM
Anonymous said...: "As should we call on the motives of those who call on other countries to embrace religious tolerance and yet oppose religious tolerance in our own country. This blade clearly cuts both ways. I, for one, agree that we need to promote religious tolerance in all countries. However, changing the minds of countries not founded on the same principals as our own is difficult work. One way we can help to change the world is to lead by example."

Some people would like to see us lead by example and unilaterally disarm ourselves. Fortunately the majority of us, being reasonable adults, wouldn't consider this prudent public policy. Furthermore, equating asking the offending party to exercise a modicum of restraint, which is the normal protocol in most conflict resolution ,to state sponsored religious persecution in other countries, could also be perceived as a bit of a stretch in the minds of most reasonable people.; August 26, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Stewie said...: I believe the American people are losing their voice. The only voices being heard in this country are those of the minority and special intrests. The people of this nation must rise and make their voices heard. Just because someone has the right to do something does not make it right for them to do it.; August 26, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: A MUSLIM CAB DRIVER WAS SLASHED YESTERDAY IN NYC AND EVERYONE IS OUTRAGED...EXCEPT ME. MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN MUTILATING AND HUMILIATING MUSLIM WOMEN FOR CENTURIES SO THE WAY I SEE IT HE IS GETTING SOME OF HIS OWN MEDICINE..OR SHOULD I SAY RELIGION!!!; August 26, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: I pray that New Yorkers prevail on this like they did in not having the trial of ksm in lower Manhattan. They need to rise up against this govt.; August 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Hard for these liberals to understand that people can be against something without hating a race, religion, etc..; August 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: "Hard for these liberals to understand that people can be against something without hating a race, religion, etc.."

I have no problem with someone being against something. But I'd like to know their reasons. If their reasons is "All Mosques are terrorists recruitment camps" then I have a problem because their reasoning is flawed and not based on facts, but on fear mongering. If there reason is "Con Edison owns the building" the problem is that the lease contract has a negotiated buyout provision.

I don't think that everyone against it is motivated by racism, but I'd like to hear sound logical arguments against it. Much of what I've seen in the media, the internet, and heard from people is misinformed hate mongering. A classic example is the reason poster who actually seemed glad that Muslim Cab Driver who was living in America as an American was brutally assaulted.

To the one commenter: "Some people would like to see us lead by example and unilaterally disarm ourselves. Fortunately the majority of us, being reasonable adults, wouldn't consider this prudent public policy. Furthermore, equating asking the offending party to exercise a modicum of restraint, which is the normal protocol in most conflict resolution ,to state sponsored religious persecution in other countries, could also be perceived as a bit of a stretch in the minds of most reasonable people."

You bring up some very good points, and I agree if you stretch any analogy to apply to situations beyond its original scope you can find areas where it won't fit. In your own counter example you equate freedom of religion to a disarmament, clearly two different issue.

I definitely agree that in conflict resolution asking an offending party to make concessions is perfectly acceptable. However, the offense has to be realistic. Again, to make an analogy - this is in part like one child on the playground to give me his ball because another child stole mine. Unless you are assuming that merely because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim that all Muslims have to be held associated and responsible for what they did.

As I said before, if you think all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 then your argument is logically sound, though I have to question why all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 when not all Christians are responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, etc.; August 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM
Nicholas Mercier said...: "Hard for these liberals to understand that people can be against something without hating a race, religion, etc.."

I have no problem with someone being against something. But I'd like to know their reasons. If their reasons is "All Mosques are terrorists recruitment camps" then I have a problem because their reasoning is flawed and not based on facts, but on fear mongering. If there reason is "Con Edison owns the building" the problem is that the lease contract has a negotiated buyout provision.

I don't think that everyone against it is motivated by racism, but I'd like to hear sound logical arguments against it. Much of what I've seen in the media, the internet, and heard from people is misinformed hate mongering. A classic example is the reason poster who actually seemed glad that Muslim Cab Driver who was living in America as an American was brutally assaulted.

To the one commenter: "Some people would like to see us lead by example and unilaterally disarm ourselves. Fortunately the majority of us, being reasonable adults, wouldn't consider this prudent public policy. Furthermore, equating asking the offending party to exercise a modicum of restraint, which is the normal protocol in most conflict resolution ,to state sponsored religious persecution in other countries, could also be perceived as a bit of a stretch in the minds of most reasonable people."

You bring up some very good points, and I agree if you stretch any analogy to apply to situations beyond its original scope you can find areas where it won't fit. In your own counter example you equate freedom of religion to a disarmament, clearly two different issue.

I definitely agree that in conflict resolution asking an offending party to make concessions is perfectly acceptable. However, the offense has to be realistic. Again, to make an analogy - this is in part like one child on the playground to give me his ball because another child stole mine. Unless you are assuming that merely because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim that all Muslims have to be held associated and responsible for what they did.

As I said before, if you think all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 then your argument is logically sound, though I have to question why all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 when not all Christians are responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, etc.; August 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM
THE THORN said...: Their support for this insulting, disgraceful site across the street from where 3,000 Americans were killed by Muslim Terrorists just further demonstrates how out of touch with mainstream America these liberal Democrats really are, or is it that they just hate America as much as these Muslim Terrorists do?

Today's CBS poll shows 71% of Americans oppose this mosque which is believed to be a front for a Muslim terrorist training and recruitment Center, but the more the American people oppose it, the more these elitist Democrats seem to want it.

It appears that Democrats stand for anything that is anti-American these days!; August 26, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: why doesn't any of the liberal left wing media want to talk about where the money is coming from?

If these Muslims are so "pure as the driven snow" why do they run and hide whenever asked who if paying for this project?; August 26, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...: There was just a breaking story on the news that a lawsuit is going to be filed to block this sham of a "religious" building, which will hopefully tie this up in the courts for many years!

I suppose the Democrats will now claim these Muslims are not subject to US courts and can only be sued in a Sharia court?; August 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "As I said before, if you think all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 then your argument is logically sound, though I have to question why all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 when not all Christians are responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, etc."

I wasn't aware that the Oklahoma City Bombing was carried out in the name of any organized Christian group, but for argument's sake I will stipulate to your assertion. That said, I believe any legitimate organization, religious or otherwise, should be willing to accept some portion of responsibility for the actions of its current generation of individual members, whenever such actions are claimed by the idividual(s) to have been carried out in the name of that organization.; August 26, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: If these Muslims are so "pure as the driven snow" why do they run and hide whenever asked who if paying for this project?

WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE? COULD BIN LADEN HIMSELF BE FUNDING THIS INNOCENT FACILITY?

It is amazing that Democrats would support an Imam who says he wants America to be "Sharia compliant." That means 2 sets of laws, one for men and one for women. Men are innocent until proven guilty, and women are guilty until proven innocent which never happens because their accusers are men and under Sharia law, women are totally subservient to men.Women are not allowed to own any property or even have a bank account. Women may never have their own passport. In order to travel across borders, a woman must be listed on her husband's passport and may never travel without him being present and certainly not without his consent. Women are also "stoned" for allowing their face to be seen in public.

This is the "tolerance" that is being endorsed by the Democrats!; August 26, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Jim Sanders Jr said...: FACT IS...NICK...would you put a strip joint next to a high school? The answer is.....NO...It just isn't right! Point Is muslims caused 9-11. There are good muslims and there are bad muslims. Who's to say which way there going to go as time goes by. Its a chance we can't take, and the whole idea is a slap in the face to any TRUE AMERICAN! I agree with Trump! Sell and build somewhere else you might be a hero!; August 26, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...A MUSLIM CAB DRIVER WAS SLASHED YESTERDAY IN NYC AND EVERYONE IS OUTRAGED...EXCEPT ME. MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN MUTILATING AND HUMILIATING MUSLIM WOMEN FOR CENTURIES SO THE WAY I SEE IT HE IS GETTING SOME OF HIS OWN MEDICINE..OR SHOULD I SAY RELIGION!!!

Turns out that the guy who stabbed this cab driver is a radical left wing Democrat!; August 26, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: We Americans tend to focus on the 9/11 attacks, but every day somebody somewhere gets killed in the name of Allah. It might be in Somalia, or Indonesia, the Mideast, sometimes Europe. It is a rapidly growing scenario.; August 27, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)