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 ...
Support for the Cordoba Initiative amongst non-Muslims boils down to four incorrect beliefs:
1. Rauf et all are moderates and this initiative will help build bridges.
Actually Rauf is a member of the Muslim brotherhood and there stated goal is a new Caliphate, restoration of lands seized from Muslims, and eventual world-wide Sharia. They share the goals of Al Qaeda, differing only in tactics (and that's being charitable).
2. Opposing this will inflame the Muslim world giving terrorist support.
Weakness also makes Bin Laden Stronger. If being nice to Muslims and giving in worked, we would not have been attacked after fleeing Somalia and helping Muslims in the Balkans. They hate us anyway. So, "oderint dum metuant" or "As they hate, let them fear (us)".
3. If the government acts against Radical Islam it will go after all religions. This belief is found among the left, libertarians, paleoconservatives, and many religious.
Preposterous. In the late 19th century, we were a very tolerant nation towards most religions. At the same time, we put down the Ghost-Dancing movement among the Indians. We did so because we saw it as a call for war. In World War 2, we did not let Nazis in the Lutheran Church or neopagans operate.
4. Regardless of merit this is private property and we cannot interfere.
Actually, the group behind this lied on their forms stating that they owned two properties instead of a single one. That should automatically revoke their permits. Moreover, they committed perjury. And even if they hadn't lied NY City and the MTA puts the breaks on private construction all the time. St. Nicholas Church, the Greek Orthodox Church wrecked on 9/11 remains in ruins because of municipal and MTA interference.
Also, sedition is not covered by property rights or the First Amendment. In so far as the Cordoba Initiative is a project to overthrow our legal system, we have the right to stop it. We have an obligation to do so. This is a defining issue. Any politician on the wrong side of it must never be trusted with the security of this country.
First off, none of our Constitutional Rights are absolute, nor was the Constitution intended to be a suicide pact.
I do not believe that Contitutional protection should be extended to a so called “religion” that when followed correctly has the stated purpose of abolishing all other governments and establishing its own “Sharia” rule.
To me this is a clear case of self-preservation and common sense.
Well, it’s nice to see you got the zot you deserved and I’m now engaging in the FR equivalent of the “speak with dead” spell from D&D. Now, some comments and questions related to your epic fail:
1. Anyone more conservative than Cornell West knows Kathleen Parker has gone over to the dark side, and to be frank, the woman was a blonde joke for a long time anyway. I mean, for Pete’s sake, man, her column on this was the featured “From the Left” column on the IBD website. And good Lord, posting a Kathleen “I decided Obama would be a great president because I liked him so much and because my husband has lust in his heart for that Sarah Palin” Parker and then accusing us of being driven by feelings? Jeez, no hypocrisy there.
Dude, your short run here was like Vladimir Putin showing up on the set of Soul Train claiming to be Don Cornelius’ replacement. Good grief. Try posting a Maureen Dowd column next time. No, really. We’ll spot you and zot you just as quick, but at least we’ll get to see some fine photos of Catherine Zeta-Jones while we zot you.
2. You really have betrayed your intellectual shallowness by buying into the strawman libs are putting up that this is a test of religious freedom. The backup for that is in point 3 below, but let me ask you this: Can you tell me exactly why asking someone to voluntarily move a religious facility 7 or 8 blocks is a violation of their right to worship?
3. A few questions:
Though you’ve expressed derision for feelings, I’d like to know, will you be volunteering to tell widows and parents that lost someone in the Trade Center that they are un-American people who oppose religious freedom? Is there some reason that principle requires us to ignore the views of the people most effected by this decision?
Would you consider it just “woh woh woh woh FEEEEEELings” if people didn’t want a German cultural center in Treblinka? Would opposing it require one to hate all Germans or think all Germans are Nazis?
Would you consider it just “woh woh woh woh FEEEEEELings” if people didn’t want an American cultural center two blocks from the Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima? Would opposing it require one to hate all Americans or think that dropping the bomb was a war crime?
Speaking of Hiroshima, what if the facility was a Japanese-owned American tribute restaurant, or an airpower museum that displayed artifacts of military aviation from many countries? Would thinking those were inappropriate be just “woh woh woh woh FEEEEEELings?”
Would you consider it just “woh woh woh woh FEEEEEELings” if people didn’t want the 7th Cavlary to have a reunion at Wounded Knee, or even just outside the gate of the reservation that contains it? Would opposing it require one to hate all American soldiers or think all American soldiers are murderous?
Would you consider it just “woh woh woh woh FEEEEEELings” if people didn’t want a fundamentalist church to overlook Matheew Shepard’s grave? After all, the vast, vast majority of Christians would never engage in gaybashing. Would opposing it require one to hate all Christians or think all Christians are homophobes? Would it be a violation of religious freedom?
Speaking of Shepard’s grave, what if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to build a new sanctuary nearby? And were the cities of Casper and Cheyenne engaging in “woh woh woh woh FEEEEEELings” when they denied WBC a permit to put up a “monument” to Shepard that read, “MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God’s Warning: ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.’ Leviticus 18:22.”
Just something to think about before you go back to middle school.
Bloomberg is the first—and hopefully last—New York politician to give the widows of FDNY and NYPD fallen the big middle finger.
I hate the idea of this mosque, but there are ways to say “we should let them build it” without portraying those of us who oppose it as unAmerican.
Freepmail about Bloomberg coming your way in a minute.
You’re a piece of s***. As was noted on that other thread.
And now you’re a ZOTTED piece of s***.
Leftists such as yourself are insane, stupid, psychopathic, in darkness, mentally ill, in illusion, enthralled by evil dreams, hateful, envious, perverted, frustrated, at war with your higher nature, at war with God and Natural Law, and will face the just reward for all your misbehavior sooner or later.
We would like to knows his origin like most other FReepers???
Oh, and Kathleen Parker is a fellow POS douchebag as well.
Hmmmm...what is your definition of “many, many?” Can you back it up with a cite or two?
Also, I think it would be fair to say that most, if not all, of the people who wish to prevent the build with law see it as an enemy action in a time of war, rather than the establishment of a place of worship. Even if you disagree with them on whether it should be built, would you make a case that private property rights extend to enemy operators in a time of war? And if so, wouldn’t it be cruciial that we establish exactly which one of the two this is before proceeding with construction?
detritus has been banned.
Say what? I never advocated zoning over covenants. Thats a weak strawman argument, if ever I heard one.
We are stuck with what we are stuck with; primarily zoning boards and their non-democratic/non-representative decision making. If the choice is betweeen zoning boards and NOTHING, then I'll take the former with one caveat; we better make damn sure they make decisions that reflect the will of the people they represent.
BTW, if you really were a member of the real world you would recognize that the people allowing this mosque to be built are the same ones that wont let the Towers be rebuilt and the Greek Orthodox Church be rebuilt. Since we're not about to get rid of Zoning, its time to make them live out their charter.
Both statements bear repeating. Awesome post.
A Ground Zero mosque as a symbol of religious tolerance? Oh, the irony!
BTW, one thing I’ve noticed (and it was chilling, given the nature of our PC society) is that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has begun making the argument that “freethinkers” (here comes the irony) are emotionally harmed by seeing religious advertisements and displays.
BTW, have you noticed there has been no word from the Freedom From Religion Foundation on the mosque issue? Strange...these folks and their ilk can’t get to a microphone fast enough to compare peaceful Christians, Jews, Hindus and others to the “religious” 9/11 hijackers, but when someone is trying to honor said hijackers with a religious facility....crickets.
I had to check the keywords, then the author spot, to be sure this wasn’t a Semmens satire.
It isn’t feelings, sport, and it is indeed a question of principle. No people is obligated to allow their enemy to stick a thumb in their eye. Think of it as defense.
“If it’s about anyone’s “feelings” it’s about the sense of contempt and hauteur of Muslim radicals. “
Or the contempt and hauteur of Kathleen Parker. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2572791/posts for a laugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.