Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2
Congratulations to you on not commenting on the parts of my post that you were unable to refute, which was most of it.
There's no legal question here, and yet you are determined to make it one. Do I need to repeat myself again or are you getting this yet?
The parts of your post that I didn't address aren't possible for me to refute - they are emotional arguments, and they are not the basis for governance.
Trust me, I completely understand why people are opposed to this. You don't need to convince me of that, any more than you need to convince me that some people are vehemently opposed to flag burning.
At the same time, we do not (and should not) have laws against flag burning. This is the heart of the First Amendment.
From my perspective, the emotional argument is tangible, but ultimately just that - a feeling. Support for our freedoms of speech and free exercise are fundamental to how we operate as a society, and we cannot simply abandon them when we feel angry about something.
Thus, the only real question about opposing this mosque is a legal one, and the legal calculus is quite clear.
Blockski - Building it next to ground zero, calling it cordoba, and wanting to start the project on 9-11-11 is a slap in the face to the United States of America. Pure and simple. They can go ahead and build it somewhere else in the city.
but to not recognize what this really is is IMO not facing the reality of it.
Also - building any other type or religious shrine there doesn't hold water in a comparison cause that's simply not happening. Again, the intolerance angle doesn't work for me.
If this country was filled with that much intolerance the bum in from texas would have gotten 27 code reds prior to his killing spree. we would have had masses of people enacting awful "revenge" on our own citizens after 9-11 yet that didn't happen.
our country and our people are nowhere near intolerant. we're the most tolerant in the world.
at least that's my .02
You can think it's a slap in the face, and I get that.
The point is that the First Amendment permits them to slap America in the face. That's the reality of the situation.
Logical opinions like this sadly get lost in the discussion. You were asked, "how close is too close and by what legal mechanism is it addressed"? You haven't said anything about legally barring them from building, but rather have appealed to a sense of decency and decorum on the part of those that want to build in this very spot. There are many of us that don't wish to circumvent the legal right to build there in the least, but hold the belief that it's an extremly poor decision, that sends an extremly bad message about the faith itself, and does nothing to further the "cause" of Islamic freedoms and acceptance within America.
And blocksi that's not meant as a shot at you because I agree with many of your opinions, but your response struck a chord with me. I think Red has made some very level-headed comments about this and despite how "hard core" he may come across at times I think he's had some extremely astute observations about what timing and placement of this mosque represent - intentional or not.
What Red seems to be missing is the connection between the emotional responses, the (as you put it) lack of decency and decorum, and the legal mechanisms which govern our freedoms of speech and free exercise.
Nate Silver has a great post on this, looking at the polling and Obama's decision to take a Bloomberg-like stance on the issue:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/obama-defense-of-ground-zero-mosque.html
As I pointed out two weeks ago, there has been considerable ambiguity in most polls on the topic, which did not distinguish one's personal position on the tastefulness of the mosque from one's view about whether or not the developers had the right to build it:
One's personal position on the mosque is not necessarily the same as thinking that the City should take affirmative steps to prohibit its construction by eminent domain laws by or other means. [...] This is somewhat analogous to asking: "do you support or oppose flag-burning?". Without additional context, it would be quite natural for someone to say they opposed it, but they might nevertheless consider it to be Constitutionally protected activity.
The only poll to have gotten the distinction right, believe it or not, is the one from Fox News. They asked two separate questions about the planned development. First, they asked:
A group of Muslims plans to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center a few blocks from the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. Do you think it is appropriate to build a mosque and Islamic center near ground zero, or do you think it would be wrong to do so?
Only 30 percent of respondents said "appropriate", while 64 percent said "wrong" -- consistent with the apparent unpopularity of the mosque in other polls.
But Fox also followed up with this question:
Regardless of whether you think it is appropriate to build a mosque near ground zero, do you think the Muslim group has the right to build a mosque there, or don’t they have that right?
Here, the numbers were nearly reversed: 61 percent of respondents, including 69 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans, said the developers had the right to build the mosque; 34 percent said they did not.
My whole point here is to break the question into two separate pieces, as that Fox News poll does - do you think this is appropriate, and do you think this is legal?
The first question is one of emotion, the second is one of law. To me, the second is the one that matters - particularly when the rhetoric swarms about whether this should be 'allowed' or not. This is why I've been arguing to dxm that it's not a semantic difference.
Bakunin said:
The bottom line is if they were attempting to build a mosque that wasn't so close to ground zero, NOBODY WOULD GIVE A ****. If the muslims wanting this thing built care about people "being sensitive to each others' needs", they should recognize that compromising on this one might be best for all involved. They'd still get to build their mosque, and the people livid about putting one of these near ground zero wouldn't have anything to be *'d off about - everybody wins - except of course for the people that think having it built in another location is tantamount to urinating on the Constitution and lighting it ablaze.
This all depends on
who is "having it built" in another location. If the developers do so of their own free will, that's fine. If they are compelled by government action, then there's a problem.
The mechanism matters here.
