For all those who say, "I support their constitutional right to build a 'mosque' BUT..."

[jenmito]

there IS no "but" if you truly support their constitutional right to build a "mosque" (which is really a community center with an area to pray on the top floor of the 13-story building).

When you add "but...", you do NOT support their constitutional right. You want them to COMPROMISE their constitutional right. And that's un-American. Period.

Edit to change the original wording to:

For all those who say, "I support the Constitution's 1st Amendment BUT..." there IS no "but" if you truly support their Constitutional right to practice their religion BUT you wish they wouldn't build a "mosque" THERE.

When you add "but...", you do NOT support their Constitutional right. You want them to COMPROMISE their Constitutional right. And that's un-American. Period.

[LARED]

1. As far as I know there is no constitutional right to build anything

anywhere. Your ability to build something within a jurisdiction is wholly dependent on the land use laws of that area.

[jenmito]

3. Freedom of religion. The "mosque" is being built on private property to practice their freedom of

religion (on the top floor of the community center).

[LARED]

6. Private property is subject to land use laws.

I'm not saying they should be prevented from building a Mosque, only that there is no constitutional right to build anything anywhere. If you want to pray to green tomatoes, it is clearly your constitutional right to do so without interference from the government.

Even small home churches have gotten themselves in trouble at times.

[Exilednight]

7. There is no Zoning law that prevents them from building. Either you support it ..........

or you don't.

[snagglepuss]

dup self delete

[Exilednight]

13. Ther's no gray area here. You support Islam, but not their community center? ....................

This is a black and white issue. By pushing out an Islamic community center, you are basically saying that you don't "their kind" in your area.

I would also point out that there's a huge difference between a community center that is trying to do good and preach tolerance, and dropping bombs on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[snagglepuss]

12. Let me see who was that other person who said "you are either for us or

against us"? Hmmm. Who was it? George Some-or-other.Hmmm. :eyes:

[Empowerer]

20. There is no constitutional right to build, ipso facto. But there IS a constitutional right not to

have their ability to build curtailed based upon their religion or beliefs. Zoning permits must be issued on a content-neutral basis. If non-Islamic groups are permitted to build there, Islamic groups must be permitted to do so.

[LostinVA]

26. And they are within zoning laws

[GodlessBiker]

44. There is a federal law which prohibits land use laws to be used to deny people...

the right to build houses of worship. A federal judge just struck down a NY town's efforts to do so.

[Confusious]

2. Just so you know, there is no constitutional right to build anything.

And I guess i should add, or else I'll get called a bigot or some such thing:

I could care less about the mosque. Of course, I also think we could do with less organized religion, of all sorts.

[TheKentuckian]

27. There is no zoning issue, they have the exact same right to build there as Baptists

If it is acceptable for one religion it is equally acceptable for another and if you screw around here you are running smack dab into establishment and free practice issues.

While you are correct in your distinction but there is no operative difference here.

[Confusious]

37. Like I said, I could care less

Nice post, but completely off into left field.

[Jennicut]

4. No right to build something but there is the Constitutional right to practice free speech

which leads into freedom of religion.

[jenmito]

5. True, but I won't edit my OP or all these responses won't make sense. I meant to

say they have the right to build their building on private property and the same constitutional freedom of religion as anyone else in America.

[LittleBlue]

8. This is the right wing's favorite saying when it comes to the 1st Amendment

And now apparently some on the left have adopted it too.

[jenmito]

9. Really? Then why do most of them oppose the "mosque" being built where the Muslim Americans

want to build it?

[LittleBlue]

10. Huh? I'm agreeing with you.

Now you've made me search for the bunny/pancake picture. Don't make me use it!

[jenmito]

11. OH, OOPS!

I guess I took it negatively towards me since I'm so used to you writing negative things. My bad. :D

[jberryhill]

104. there's a lot of shooting from the hip going on /nt

[snagglepuss]

14. If it is a community centre why is it a freedom of religion issue?

[LittleBlue]

16. It's an Islamic community center. The grounds on which the Tea Party

oppose it is that the center's Islamic. Presumably a Christian cultural center would be no problem.

[snagglepuss]

17. That is rather disingenuous because in many places mosques serve more than one

function, and people refer to it as mosque. Of course, I may have been misinformed.

"Throughout the history of Islam, the mosque has always played an important social role. It has been a place of prayer, a centre of political and social activities, an educational institution, and the focal point of communal life. In Muslim countries, the mosque serves various functions depending on the political and social environment.

The mosque combines religious and social activities that encourage active faith and strong community life. Because Islam preaches unity of the spiritual and the worldly aspects of life, community gatherings and mosque-related activities include both social and spiritual elements. Friday-noon prayer, at the mosque, is the most important socio-religious activity of the community."

http://www.halifaxmasjid.com /

[LittleBlue]

18. Not really sure what your point is

It serves more than one purpose. Okay, but what does that have to do with its obvious Islamic character? It's a center for Islamic culture; I would guess a center for Buddhist culture which was opposed on the grounds that it's Buddhist would be a religious issue.

[snagglepuss]

35. My point is simply that mosques have traditionally been cultural and community

centers and are referred to as mosques so I am perplexed why many posters insist that it should not be referred to as a mosque. IMO it would be a comunity centre if a room was set aside for prayer or (ideally though not necessary) had rooms were available to different faiths for quiet reflection.

[jberryhill]

105. It's an interesting question

Regardless of snaggle's paranoia about where the money is coming from, there is a logical disconnect between saying it is a First Amendment issue, but not a religious facility.

I personally don't care if it is the world's largest mosque complete with minarets and what-have-you, but it is kind of odd to see "religious freedom" and "not a mosque" being put into the same argument.

Taking your example, let's say someone objected to a "Buddhist bowling alley" somewhere. If the Buddhists wanted to advocate for the bowling alley on a "free exercise" ground, they could likely lose unless they could show that bowling had some connection to the exercise of Buddhism.

(which might require viewing The Big Lebowsky)

[snagglepuss]

15. If it is a community centre why is it a freedom of religion issue?

[jenmito]

29. It's an Islamic community center. There's one floor (out of 13) for prayer services.

People are mis-characterizing it as a "mega mosque" or a "monster mosque" "at ground zero." It's not. People are trying to scare others into equating all Muslims (and especially the Imam heading it up) with al Qaeda and the "radical Islamists" who attacked us on 9/11.

[snagglepuss]

38. Jenmito according to the official website the mosque is considered as

separate facility from the community center and will be run separately. And it's far from helpful to use the strawman that opposition to the mosque is from people who brand all Muslims as terrorists. Not helpful at all. Furthermore, opposition is not black and white, many people including myself simply want to know whether Wahabis are financing it, if they are it would certainly put Rauf's moderation under a cloud for a number of reasons not least which is that Wahibis have persecuted Sufis and don't consider them to be real Muslims.

[jenmito]

53. So you're suspicious of Rauf? Maybe THIS will put your mind at ease:

Rauf gave a speech at the memorial for Daniel Pearl after Pearl's murder. Below is the pertinent extract:

"We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one Mr. Pearl.

And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/19/894596/-I-Am-a-Jew,-I-Have-Always-Been-OneImam-Rauf

MORE about Rauf:

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts

In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/685071

If you have something against the prayer section being run separately, I can't help you. I know it's in the same building as the other 12 floors of the center.

[kiranon]

42. If it's a community center, no reason to object except prejudice,

[jberryhill]

75. There is no reason to object, period

You believe there would be a reason to object if it was a mosque?

If we were talking about a bowling alley, then it wouldn't be a First Amendment freedom of exercise issue in the first place, now would it?

[Aramchek]

19. aw, c'mon, they just want to be a little unconstitutional.

they promise to follow it the rest of the rest of the time.

[smalll]

21. No, it's not un-American. It's treating Muslims like real Americans -- (let me explain) --

When Jewish folks started noticing and expressing regret over the Carmelite nunnery at Auschwitz, eventually, John Paul II withdrew it. I remember that issue. The right over here in this country wanted JP II to stand fast. But people of good faith expressed their concerns, and JP II - hardly a CINO (Catholic In Name Only) to say the least -- in good faith, acceded to their concerns.

Imagine if the Mormons today began to plan to build a temple at Mountain Meadows, Utah? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

If it became a big issue, any competent President would do the obvious: defend the Mormons' right to build a temple there -- and THEN start talking to Mormons one-to-one -- dialogue with them, as it were -- to get them to back down and respect the sensitivities of non-Mormons who remember the massacre. (Like the the decendants of the victims' families, who happened to show up to the 150th anniversary of that tragedy, just three short years ago - in 2007.)

That's what Dean is asking for too -- he supports the Mosque-builders' First Amendment rights, but also is not afraid to try to explain to them why it would be best for them as well as non-Muslims if they withdrew the Ground Zero plans.

How many of us here would want our public leaders to ask Catholics or Mormons to back down if they step on a nation's sensitivities by highlighting - even inadvertently - one of their religion's black marks of history? Most of us would want that. But Muslims -- somehow, perhaps it is the pro-Mosque ABSOLUTISTS here at DU who don't really see them as Americans: the absolutists assume we can't talk to them, citizen to citizen, neighbor to neighbor, to ask them to compromise (to use Dean's word.) Why not?

What are the absolutists afraid of? Perhaps they are the ones with the active "Islamophobia" -- they are too afraid to be honest and open to Muslim-Americans.

[Karenina]

28. Now I've heard EVERYTHING. :SIGH:

Both examples you cite are of DOMINANT COMMUNITIES respecting a minority.

In Park 51 what we see is a minority community being demonized and slandered with the intent of hounding it out of an area in which it has deep roots by a DOMINANT COMMUNITY-AT-LARGE.

"one of their religion's black marks of history..."

It's usually not worth the bother to call out bigoted remarks on DU but THAT ONE takes the cake.

[Aramchek]

32. if this is how you are honest, I'd hate to see you lying

This Islamic Center should, and will, be built.

Despite the stumbling blocks throwing themselves in its way.

[Radical Activist]

22. You post reminds me of the introduction to Rules for Radicals.

Or maybe its Reveille.
Cool.

[leftynyc]

23. Bullshit

Any woman has a constitutional right to end a pregnancy. BUT some women feel it's a decision they would ever make. Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it should or will be done. Just because I have the right to have a gun doesn't mean I would or even should have one (if there are children in the house or there is someone with a hot temper there). I don't think it's a valid argument.

[jenmito]

30. Nice try. People who claim they're for freedom of religion BUT...

aren't for freedom of religion at all.

[leftynyc]

40. I maintain that argument is bullshit (n/t)

[Karenina]

46. Most bigots do. n/t

[ProSense]

31. "Any woman has a constitutional right to end a pregnancy." WTF?

When did abortion become a Constitutional right?

"Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it should or will be done."

Maybe you don't understand what Constitutional rights are.

They're not optional.

[leftynyc]

39. It became a constitutional right

right after roe v wade was decided. Until then, it was illegal. Are you being purposefully dense? Or it just too complicated to understand that just because you have rights doesn't mean it's always in the best interest to use them.

[Karenina]

43. Spoken like one steeped in that P-Funk

of the white supremacist narrative which courses through the veins of EVERYONE born and bred in Amurikkka.

[leftynyc]

114. What are you babbling about?

I have no idea what your post means.

[ProSense]

47. Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),<1> was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Noting that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester of pregnancy:

link

It was a decision about choice and privacy that does not give women the right to end any pregnancy. That is, a woman cannot simply choose in her eight month to end a pregnancy, which is the implication of your post.

"Any woman has a constitutional right to end a pregnancy. BUT some women feel it's a decision they would ever make. Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it should or will be done."

The last part of your statement is an attempt to subject Constitutional rights to the opinions of others. The organization has a Constitutional right, and making the claim that they shouldn't do it is infringing on their rights, their choice.

[jberryhill]

107. Not exactly...

I personally have no problem with whatever these folks want to build in Manhattan, and I am deeply concerned about the rising tide of hatred against Muslims in this country.

If someone wants to say "I don't like it", they too are utilizing their First Amendment right of freedom of speech and opinion.

That's fine.

If someone says, "we should stop them", then that is someone who needs to be watched and dealt with by force if necessary.

[leftynyc]

115. You've misinterpreted everything I said

Perhaps Breitbart is looking for some employees. You'd fit right in. And patronizing me is so very charming. Just what is it you're so insecure about?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Nonsense. I support the constitutional right to vote Republican, but...

Wanting people to compromise on something they have a legal right to do and wanting people to have to compromise on something they have a legal right to do are two entirely different things.

For what it's worth, I think that the construction of the proposed Islamic centre should probably go ahead, on the grounds that it not doing so would be a worrying precedent. But even so, I think that the line of argument set out in the OP is simply illogical.

[woo me with science]

25. +1 nt

[jenmito]

33. Nonsense comparison...

nobody's petitioning you to NOT vote Republican. The only people who claim they're for freedom of religion BUT they'd rather not have an Islamic community center (meant to bring people together and hopefully disspell some myths about Muslims) built 2 blocks from ground zero are still implying there's a link between average Muslim Americans and those who attacked us on 9/11.

[jberryhill]

50. Who is stopping the Park 51 project?

Nobody.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. The Democratic party spends millions petitioning people to not vote Republican.

(Not me, admittedly, but me if I were an American).

[ProSense]

34. There is no Constitutional right to vote Republican

The right to vote isn't linked to a party. It's an individual right to an action.

Convincing someone to choose a party has nothing to do with the right to vote.

[ItNerd4life]

36. Your logic is illogical. But

I supposed apathy to the victims, families and 70% of the U.S. population is also un-American?

[jenmito]

54. No, what's illogical is thinking that those who attacked us are related in any way

to those who want to build the center. They're not related, so there's no reason to stop Muslim-Americans to pray 2 blocks from Ground Zero in a community center open to anyone who wants to enter. The 70% of Americans who are against it must not realize that Muslims were victims and families of victims of the attacks, too, not to mention they were first responders, too. What about having sympathy for THEM? They're no less American than the others. Islamophobes have no right to trample on the rights of Muslims.

[jberryhill]

63. None of what you say is relevant to the First Amendment

Your OP suggests that anyone who disagrees with the speaker or the religion by putting a "but" at the end of that sentence, does some disservice to the First Amendment.

That is nonsense, and not even what the First Amendment is about.

I would fully support the right of someone to stand right next to ground zero and say "I hate America".

You, it seems, would not.

[Karenina]

69. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN HER MOUTH.

[jberryhill]

72. Then complete this sentence

I support the First Amendment rights of <insert someone you don't like here>...

And don't use the word "but".

[jenmito]

76. So NOW you're comparing Muslim-Americans to someone who would stand right next to

ground zero and say, "I hate America"? I see.

[jberryhill]

77. No, I am defending the First Amendment against your trivialization

Sorry, Jen, I've probably visited more Muslim countries than you know Muslims. I don't have a problem with them. The "you hate Muslims" thing won't wash.



I've even visited what is probably the world's most famous piece of Islamic architecture:



So, if you think I have a problem with that, you could not be farther from the truth. If they wanted to build as something as beautiful as the Taj Mahal ON ground zero, I'd not only support it, I would DONATE.

You do not understand the basic First Amendment principle of defending the rights of people to say things with which you disagree, which is the glaring point your OP misses.

[jenmito]

81. You sympathize with those who think Muslim-Americans=terrorists. n/t

[jberryhill]

83. No, those people are assholes

Who have the First Amendment right to express their asshole opinions.

You keep making the same mistake.

If I had any sympathy for those sorts of ignorant people, then it is highly unlikely you'd find me in places like Cairo, Marrakech, Agra, or any of the other predominantly Muslim places I've visited.

[jenmito]

84. So then you agree with my OP afterall. Good. n/t

[jberryhill]

90. No I do not agree with your OP

"I support the rights of <x>, but..." is the foundation of what it is to be an American.

Our greatest quote on the subject is "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend with my life your right to say it."

Even in this thread, you have the stuff that people have been saying as "responses" to the bigots. Statements like "it's two blocks away", "it's really a community center", "Rauf is a moderate Sufi"... and so on.

They are all TRUE statements. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that clearly the First Amendment protects the right of this or any religious group to build any lawful structure on their property they want.

The real test of the First Amendment is not in a situation where you have no underlying substantive issue with the speech or religion in question. The First Amendment, and your commitment to it, is only meaningful in the context of those situations when that "but" appears.

[jenmito]

94. I disagree with you.

But I agree that you have the right to say it. Just don't say it two blocks away from me. ;)

[jberryhill]

96. Actually, I'm showing up on your street with a "God Hates Jenmito" sign

:-)

Someone needs to make an online "Fred Phelps Sign Generator"...

[jenmito]

99. That wouldn't bother me...

especially since I don't believe in "God." But I appreciate the sentiment. :)

[jberryhill]

103. OOoohhhhh... I found one!

[jenmito]

109. I like it!

Thanks for going to the trouble!

[Hansel]

64. Apathy to the victims would be allowing Al Qaeda to build anything

on the site of the World Trade center.

You are conflating a distinctly different group of people with a bunch of criminals just because the criminals claimed to be Muslims. They were also all men but I notice no one is squawking about them building a men's club near the same site.

It's really a stretch to say that Muslims building a community center is apathy toward the victims. It's nonsensical to say you are supporting victims by making victims of a group wholly unrelated to the perpetrators of the crime in order to appease certain, but not all, 911 victims' need to strike out at someone.

Victims who would be offended by this need counseling in order to direct their anger at the actual perpetrators, not just anyone who reminds them of them. People are victims of violent crime everyday but we don't condone the efforts of any victim to strike out at other innocents in order to support their well justified feelings of anger and pain. Most people, in fact, expect them to work through their pain and get over it, as cold as that sounds. The victims of this crime are only special because no one will let them work through it because people wholly unrelated to the crime won't stop politicizing it.

If we were to make the world so it wouldn't hurt any victims sensibilities, this world would be pure hell. Because every one of us belongs to some sub-population who have traits similar to someone who did something horrible to someone else. What punishment would you tolerate for the crimes of others?

[jberryhill]

106. "Victims who would be offended by this need counseling"

Bravo.

It almost seems as if there is an industry devoted to nurturing resentment.

[Lord Magus]

112. If 70% of the country is ignorant and wrong, we should just concede to them?

Tyranny of the majority is un-American. The Constitution is not negotiable and it's not up for a majority vote.

[11 Bravo]

41. I support the right of Fred Phelps to protest soldier's funerals, BUT ...

I think he is a shitstain on the underwear of the country, and should be cock-punched at least twice a day just on general principle. Am I un-American?

[Karenina]

45. Do you think AMERICAN Muslims are

a shitstain on the underwear of the country too?

Man-o-man...

[jberryhill]

48. No, his point was that he doesn't have to agree with or like Fred Phelps /nt

[Karenina]

60. And WHAT does Fred have to do with American Muslims?

Dünnes Eis... oder?

[jberryhill]

62. The issue is about the First Amendment

To be an American is precisely to support the First Amendment rights of speakers to whom we object or disagree.

The OP is about the First Amendment, and Jen's simple-minded point is that we should only support the First Amendment rights of people we find acceptable.

[jenmito]

55. Comparing Muslim-Americans to Fred Phelps is un-American, and

speaks volumes about you.

[jberryhill]

65. LOL

Your OP is about the First Amendment, yes?

When it comes to the First Amendment - all persons are equal.

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Muslims, Christians, Jews, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, Amnesty International, Fred Phelps, Al Gore, Sarah Palin, Keith Olberman, or Rush Limbaugh.

All of those people and groups - ALL OF THEM - are equal before the law and under the First Amendment.

That you cannot recognize that fact is precisely - unAmerican.

[Karenina]

66. You're gaslighting.

:eyes:

[jberryhill]

70. No, I'm not

That word - "but" - is essential to understanding the First Amendment.

Who has not heard, "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend with my life your right to say it."

That's where I stand.

Satisfying the enemies of the First Amendment by trying to say, "Oh, but these aren't bad people" (and they are not bad people) is a disservice to the First Amendment.

We have a First Amendment because odious speech, speech we don't like, religions we find "unusual", are precisely the ones which need protection under it.

Take a look at threads on things like burqa bans, or banning headscarves, yarmulkes, or other religious garb. I get labeled a "sexist" or oppressor of women, because I do not think the government has ANY business getting involved in regulating religious expression.

Do you support the right of religious believers to wear what their faith dictates? Or is your commitment to the First Amendment entirely conditional?

[Karenina]

86. You're HISTORY!

[jberryhill]

91. It figures....

The First Amendment is fine some of the time, but when religious expression takes a form with which you have an issue it is... HISTORY!

[jberryhill]

49. Your Premise Does Not Withstand Scrutiny

There is nothing wrong with a "but" at the end of that kind of sentence.

I agree with the Constitutional rights of the KKK, but I can't stand them one bit.

Nothing wrong with that construct at all.

That's the entire POINT of the First Amendment, and the necessity for it.

[ProSense]

51. They're building a center, not advocating hate. Also, that's the wrong analogy, it should be

"I agree with the Constitutional rights of the KKK, but they should be denied the right to exercise them because I don't like them."

Death threats and the like are another issue.

[jberryhill]

58. I don't care what anyone is doing - if they are within the First Amendment, I will defend them /nt

[jberryhill]

59. I don't care what anyone is doing - if they are within the First Amendment, I will defend them

That IS the point.

Trying to mollify opponents of the First Amendment by saying, "Oh, but it's two blocks away, it's not a mosque, Rauf is a nice guy..." is pointless.

I would support the First Amendment even if they WERE preaching hate - and I know very well that they aren't.

You, apparently, would not support the First Amendment rights of someone advocating hate.

One of us has a broader view of the First Amendment.

[ProSense]

67. Exactly what

the hell are you talking about?

"Trying to mollify opponents of the First Amendment by saying, "Oh, but it's two blocks away, it's not a mosque, Rauf is a nice guy..." is pointless."

There are all sorts of arguments being advanced by the critics, and none of them are valid. No one would be opposed to a non-Muslim organization building a facility in that same location. So this isn't about "closeness," it's about people who still associate 9/11 with all Muslims.

[jberryhill]

71. The OP is about putting a "but" after a statement of supporting the First Amendment

Read it again.

The critics of this project are simply unAmerican, and it doesn't matter who is exercising their religion.

[jenmito]

56. So you're comparing Muslim-Americans to the KKK?! Says a lot about your mind-set. n/t

[jberryhill]

61. No, and if you had read anything I wrote on this topic, you'd know...

That I believe no such thing and make no such comparison.

YOU on the other hand only support the First Amendment if you don't object to what is being said.

That's not how it works.

How DARE you tell me about my mindset. Do a search and look at my dozens of posts about this project.

What I object to is your feeble-minded view of the First Amendment, where you think the content or acceptability of the speech has ANY relevance to it.

It says a lot about YOUR mindset not to understand that to be an American revolves precisely around that "BUT" to which you object.

Do you or do you not support the First Amendment rights of the KKK?

It's a simple question Jen.

[jenmito]

80. I DO support the First Amendment rights of the KKK. I am happy to have the world see how ignorant

they sound.

[jberryhill]

82. There you go

I too support the First Amendment rights of the KKK, BUT I wish they would all come down with painful pustulating sores.

That's the First Amendment.

Now, people who go on about "reasons" why this community center shouldn't be built are bigots, pure and simple. But that's not a First Amendment problem. Bigots have the right to express their opinions.

[DeSwiss]

57. Exactly. K&R n/t

[Phx_Dem]

68. Right on.

:fistbump:

And since when do wingnuts care about the hurt feelings of others? Obviously not when they erect hateful billboards comparing Obama to Hitler, or carry signs saying "Jesus hates fags" while protesting a soldier's funeral. But I suppose those things aren't considered insensitive by wingnut/teabag standards.

[VMI Dem]

73. Of course they have the right to build. But I won't comment on the wisdom of doing so.

[jberryhill]

74. And that is what Obama said, and should have

The OP doesn't seem to understand that.

[jenmito]

78. Here's what he said Saturday:

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. In this country, we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion."

Where's the "but"? Where is he saying it shouldn't be built there out of respect for the families of those who died on 9/11?

[VMI Dem]

79. Of course they have the right to build it there. I won't comment on the wisdom of doing so.

Hows that?

:hi:

[jenmito]

87. Perfect.

Sorry that I have no argument with you.

[Karenina]

89. Did you notice in all the clips

NOT ONE contained the precise question posed by the reporter? Things that make ya go hmmmm...

[jenmito]

97. Yes...

nor did they contain Obama's full answer. Many anchors didn't even acknowledge that he was answering a reporter's question. They say he was forced (or felt the need) to clarify/step back from his statement the night before. Hmmm...

[MikeW]

85. sorry but ...

There are limits to C. Rights ... they are not absolute.

You dont have the right to scream "fire" in a theater .. they'll throw your ass in jail.

Same goes for other things.

I dont care if they built it there or not.

Im MUCH more concerned about where they are getting funding since that MAY be a violation of the law esp. if they are
taking $$$ from known terrorist organizations.

[jenmito]

88. "...esp. if they are taking $$$ from known terrorist organizations."

Do some research on Feisal Abdul Rauf and get back to me. I'm sure you'll RW-based fears will be answered.

[MikeW]

92. actually

their spokesman was quoted today as saying that they cant rule out taking money from Iran or the Saudis

that itself warrents checking into.

and its not RW to respect the law ... maybe for you it is.

[jberryhill]

93. Is there an economic embargo with the Saudis?

How much money are you sending Iran and Saudi Arabia at the gas pump, pal?

You can bet that the US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) knows whether a single dime came from anyone on the OFAC list.

At this point in time, because of people like you, I'm considering making a donation. Simply on principle, as an American.

[MikeW]

98. people like me?

:yourock: :applause:

[jberryhill]

100. Yes.... nitwits /nt

[MikeW]

101. nice personal attack

Your now on IGNORE

[jenmito]

102. Something we can agree on.

:toast:

[quaker bill]

95. It has nothing to do with religion

If they own the building, then the 4th ammendment applies. The government is not empowered to deny reasonable use of the property without a "compelling public interest" and just compensation. There is nothing about an Islamic Community Center that by its nature, is an unreasonable use of this particular commercial property. Please note that a "compelling public interest" does not mean something a portion of the public is interested in. It is and has been a commercial building. There is nothing about the proposed use that will disrupt the community by increasing traffic in a manner that would jeopardize pubilc health, safety, and welfare. Protection of the general "public health, safety, and welfare", is the nature of what defines a "compelling public interest" under law and precedent. I assume that the plan either does or will conform to safety codes for the proposed occupancy. Such a center is not among the land uses that might already be regulated as a public nuisance such as adult entertainment facilities.

Passing a regulation expressly against a mosque in this location would easily be ruled as an "arbitrary and capricious" exercise of land use regulatory authority, and quickly tossed out on 4th ammendment grounds. The first ammendment establishment clause would never even be in play here. Secular land developers win this sort of case all the time. The fact that religious activities may occur in the building or that the permit applicant is a religious organization is completely irrelevant and must be held so. It is not legal to proceed in any other manner.

Land use law is part of how I make my living.

[jberryhill]

108. Ummm... don't you mean 5th amendment?

I hate to question a specialist, but the takings clause is in the Fifth, not the Fourth.

[besdayz]

110. a

gov can't get involved in a private property issue where no laws have been breached....it can't act as a persuasive or coercive body. that's precisely the behavior the founders wanted to guard against and why they were initially against factions (or parties as we call them today).

the irony here is the rethugs out of one side of their mouth castrate the freedom of religion aspect of the 1st amendment while on the other side complain that Dr. Laura has every right to say what she wants b/c of freedom of speech. complete buffoonery..

peopel don't seem to understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. you can say what you want on air, the govt can't put you in jail for it. but your sponsors can decide you are a despicable POS that is costing them money. exactly how it should work.
which is why there are more blog initiated than talk shows--and its cheaper.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

111. I thought people were prosecuted if they do hate crimes?

[dkf]

113. That doesn't make sense to me to say I support their constitutional rights.

It's more like I acknowledge that they have rights but it's still a stupid idea.

I don't support second amendment rights but I acknowledge their existence. I don't think we need to revere every part of the constitution just because it exists.

[jberryhill]

116. Speak for yourself

Some of us have taken an oath to uphold and defend it.