Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[Lunar]

Yeah, and there being a mosque already 4 blocks away sort of shows how silly this all is


Who would have thunk that the Democrats would be on the side of private property rights and Republicans for state intervention?  [besides me]

[Lunar]

Yet his silence on the issue would have done nothing either

[Lunar]

considering the several day time lapse from when this event occurred and when he voiced an opinion about it, despite the "right" opinion being obvious from the first second, it's hard to say that this wasn't a scientifically informed decision on Obama's part.  Either there was a direct poll and/or focus group, or an indirect one, but it's hard to imagine that Obama walked into this issue blindly considering the time lapse

[Lunar]

It's obviously idiotic to think Obama is a Muslim....but I seriously don't understand why so many people think it would be a problem even if it were true.

It's idiotic to think he's Christian either, he is very obviously a closet atheist.

Is it?  When it comes to personal religious beliefs, I don't really get what the grounds are for contesting. 

[Lunar]

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

to Islamic voters?

[Lunar]

also: moderator chainsaw ftw, Willy won't be posting here for a while

[Lunar]

This seems to me to be primarily a local zoning issue. I don't know the zoning laws in NYC, but in general local authorities have quite a bit of latitude as long as consistent procedures are applied. I would expect any decision to balance the property rights of the applicant with property rights of neighboring properties and needs of any public property impacted by the applicant. The nature of an enterprise definitely plays a part in valuing nearby properties, such as locating a pawn shop in an upscale strip mall, and values can be subjective. This would seem to apply to the mosque, as well.

1.  This already was unanimously approved by the local board

2.  The Constitution has a lot more to say about freedom of religion than pawn shops

[Lunar]

This seems to me to be primarily a local zoning issue. I don't know the zoning laws in NYC, but in general local authorities have quite a bit of latitude as long as consistent procedures are applied. I would expect any decision to balance the property rights of the applicant with property rights of neighboring properties and needs of any public property impacted by the applicant. The nature of an enterprise definitely plays a part in valuing nearby properties, such as locating a pawn shop in an upscale strip mall, and values can be subjective. This would seem to apply to the mosque, as well.

1.  This already was unanimously approved by the local board

2.  The Constitution has a lot more to say about freedom of religion than pawn shops

1. If it's already passed all local levels, I would have thought it's a done deal. The only news I had only heard about was the denial of landmark status by the historical preservation board. Who are the protesters trying to influence, then? I had assumed it was other levels of local officials, but now I'm not sure - is it the landowner?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it IS basically a done deal.  Still politically volatile as some politicians are calling for eminent domain to be used.

2. As long as zoning policies are uniformly applied there is not a constitutional question. A church seeking a major expansion near a popular historic site can potentially be denied based on traffic or other public safety concerns. That an example of the needs of public property I referenced.

But there is no way to uniformly apply that to this mosque & community center that I'm aware of.  It's an old Burlington Coast Factory, it's not in the most heavily trafficked parts of the area,    there's probably a need for more community centers for exercise in Lower Manhattan, and there are already religious buildings nearby with expansive architecture.

When it comes down to it, it's pretty easily provable that the objections to this center are 100% based on it being an Islamic house of worship, rather than any legitimate judgment on the building.   A local government up with a technicality to prohibit a religious building on private property solely based on what religion it is, is probably a violation of the Constitution imo....and what do you do if he tries it on another property?

[Lunar]

I'm not really into thread-title changing.

[Lunar]

Heh, Human Events is running this ad on RedState:



Not even hiding the anti-Islam nature of their argument anymore.

[Lunar]

Drudge is hilarious right now

[Lunar]

It seems to me that the particular brand of a religion should be an irrelevant factor in all of this, and indeed if it were not, raises 1st amendment questions. This whole fuss seems silly. Now, as I think has been previously noted, maybe a mega church/mosque/synagogue whatever, is not appropriate for that location for reasons having nothing to do with either 1) the brand of the religion, of 2) that it is a religious facility. But apparently the authorities have already decided otherwise on that one, so we are past all of that now.

So what is there to argue about? 

To answer your question: Your generic xenophobic and Islamophobic stuff, whether this is outrageous or reasonable, whether Obama was right to speak out on the issue, and I guess populist hatemongering in general.  People aren't really interested in the legality of 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.

[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.

[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.  

[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

[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

[Lunar]

Harry Reid is against the mosque......Ooopps

He's against it for being insensitive or whatevsky, but thinks they have the right to do it.

Disappointing public statement after Obama really put himself out there defending religious freedom.

Facts are: Muslim New Yorkers died on 9/11 [feeling emotionally grieved over 9/11 is not a non-Muslim experience], lots of Muslims work in lower Manhattan, the site is nothing special [certainly not hallowed ground], the site is not especially near or public to the World Trade Center, and there is already a mosque FOUR blocks away.

I could understand someone sympathizing with how so many people could be outraged, but I'm disappointed in the statement.

[Lunar]

He's against it for being insensitive or whatevsky, but thinks they have the right to do it.

Identical to Obama

Is it?  I remember that Obama thinks they have the right to do it, but I don't remember him saying explicitly that they shouldn't do it?

[Lunar]

He's against it for being insensitive or whatevsky, but thinks they have the right to do it.

Identical to Obama

Is it?  I remember that Obama thinks they have the right to do it, but I don't remember him saying explicitly that they shouldn't do it?

"I question the wisdom"......didn't you see my earlier translation? 

That's not quite as bold as Reid's statement though, eh?

[Lunar]

"I question the wisdom" seems a *lot* softer than "They should it build it somewhere else."

Heck, Reid's statement comes with the Associated Press headline, which I presume is uncontested [or unsuccessfully contested] by the Reid campaign that Reid is "against the mosque."  Pretty notable imo

[Lunar]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a new national icon for the Republican Party thanks in part to his push for pension reforms, on Monday became the most prominent GOP figure to warn against "overreacting" to the threat of terror and painting "all of Islam" with the brush of terrorism amid the swirling controversy about the Ground Zero-area mosque.

The remarks from Christie, who took office in January, were a striking departure from major GOP players like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who have been adamantly opposed to the construction of the proposed Islamic mosque and cultural center two blocks north of the northern perimeter of Ground Zero - putting them at odds with people like New York City Mayor Bloomberg and, to a lesser degree, President Barack Obama.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41141.html#ixzz0wozjURVy



#FF  Mega FF

[Lunar]

The only reasonable argument against this (morally, not legally) would be if they intentionally did this to provoke a reaction. I have yet to see any evidence that this is true, and really, you can't even see it from ground zero.

It really pisses me off that there are so few mainstream economic conservatives that aren't xenophobic/hyper-religious.

I personally think it is pretty clearly a provocation....which doesn't affect their rights of course.

Respectfully disagree.

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

[Lunar]

I just gained a lot more respect for Chris Christie.

At the moment his party leadership is jostling for who can be the most populist xenophobe on the mosque, he speaks bluntly and reasonably on a divisive social issue yet on the opposite side of the river from where a rising GOP national star should rationally place himself.  Respek has to be given where due.