this just seems about caving to morons and their ignorant ideas more than anything else. a 'compromise' is just political posturing and also cementing this concept that if whiners complain ignorantly enough about a subject about which they know little, they'll get their way. many people oppose it for faulty reasons to which i give little to no credence or weight.

And yes, it can be emotional. It's fine for those close to it to be emotional. However, that's why there are unbiased bodies which can review plans and come to a conclusion. That happened. It was approved. Move on to real issues, such as Operation New Dawn starting up in a few weeks

jerseyhoya wrote:Did you read what Dean wrote?

I noticed that not once did Dean use the word "mosque" but yet the the headline is "Why I back a mosque compromise - Ground Zero Mosque".

It's funny that certain people on the far, far right(people like Palin), love the Constitution so much(as long as the part under scrutiny is the 2nd amendment), but are so willing to throw away parts that are critical to American democracy and personal freedom(like the 1st and 14th amendments).

"Hey, listen, Muslim Americans. I love you. You know that. We're buds. And I totally get what you're trying to do here with this interfaith come together love-in thing. I get it. I really do. But here's the thing-some of my other friends, they won't take very well to a mosque being built in the vicinity of Ground Zero. You know, Ground Zero-where people nominally of the same faith as you once blew up buildings. They're simple, unsophisticated folk. They've got a lot of residual anger over that 9/11 thing. So, do you mind taking your mosque somewhere else?"

I suppose that is the new argument against the mosque, as articulated by Dean, others.

Given the circumstances, I'd say it's a sound argument. But, let's talk about the circumstances. Frankly, I'm not very excited about living in a country where people think certain religions shouldn't go certain places for the sake of "common sense" and "decency". I'm not very excited about living in a country where the idea of a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero "...stabs hearts."

Why should there be compromise when it comes to the freedoms we take for granted as Americans? Why aren't more patriotic Americans standing up and saying, "Hey, I may disagree with these people, but they have rights"? This whole sordid affair has yanked the curtain away from the whole "no Islamaphobia in America" myth.

If certain religious groups are going to be asked to "compromise" over what section of a city they can worship in, I really fear for our republic.

It's not the first time people have objected to building or expanding a religious institution.

Often, it's minority religions that run into objections--15 years ago or so there was a pretty nasty fight in Old Bridge NJ about building (or expanding) a Hindu Temple.

And it's common for expanding congregations to get objections from neighbors regarding traffic and such.

Constitutional issues arise in these circumstances due to the Free Exercise Clause of the constitution--for instance, it's generally legal for religious building to be built in residential neighborhoods.

This is of course uniquely emotional.

Are any mainstream groups actually trying to legally block the building of the mosque? I don't understand what everyone is jumping all over jerseyhoya for, since he's in agreement with most people.

LOUD NOISES REPUBLIBANS ARE IGNORANT RACISTS AND DONT USUALLY UNDERSTAND NUANCE SO IF THEY'RE TRYING TO BE NUANCED HERE IT'S BECAUSE THERE IS UNDERLYING RACISM.

And that's the whole point of this manufactured "debate." It's to energize their respective bases.


On a related note, my Republican mother in law was quite opinionated about the mosque, and how it shouldn't be there, and something should be done to block it. I started by talking about property rights, the importance of private property, but she didnt seem persuaded by any exhortations to principles. So I tried to appease her by saying "Maybe we should put mosques near all the places we don't want bombed, as a defensive tactic." She seemed pretty pleased with that line of reasoning.

they've appealed to the court of public opinion, which is going to end up getting it moved for no good reason

You'd almost think that appealing to public opinion was using their first amendment right of free speech or something

oh whatever. somehow we always agree on things and yet still disagree because that's what is more fun i guess

minds will be changed and people will forget about this when it's built. but let's just annoy them enough until they move it! yay

This shows that the forces of political correctness, which managed to convince people that having hurt feelings was the same as suffering real damages have triumphed, with all the attendant unintended consequences.

This of course followed hippies and their ilk asserting that civility and politeness were "phoney" "inauthentic" and "hypocritical" and that the highest form of human life was the expression of uncensored spontaneous feeling and emotion.

We need to go back to the good old days of hypocrisy, self-restraint, and repression.

TenuredVulture wrote:This shows that the forces of political correctness, which managed to convince people that having hurt feelings was the same as suffering real damages have triumphed, with all the attendant unintended consequences.

This of course followed hippies and their ilk asserting that civility and politeness were "phoney" "inauthentic" and "hypocritical" and that the highest form of human life was the expression of uncensored spontaneous feeling and emotion.

We need to go back to the good old days of hypocrisy, self-restraint, and repression.

we might call this the mad men manifesto

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:This shows that the forces of political correctness, which managed to convince people that having hurt feelings was the same as suffering real damages have triumphed, with all the attendant unintended consequences.

This of course followed hippies and their ilk asserting that civility and politeness were "phoney" "inauthentic" and "hypocritical" and that the highest form of human life was the expression of uncensored spontaneous feeling and emotion.

We need to go back to the good old days of hypocrisy, self-restraint, and repression.

we might call this the mad men manifesto

Somewhat. The problem of course with the Madmen is the failure of repression and the lack of civility. This I think is why Pete Campbell's father was so disappointed in him--the ad world represents the decline of tradition values and the triumph of self-indulgence putting happiness and the satisfaction of desire above all else.

Hume and Burke were of course right--it doesn't matter that standards be real or "natural"--they aren't. Standards are conventional. But without them, there is no civilization.

There's of course a downside to my reactionary attitude, but like any good 18th c. conservative I know we would not want to go back to an idealized world of say the 1950s that never existed anyway.

jerseyhoya wrote:More from Dean today

Other than a few of the shots at the right, I could have written this and felt proud.

This seems about right to me. They have an absolute, unquestionable right to build the thing, unless we want to piss on the constitution entirely.

But should they build it there? They probably shouldn't, but they are the ones who have to reach that decision on their own... not by being bullied out of it by the far right.

TenuredVulture wrote:Somewhat. The problem of course with the Madmen is the failure of repression and the lack of civility.

that's where the hypocrisy comes in handy...?

mozartpc27 wrote:They have an absolute, unquestionable right to build the thing, unless we want to piss on the constitution entirely.

But should they build it there? They probably shouldn't, but they are the ones who have to reach that decision on their own... not by being bullied out of it by the far right.

A serious question: why shouldn't they?

Because of hurt feelings? I think TV's comment addressed that one; it's crap, at least in comparison to both the freedom of religion and property-rights arguments.

Because it'll set back their professed cause of promoting interfaith dialogue? Call it a crazy hunch, but I don't think the decision of the developers to "back down" would do all that much to change the views of Gingrich, Palin, Giuliani, Rush et al about "the Muslims." It's possible, I guess, for public views of a given group to change over time; "we" don't hate, or don't hate as much, Catholics or Jews or African-Americans the way we did 100 or 150 years ago, or The Gays 50 years ago. But this won't do it.

Frankly, as both a New York City employee and a guy who isn't much sympathetic to organized religion in any flavor, I'd rather have something on that parcel we can tax. But I have yet to hear anything remotely approaching a good reason not to build the thing there, and I'm more convinced than ever that this is a sideshow everyone's perpetuating to keep us from thinking about much, much bigger problems inching they way toward us.

dajafi wrote:A serious question: why shouldn't they?

Because she said so

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc4903d2" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=38805764&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="wmode" value="opaque"><embed name="msnbc4903d2" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=38805764&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

Lets try the question one more time?

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38807231/ns/us_news-life/]yep, rational opposition to it that should be 'compromised' with:

Opponents of the $100 million project two blocks from the World Trade Center site appeared to outnumber supporters. Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" blared over loudspeakers as mosque opponents chanted, "No mosque, no way!"

Signs hoisted by dozens of protesters standing behind police barricades read "SHARIA" — using dripping, blood-red letters to describe Islam's Shariah law, which governs the behavior of Muslims.

Steve Ayling, a 40-year-old Brooklyn plumber who carried his sign to a dry spot by an office building, said the people behind the mosque project are "the same people who took down the twin towers."

Opponents demand that the mosque be moved farther from the site where nearly 3,000 people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001. "They should put it in the Middle East," Ayling said.

On a nearby sidewalk, police chased away a group that unfurled a banner with images of beating, stoning and other torture they said was committed by those who followed Islamic law.

A man wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress, mounted one of two mock missiles that were part of an anti-mosque installation. One missile was inscribed with the words: "Again? Freedom Targeted by Religion"; the other with "Obama: With a middle name Hussein. We understand. Bloomberg: What is your excuse?"

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has fiercely defended plans for the proposed mosque, saying that the right "to practice your religion was one of the real reasons America was founded."

[/url]

dajafi wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:They have an absolute, unquestionable right to build the thing, unless we want to piss on the constitution entirely.

But should they build it there? They probably shouldn't, but they are the ones who have to reach that decision on their own... not by being bullied out of it by the far right.

A serious question: why shouldn't they?

Because of hurt feelings? I think TV's comment addressed that one; it's crap, at least in comparison to both the freedom of religion and property-rights arguments.

Because it'll set back their professed cause of promoting interfaith dialogue? Call it a crazy hunch, but I don't think the decision of the developers to "back down" would do all that much to change the views of Gingrich, Palin, Giuliani, Rush et al about "the Muslims." It's possible, I guess, for public views of a given group to change over time; "we" don't hate, or don't hate as much, Catholics or Jews or African-Americans the way we did 100 or 150 years ago, or The Gays 50 years ago. But this won't do it.

Frankly, as both a New York City employee and a guy who isn't much sympathetic to organized religion in any flavor, I'd rather have something on that parcel we can tax. But I have yet to hear anything remotely approaching a good reason not to build the thing there, and I'm more convinced than ever that this is a sideshow everyone's perpetuating to keep us from thinking about much, much bigger problems inching they way toward us.

I mean, I am not going to lose even a single second of sleep if they do build it there, and if anything I will be a vocal supporter of their right to have it against the inevitable screaming lot that will protest it from the word "go." The only thing I hate it is hatred, etc.

But if you are trying to build something as a monument to dialogue and understanding, you have to take into consideration the feelings of the people you are trying to dialogue with. I dunno... see, it wouldn't even have occured to me to be bothered by this, thus I never would have even heard about this community center except that it is causing such a stir among the right and far right.

I've got no comeplling reason, except to go to the example The Daily Show used last week: the NRA and Columbine. At the time, I knew it would do no good for the NRA to hold their event somewhere else because they were forced to do so by left-wing groups. But I did think/hope that maybe common sense would tell them we should take our gun-rights rally someplace else. Jon Stewart last week announced that he was wrong to advocate for that, that we shouldn't give in to simplistic associations. Certainly, I can see that, but simplistinc associations are part of an emotionally charged atmosphere, like it or not, and let's face it, whenever "Ground Zero" comes up for the next fifty years, maybe longer, it will be an emotionally charged discussion. Could you build a Shinto Temple at Pearl Harbor today? Sure, no problem, because the majority of people who remember the events of December 7, 1941 are dead, and for the rest, 70 years goes a long way to healing wounds: as just one nod to this idea, Japan is now one of our great allies. But could one have been built in 1950? I doubt it.

We've got a similar situation here. The people seeking to build this thing should not be bullied out of it, and their rights should be honored. No way it should be stopped by anyone but themselves, and at their own inkling, not anyone else's. But, as it would have been a lot better for it to have occurred to the NRA in 1999 that maybe they could hold their convention someplace else, it would probably be a lot better for this group to put the Community Center on hold, for at least a little while, or else build it someplace a little further away. But again, it has to come from them, and not from political pressure, for the gesture to mean anything or help the healing process at all.

Obviously at this point its a foregone conclusion that Islam is an evil religion and should be eradicated from the US