Obviously many people living far outside of New York City feel that they have a dog in the Ground Zero/Mosque controversy. Actually, they probably don’t. Ground Zero doesn’t really belong to America–not yet.
Rather than taking a position, how about our contributors weighing in on the subject. Can New Yorkers legally prevent an Islamic center from being built in the shadow of Ground Zero? Next question is obvously, should they try to prevent the center from being built at this location?
And how about that rascally first amendment?
The Constitution of the United States allows us all to worship as we choose. The President is correct. We must respect the Constitution of the United States.
Yeh, how about that 1st amendment. So why not build a shrine to those Japanese pilots who lost there lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor, and place it next to our present monument. So says the 1st amendment, right? Or how about a few statues of Hitler across the street from a few synagogue? 1st amendment will go to bat for that also I guess. So when does common sense, and the PRESENT population’s desires ever become considered? It isn’t the Constitution, it’s the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution that is screwed up!
I can’t imagine a US Constitution what would have law based on emotion.
Strange how many of the Rule of Law people are doing the backstroke so fast.
Law shouldn’t be based on popularity, especially over religion.
Hopefully, those attempting to put in the culture center will listen to the feelings of the New Yorkers and attempt to move to a less sensitive area. I don’t feel they belong there either, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to be.
You have a right to burn a flag. It doesn’t mean you should do it or that it is good taste.
Come on MH, how about the examples I pose? You always reply adjacent to my points, and rarely address the points themselves. My examples are valid in that the 1st amendment could be used in defense of the examples. Where is the line drawn, and on what basis?
SA, I suppose someone could build a shrine to the pilots lost in the attack on Pearl Harbor. There weren’t very many. I expect they would have to post guards. Mr. Howler told me that the cherry trees in DC had to be guarded after Pearl Harbor. Americans tried to chop them down. Statues of Hitler–Those would be legal. I don’t think it would be real smart though. Hitler would get vandalized nightly.
There is a statue of Lenin somewhere in the Fremont section of Seattle. I am not sure why.
SA, do you really think popularity should dictate these things? What about rule of law?
Why are laws created in the first place? They are created to hopefully prevent people from doing things that most consider unpopular, whether it be moral or safety based, etc. So popularity as such could be the basis for the creation of a law if enough people consider it necessary to prevent unpopular actions. At some point we the people have to feel we have control of our lives and surroundings. That was the intent of the creation of the Constitution to prevent government from deciding that for us, or at least make government adhere to the will of the people instead of their own interests. If most people are offended at the placement of the mosque, then why should their peace of mind be trumped by the few that support it? We’ve lost control of our surroundings, and our nation IMO.
The Constitution also guaranteed that the will of the majority didn’t overpower the will of the minority.
Even though we live in a country that was in part founded on religious freedom, look at some of the difficulties that have ensued. The Mormons were so persecuted that they had to go to godforsaken Utah to live. Their leaders were killed and their towns became armed camps.
(see American Experience for a really well done documentary: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/
We can’t have our legal underpinnings based on popularity. You can decide whether to put in a dog park or horse trails based on popularity but you can’t have a worship based on popularity.
Now, I agree, the center SHOULD go elsewhere. but that is an emotional response and not based on their right to be there or not.
The United States Constitution is not about what is or isn’t popular. It was created and emodied into law to prevent the whims of popularity from governing our lives.
I love it when you guys argue sometimes. Both sides of the issue agree on the same thing it sounds like.
First, it is a right as the President said. And if he had also cautioned against doing it, he would have had nods of agreement from me. But the way he did it, it sounded like pandering and not leading. He only clarified his comments after the uproar. And I can excuse mistakes but this guy is a polished politician with a whole group of polished politicians working for him. These were not off the cuff remarks.
So instead of uniting, he ends up dividing. That he would not say, you have the right but is there a way to come to an accommodation so that people aren’t offended? Instead he says that he won’t weigh in on the issue of whether they should or shouldn’t. And that is divisive since it appears that the President is taking one side of the argument.
Maybe he believes that there is no problem with putting the mosque there–if so, he should say it and live with the consequences politically. After all, the mayor of NY and the governor have both said it.
Anyway, one may have the right but there are sometimes consequences to exercising the right as has been pointed out above. And the illustrations you all have given say the same things. But all are arguing the same point without seeming to realize they are saying the same thing. A more interesting question that one should ask themselves involves the mosque and the statue of Hitler–would there be the same outrage if both were damaged? Or would there be no outrage? Or is one more worthy for outrage than the other?
Does anyone remember the controversy over Stalin in the World War II memorial in Bedford?
I like how Rez put it.
The legality of building the cite is not really a question in my mind. They have the legal right to do so. Legality and taste are different matters. Building a mosque at that location, while legal, is in bad taste and will do more against Islam than for it. But, they have that right.
If all the parties (not political ones) who are so dead set against this mosque would’ve simply outbid them (free markets) then this wouldn’t have been an issue. As it is they did not and trying to somehow use the legal system to change the course of the development is reprehensible. If it were allowed to happen what next? Bad, bad prescident.
Now, the unpolished low-brow side of me says the land owner should sell the adjacent parcels to a pork butcher, a male strip bar and a larger Catholic church across the street. 🙂
Starry is sort-of right but portrays popularity as just somehow the people’s whims being used to supress human rights. The Constitution has been used in such a manner before (prohibition) so while I agree in part I also don’t in part.
I think the Prez’s remarks were perfectly appropriate. He gave the legal opinion and kept his own opinion out of it. What could be wrong with that. Republicans and Faux News are crawling all over him like ants at a picnic. Of course he would have been criticized regardless of what he said. Most of us have grown to accept that.
Yes, I remember the Stalin controversy. I don’t see anything wrong with Stalin being there either since he was very much a part of WWII. We can hate him, we can rub dirt on him, pigeons may crap on him, but he still was a major player in the war.
And that certainly is no reason to not give to that foundation. Hopefully the GOVERNMENT will take it over so the D-Day Memorial can live on.
I am not sure SA and I do agree. I think we both agree that it is unwise for there to be an Islamic center near Ground Zero. However, I don’t want to Constitutionally ban it. I think he does.
Here is a link about the Japanese apologizing for honoring war UN-heroes and heroes over the weekend.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/15/asia-stops-remember-end-world-war-ii/
Wolfie, it would have been far better if he had not said anything. He didn’t need to say anything and he is not the Attorney General giving an opinion nor is he a judge.
Presidents rely in the bully pulpit to get action and it is generally from a moralistic point of view (however each President views his own moral point of view) not a legalistic one.
He shouldn’t have spoken about it if he views it to be a local issue. There was only a smattering of pressure about why he had not spoken about it–certainly not the maelstrom he created. He could have or should have just continued that “this is a NY issue and they are the best to decide things and I am sure they will bear in the mind the constitutional issues that may arise.” Blah, blah blah.
As President, if he decides to wade into an issue, he has to dive in–anything short of that gives a perception that he doesn’t have a conviction, which for a President is the worst thing he could display. Rightly or wrongly, we expect a President to be strong in conviction even if we disagree.
Ultimately, he said the right things when both statements are put together. I am merely criticizing how he did it–and I don’t believe it was unintentional.
I suppose they could always change the zoning laws.
I disagree. He is also the president of many muslims. I didn’t like the idea that that was something unmentionable, even though the news stations were filled with it daily.
In my opinion, speaking out in favor of freedom of religion was a good move, unless of course, someone wanted political ammo. In that case, the fact that Obama wakes up in the morning and is still alive should do it.
I feel he was very forceful in what he said. They have a right to be there. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Greg Gutfield, of Red Eye Tonight, is looking for investors for a Islamic friendly (no alcohol) gay bar. He wants to build it next door to the Islamic victor…um, cultural center.
http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696
“The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.
Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.
My place, however, will have better music.”
Hot Air is trying to come up with names for the bar in the comments.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/greg-gutfeld-im-raising-money-to-build-a-muslim-gay-bar-next-to-the-ground-zero-mosque/
That he had to clarify his statements shows that he wasn’t forceful in what he said. He’s the President. He should’ve – if he sought fit to comment at all – said it once and that’s it.
To clarify, to bolster, or to amend shows weakness. I think he should’ve left it to the lower level of his administration to ‘send a message’ rather than it coming from him. With him putting out a statement it provided fodder for the right-wing media. Just a bad move near mid-terms.
Cargo, that’s FUNNY. I was only joking around from the top of my head… That someone is actually moving forward… Wow. I love America. FREE MARKETS FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He clarified his position because a reporter asked him a question. Seriously. What is wrong with you all? The President of the United States now has to ask permission to speak. I hope I never live to hate a president like you all hate this one. I thought I had seen it all with Clinton. It wasn’t even close to this.
Anything is fodder for the right wing, Marin. The Mosque remarks are no different. There was nothing weak about what he said.
Marinm, I agree with your point of view. My only concern was that either the President weighs in fully or he doesn’t do it at all. I agree with what he said as far as it went. As soon as he did that freedom of religion statement, he should have said that he hopes that all sides consider other emotional factors. The allowing this to keep going by some daily clarification sounds really waffly.
In the final analysis, I am not really sure how I feel about the mosque itself. How close is too close? I sure don’t know.
There seem to a number of his own party that don’t appear to be very happy with how this is being handled. They aren’t happy that he has introduced another distraction for the midterms but they should take heart. No doubt some republican will make some statement in the coming weeks about some other subject that will cause controversy.
That’s why I am glad to be an independent. It is fun to watch the party politics.
There is a movement in NYC by a construction union member. He’s going around to the different construction companies and asking the workers to refuse to work on the site. Not the union leaders, who rubberstamp anything with money, but the actual workers.
Remember when Obama was supposed to be articulate?
Wolfie, neither one of us is displaying any hatred for the President. We can weigh in on our opinion on the way he did it.
At least wait until I say something hateful before you accuse me of it. If you do, I trust you would find no reason to accuse me of that. Anytime I have raised any objections about what he has said or what policies he has espoused, it has been about those issues.
Please show me where I have ever spoken anything but respect for the President. By the way, you seem to always skip over a President when you cite hatred. The last few Presidents have had hatred directed at them not just Clinton.
Rez, you didn’t say anything hateful but the Obama bashing by some folks on here just seems endless. I have never seen anything that he has done well stated.
I was not an Obama fan. I probably wouldn’t have voted for him until McCain put you betcha on the ticket. But I find myself looking for what he does right rather than what he does wrong.
I have addressed Bush bashing many times on here. It is very difficult for me to defend Bush and yet I have found things to do it over many times.
I have made no secret that I am a Bill Clinton fan and I don’t care if he has zipper problems.
“I hope I never live to hate a president like you all hate this one.”
Sure sounded like an indictment to me.
Can’t get interested in this one, no matter how much others are. I don’t think there’s any question they have the right to build, it’s just a matter of appearances. This whole thing is a very local thing to me. I don’t follow the jump on this issue to a national thing. If this was going to be stopped, it would have to be stopped at the local level, and that didn’t happen. The people in that area voted for their local government, they got what they asked for. For the folks who mention the Constitution, I’m a little fuzzy on how the federal government is involved in this.
I didn’t see any Obama bashing either.
If nothing else I think Rez’s opinion and mine shows that we believe the President’s bully pit is of such a grand scale that he should op in on the big issues and when he does so he does it with the collective strength and will of this nation. Right or wrong (convictions) when he makes a bold statement he’s declaring the direction of this country. So, I’m all for him using that mic for making statements that further the goals and aims of this country.
I just don’t see a local zoning issue being at the heart of what a President should be concerned with. Will he advocate for strip bars next to schools or on the grounds of the Towers because they have a legal right to do so? Why or why not? After all he’s done so to preach the 1A and tolerance. Why not preach for the 1A protections of empowered working women to work at an establishment that can make them a lot of scratch?
He should’ve avoided the question and deferred it to the state of NY. By responding he opened himself for attacks from the right (I think the attacks are for the most part bogus but dang do they make great soundbites).
I think any independant person could view our remarks and not see it as Presidential bashing but rather an open, honest citique of a mistake. Mistakes happen. Mistakes as the President get pushed all over the 5, 6, 10 and 11pm news.
Slow, the Constitution was mentioned because the President mentioned it. That is what made it a part of the discussion. I agree that this is a local issue and should have remained as such.
It is another example of a political party/political persuasion baiting the other side. Some things were probably best ignored. Not every thing needs to be answered by the President.
You can say that this is a local issue, but the Obama haters will then belly-ache about how he overlooked the national symbolism of the site. I don’t see why he has to take a strong stand on a local issue – if that’s what you’re arguing that this is. If it’s a national issue, it’s complicated and there is no simple answer. The mosque can legally be built. Whether it should be built may be a different story. He’s bound to infuriate one faction or the other by taking an uncompromising stand – but, then again, that’s what the right wing hopes will happen.
You all can say whatever you want. I know what I feel after a good Obama bashing. How about if I say strong political dislike.
I sure don’t think I just interrupted a love fest.
Rez, not an indictment, just an observation…and a comment.
To my friends here on the left… How do we critique the President without being called a name?
What should we have said that wasn’t captured above?
Many cases that reach the Supreme Court started off as local matters. We can’t cast aside the Constitution just because something is local.
And for the record, my person opinion is quite different than my public opinion which happens to be what the President said. I fight nasty feelings having to do the with the Nation of Islam daily. I wish it didn’t exist. Having said that–they also have the same rights as Epsicopalians. That’s a bitter pill to have to swallow. And since I am confessing, every time I think about 9/11 I get absolutely furious. On the anniversary date I get even more furious. I also feel they use our own laws and rights against us.
I just heard on TV that a couple was stoned to death in Afghanistan. They had an affair. She was betrothed tosomeone else and the man was married. Shudder. Disgusting.
What did I call you? I don’t recall calling anyone anything. @ Marin.
I am just curious why the issue of the Islamic Center in the shadow of Ground Zero has now shifted over to the President offering a legal opinion with which no one seems to be disagreeing with.
Why on earth can’t a president voice a legal opinion. It is a phony issue. Why do some of you all take issue with everything he says? Why has Faux News snatched the story up and drummed it morning, noon and night.
If that is the worst opinion Barack Obama has, we are mighty fortunate. I guess everyone has first amendment rights but the President. You aren’t critiquing him, you are Obama-bashing. At least be honest about it.
Oh, I forgot….the “Constitutional Scholar”!!
And THAT’s how we get the supreme court ruling that Chicago’s gun laws are unconstitutional, even though the second amendment only states what the federal government can’t infringe upon, not states and localities. I don’t know why I bother, as we stopped following the constitution so long ago, it’s just a joke now anyway.
Too bad you think that. Most Americans don’t feel the Constitution is a joke. They just feel it has been hijacked.
I have never claimed to be a lawyer or a constitutional expert. I did, however, graduate from high school.
Ok, let me re-phrase. How do we critique the President without it being seen as ‘bashing’?
I think everything posted above was actually VERY respectful of him but if that’s seen as bashing, how would I need to phrase something to ‘not’ be bashing.
I don’t know. I didn’t ask you not to bash him. I just think it is so automatic you don’t realize you are doing it.
I guess I say this to all of you….instead of bitching about the president, where were you all when someone from your side was being selected. Most of you were as nasty about McCain as you were about the Democrats.
Would anyone suit you?
marin, you have plans. I don’t like most of them but you have them. I give you credit for that.
“I also feel they use our own laws and rights against us.”@Moon-howler
Bin Laden’s words exactly. Someone should be following the money trail here, since the mosque’s imam is a big supporter of sharia law, and he has gone on record as saying that America was an accessory to 9-11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF-siWVMU00
Then there’s the imam’s lovely wife, who dismissed the feelings of 9-11 families by saying “We expected some families might need some hand-holding,” but is completely shocked at the size of the resistance to the project
These folks don’t understand the importance of good PR in America. It will be interesting to see how many layers of security are planned for this “community center,” as the imam and his wife are finding out that Americans don’t like to be told to shut up and eat sh!t, no matter how constitutional it might be.
@Moon-howler
I guess I say this to all of you….instead of bitching about the president, where were you all when someone from your side was being selected.
I was lamenting the fact that there wasn’t a decent candidate to vote for (except Sarah).
Most of you were as nasty about McCain as you were about the Democrats.
That’s because McCain *IS* the same thing as a Democrat. RINO. He only swings to the right when it’s election time.
Would anyone suit you?
Not until a real conservative runs for office.
This discussion has been very good, but I have a couple of points that have not been mentioned:
1) The right to practice Islam in the United States must be limited in practice because religion and politics are so intertwined in Islamic society. For example, Islamic husbands are allowed to beat their wives for minor transgressions or kill their wives for major transgressions such as adultery. If we do not allow Islamic men to kill their wives, then we are in effect limiting their free expression of their religion. So it can be argued that the right to practice Islam in the United States is already limited. If there is evidence that the Mosque Organizers practice sharia law, then perhaps there are grounds for denying the mosque.
2) Muslim scholars teach that it is permissible for believers to lie to non-believers in order to advance the cause of Islam. Several recent articles by “pundits” suggest that U.S. citizens should support Park51 because the purpose of the community center/mosque is public outreach. But given the tenets of Islam, there is a good chance that the expressed purpose is simply a bald-faced lie.
Hey, I have a great idea. How about establishing a Seung-Hui Cho Memorial Psychiatric Hospital just two blocks from Virginia Tech?
Or better yet, perhaps a Seung-Hui Cho gun shop?
Or the Cho Korean-American Outreach Center?
Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and much of the funding for al Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis got (and still get) their wealth from oil and we import more than 10% of the oil we use from Saudi Arabia (and another 10% from our dear friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela). There’s a gas station on 12th Avenue a couple of blocks south of the WTC site about the same distance as the proposed Islamic center is north of the site. Isn’t that a slap in the face to the victims that we continue pumping gas (with 10% of it coming from the very country that produced the hijackers and their leader) and continue putting money in the pockets of those from the nation that raised the men that attacked us? If we’re going to stereotype and persecute an entire religion then why not an entire nationality (remember, the most Holy site in Islam is Mecca which is in Saudi Arabia) and throw some hate their way, too? Of course it’s a lot more convenient for us to just gripe about a mosque … no skin off our noses and no real sacrifice required when all we have to do is run our mouths. Cutting off the import of the Saudi oil that feeds our carbon addiction would make us put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. And with all the big oil money that flows into right wing pockets you won’t hear the teabaggers saying Saudi oil is a knife in the heart.
Or perhaps the Cho family could start a trust fund for an annual Seung-Hui Cho Memorial Scholarship for outstanding academic performance in the study of psychology.
@Morris Davis OK, Morris, you first. Which petroleum products will you be dispensing with in your home? How about the plastic keyboard you used to type your post?
I agree with Ring.. If Ron Paul or Sarah Palin runs I’m 100% in this race. If the GOP ‘picks’ someone else I might just sleep in that day.
I am proud of this President for taking a stand for the rights of this particular Islamic congregation for enhancing their mosque. Its my understanding that the mosque already exists in the building in question, which is 2 blocks away from ground zero. I do not belief we are fighting Islam, but Al Quaida, Hezbolla, Teliban, Hamas, but not Islam. Major Bloomberg, a Jew, courageously came out supporting the rights of this Islamic congregation. As a pastor of a Christian church I believe that resentment and hatred towards Muslims is the wrong way that we should heal from the 9/11 attaches, but to welcome our Muslim friends into our midst.
Emma: I’m not the one with my boxers in a wad over the proposed Islamic center. I believe in the whole Constitution all the time, not just the parts I like whenever it’s convenient.
I do, however, refuse to buy petroleum products from Citgo to avoid helping to fund the efforts of dictator Hugo Chavez.
You a BP man?