Skip to comments.The Ground ZOT mosque must be built!!!!
Posted on 08/18/2010 6:30:21 AM PDT by detritus
It is hard to imagine that anything has gone unsaid about the so-called Ground Zero mosque, but an important point seems to be missing.
The mosque should be built precisely because we don't like the idea very much. We don't need constitutional protections to be agreeable, after all.
This point surpasses even all the obvious reasons for allowing the mosque, principally that there's no law against it. Precluding any such law, we let people worship when and where they please. That it hurts some people's feelings is, well, irrelevant in a nation of laws. And, really, don't we want to keep it that way?...
...[T]he more compelling point is that mosque opponents may lose by winning. Radical Muslims have set cities afire because their feelings were hurt. When a Muslim murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, it was because his feelings were hurt. Ditto the Muslims who rioted about cartoons depicting the image of Muhammad and sent frightened doodlers into hiding...
This is why plans for the mosque near Ground Zero should be allowed to proceed, if that's what these Muslims want. We teach tolerance by being tolerant. We can't insist that our freedom of speech allows us to draw cartoons or produce plays that Muslims find offensive and then demand that they be more sensitive to our feelings....
Nobody ever said freedom would be easy. We are challenged every day to reconcile what is allowable and what is acceptable. Compromise, though sometimes maddening, is part of the bargain. We let the Ku Klux Klan march, not because we agree with them but because they have a right to display their hideous ignorance.
Ultimately, when sensitivity becomes a cudgel against lawful expressions of speech or religious belief--or disbelief--we all lose.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes, build the mosque and then allow high school graduations to begin with a prayer. Allow elementary aged children to celebrate their birthdays with cupcakes made in the shapes of crosses if they so desire and share those cupcakes with all children.
You signed up to post this drivel? IBTZ
*Radical Muslims have set cities afire because their feelings were hurt.*
I don’t know about anybody else, but it makes me desire to go into attack mode when someone threatens violence to me.
If cities are set afire then the criminals that set the fire should be executed, not placated.
If it's about anyone's "feelings" it's about the sense of contempt and hauteur of Muslim radicals.
Parker spews forth (again).
I should refer to President Obama as a great big n-word precisely because the Left won't like the idea very much. In fact, I must call the president the n-word -- if I value our culture of toleration.
We must destroy the village in order to save it?
One's freedom or rights are not absolute, not when they infringe upon the rights or the freedoms of others.
This is an instance where one group's rights fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection.
In line with Mayor Bloomberg’s “If we don’t build the mosque, the terrorists win”
It isn’t about feelings. It’s about recognizing the fact that this is the routine for Islamic takeover and not being STUPID when it comes to your enemies.
Think Porker will have only her feelings hurt if she tries to go into said Mosque without a burqua?
Great point ClearCase.
Hey, detritus, what do you say?
We allow the mosque to be built and EVERY BIT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is dropped?
Betcha don’t support that one bit, do you?
“Tolerance” only goes one way, and that way is against conservatives.
We have to set up Catholic churches and synagogues in Mecca in order to show our tolerance.
Same holds true for adjacent hog processing plants. Why people don’t start attacking the Achilles heel of this cult, I just don’t understand.
Kathleen Parker continues to feel compelled to prove to the world she is an idiot.
Thanks for posting but the Constitution says I don’t have to read Parker if I don’t want to.
So does this mean the Moslems must allow a Catholic Cathedral to be built in Mecca precisely because they wouldn't like it very much?
Saul Alinsky says to hold your enemy to his own rules. That's what you want to do to us, Kate. Do you want to do it to the Moslems, too, or do you draw the line there?
I know it's a slip of the finger there expat, but groups do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. This is important to your point.
What a bunch of drek! This poor woman is so brain dead that she can’t tell the difference between showing respect for the dead and emotions. But then she was probably raised by pigs and the poor thing doesn’t know any better.
Oh puuhleeeeeeeeeze. What a ridiculous rationale given the circumstances.
We tolerate plenty of stuff we dont like. There is such a thing as asking too much, and the GZ mosque is a perfect example.
Get lost troll
muslimites slam amish...
we can’t worship anywhere we please!
How about trying to pray at baby-killing places or schools?
How about the person who filed a lawsuit because she/he found the tolling of Christian church bells offensive?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but ‘bammy, Hillary, and a host of leftists have started referring to the
“freedom to worship”
“freedom of religion” as it is stated in the Constitution.
Basically, they’re in the early stages of softening up the public to restrictions on where you can express your religion. You may worship within the confines of your church, but no sign of your Christianity may be expressed outside of those confines.
No of course not, because mad mo and his followers couldn't stand the competition - they'd be out of business in a generation.
That unemotional enough for you?
Additionally, I don't give a sweet crap what Muslims think, or feel or want.
I notice he hasn’t posted ONE defense of the article,
nor stated that he didn’t support it.
Just a hit and run.
Hence the fallacy of most of the knee-jerk collectivist "arguments" (e.g. Newt Gingrich's bloviations).
Have a peek at his/her posting history.
The constitution is not a suicide pact.
We're not required to recognize anyone proclaiming they've conquered our territory, which is what this would be.
Do you agree that people just need to suck it up if they're offended, or do you believe that there is some right to not be offended?
In the latter case, please report yourself to the management for immediate banning....
“YOU MAY BE A MUSLIM IF...”
1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can’t afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon “unclean.”
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
6. You can’t think of anyone you haven’t declared Jihad against.
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.
10. You’ve always had a crush on your neighbor’s goat.
I agree. I thought this was satire at first. The WaPo must be so proud.
You have the freedom to become a muzzie and advocate the elimination of all other religions but you dont have the freedom to call black people the Latin word for black, let alone hate them.
The "rule of law" should allow the open/concealed carry of guns ANYWHERE in the US.
The "rule of law" should allow the open celebration of Christmas in ALL public schools/buildings/locations.
The "rule of law" should NOT inhibit political speech or funding at any time or any place.
The "rule of law" should NOT prohibit the display of Judeo-Christian symbols in any public building or venue.
The "rule of law" should apply to equally to ALL people within the US, politicans and laymen.
The "rule of law" means enforcing ALL laws with equal vigor and fairness (paging Eric Holder...)
The 1st guarantees the right to practice your religion. It is silent on where. In law, this dispute is about the zoning and property rights. I don’t like it one bit, but if it meets local zoning ordinances, the owners of the property have a right to build it.
If they do, they might want to wear kevlar when they pray.
Building what would essentially be a monument to celebrate the murder of 3000 American civilians is evil, monsterous and outragious. This site was chosen for that explicit purpose and that purpose only.
It should most definitely NOT be built so close to Ground Zero. Period.
Personally, if it does get built, I hope it meets the same fate as the Twin Towers did.
Sure thing noob.
Mooslimbs have NO right to build their mosque anywhere they want to, it does not exist, sorry.
This logic is so obverse that it is actually comical.
By this logic, every American should be required to carry a gun, especially if they don’t like it. After all, it is part of American tradition and law.
I understand the infantile emotionalism and red-faced arm waving of Liberals. But it is when they attempt to use logic to justify their absurd positions that their childishness and incredibly distorted way of thinking is clearly exposed.
Liberals think differently than normal people. They have a dreamy emotional brain which has supplanted fanaticism for logic long ago. Liberalism is a culture which has embraced the childish notion that if you wish for something strong enough, it somehow will become true. They truly believe that reality is created by subjective perception and objective fact be damned.
The washington post does not get it. It is not “a” mosque, it is a victory mosque.
Just like they raped the christian church of Hagia Sophia, the moslems put a mosque in the conqued area as a symbol of victory.
it is not about feelings, it is about right and wrong. This is just plain wrong. (we have case law which prohibits pot churches and animal sacrifice churches in certain areas too)
My feeeeeelings are, never turn your back on an animal that bites or ignore a creed which promises to murder you, rape your women and enslave your children.
Your position might be defensible if they allow the Greek Orthodox Congreagation to rebuild their facility, across the street from the twin towers, first. Give the Greeks full support and then see about the Mosque.
How does that analogy apply to the many, many conservatives who not only condemn the building of the mosque but want to BAN the right of a PRIVATE owner to build it?
I will not be lectured to bout’ tolerance from a group so insensitive they will not listen to the protest of the victims’ families.
Anyone framing this as a case of “constitutional rights” and/or tolerance is EXTREMELY ignorant or dishonest.
“Precluding any such law, we let people worship when and where they please. That it hurts some people’s feelings is, well, irrelevant in a nation of laws.”
This would be fine, except that it only takes one person to bring a lawsuit saying his or her feelings were hurt to get the courts to ban prayer at graduation, or singing Christian songs in school at Christmas. “Hurt feelings” count a lot in the law when Christianity is the target.
Do they have a club? They could call it "Conservatives For Socialism"...