What the right doesn't get: The GZ Mosque can't be an offense if the Confederate Flag isn't!

[Perky]

Seems to me that the is a bit of hypocrisy when folks on the one hand oppose the proximity of the Mosques because it is "offensive to the memory of the 3,000 victims and their families", yet have no problem folks flying a confederate flag that is equally offensive to millions of shackled and slaughtered African-Americans and their families

[CTyankee]

1. Or go to Tea Bagger events with swastikas...nt

[alc]

2. may have been a good point if adults were discussing this

Both sides jumped to their polarized positions and are just yelling at each other without listening, as happens with just about every topic.

There are people on both sides of every issue who will never change. But there are A LOT of people who could go either way. Listening to the other side and discussing will get a lot more people to your side than forcing everyone to choose between two polarized position. I think some marriage counseling techniques could be used in a lot of issues. For example
1) Listen to their feelings
2) rephrase their feelings in a way that shows you listened and understand
3) let them correct you if you did not rephrase them correctly
4) when you understand, start discussing
5) don't get off-topic, or let them (the "topic" can broaden as you go. Confederate Flag argument is probably not appropriate at the start but may be later)

This won't work with the "decideds" since they need to cooperate. But will get you a lot further with people in the middle - they are trying to see and understand both sides before jumping to one polarization or another.


Intent can matter in freedom of speech issues:
1) yelling fire in a theater is not ok if intent is to start a riot
2) yelling fire in a theater is ok if intent is to save people from a real fire

The right started by insisting that the mosque is comparable to 1. The left ignored their arguments and insisted "1st amendment" and bigotry. And nobody is listening to the other side.

It would have been better for supporters to accept that there is a fear (rational or not) and there are people who will take advantage of that. Listen to their arguments and accept that there are limits to the 1st amendment. Then discuss it. Who's behind the Mosque? Who will use it? How many other Mosques are there? Where are they? What problems have happened? Is the fear rational in this case? etc. Then people who first hear of the issue can get educated instead of having to choose between 1 polarization or another (or deciding to not care).

[TheKentuckian]

3. The people behind this center neither rebelled against the Union nor engaged in slavery

There is no there, there.

The entire argument is an attempt to conflate these people with an act they had no correlation with and further don't support to the point that the Imam had worked as an ambassador to Muslims around ther world post 9/11.

They may as well be saying that some of the victims and responders as terrorists as well because they were Muslims, ya know.

There are limits but they apply to all equally. If it is ok for a Baptist community center to be in a location then it is equally appropriate for a Islamic center, there is no difference.

If there is no concern for a Methodist center then a Buddhist center has none either and the same goes for Secular Humanists, Wicca, and Muslims as well.