"Mosque" opposition provides aid & comfort to Taliban

[eJM]

Originally Posted by KSagal

His first speech was very supportive, but the very next day, he started backpedaling.

His words were chosen/written very carefully. He supported the Constitution, NOT the so-called mosque. Only because the media, and people who make a habit of twisting words, tried to make it about the Islamic center did he have to make a clarifying statement.

We all know one or more writers and advisors are involved in every word a president says about a hotbed issue. It's been that way since the embarrassment of Nixon after his debate with Kennedy. And every single president has had his words twisted by those who oppose him. Every time I see it happen, I cringe at the childishness.

Then we have to endure the "back-pedaling" comments from those who feel they have to convince us all that the twisted words are what we heard, not what he actually said.

This last go-around between you and Civicsman is a perfect example. He keeps claiming you said something that is perfectly plain you didn't. I mean, it's right there in dark blue and white, just a little scroll up away. You said one thing, which very likely were carefully chosen words, and he insists you said something he totally made up in his own head.

It's idiocy and childish. A person only has to agree or disagree with what was actually said. It doesn't have to get twisted into some evil fantasy just to bolster a floundering debate. If the point can't be made, find a new point.

You guys really should go back to arguing the merits of the Segway and stay far away from political debate, 'cause neither of you are any good at it what so ever.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by eJM

His words were chosen/written very carefully. He supported the Constitution, NOT the so-called mosque. Only because the media, and people who make a habit of twisting words, tried to make it about the Islamic center did he have to make a clarifying statement.

We all know one or more writers and advisors are involved in every word a president says about a hotbed issue. It's been that way since the embarrassment of Nixon after his debate with Kennedy. And every single president has had his words twisted by those who oppose him. Every time I see it happen, I cringe at the childishness.

Then we have to endure the "back-pedaling" comments from those who feel they have to convince us all that the twisted words are what we heard, not what he actually said.

This last go-around between you and Civicsman is a perfect example. He keeps claiming you said something that is perfectly plain you didn't. I mean, it's right there in dark blue and white, just a little scroll up away. You said one thing, which very likely were carefully chosen words, and he insists you said something he totally made up in his own head.

It's idiocy and childish. A person only has to agree or disagree with what was actually said. It doesn't have to get twisted into some evil fantasy just to bolster a floundering debate. If the point can't be made, find a new point.

You guys really should go back to arguing the merits of the Segway and stay far away from political debate, 'cause neither of you are any good at it what so ever.

Okay dokay. We don't have to agree either.

As I said, I have been trying to step back a bit, and I was contrite in my last posting, yet you chose to hammer on my word 'backpedaling'.

I heard his words from the speech before the Muslim assembly, and I heard his words, from his own mouth, in the days after. I happen to agree with my interpretation but you surely do not need to. And, of course, I could be faulty in my memory.

I say again, it was not about the president, I was simply using him among others to demonstrate that there are supporters of the mosque who are not Muslim.

Can’t we all just get along?

[KSagal]

I have a new question, or at least a new comparison.

I happen to think that building that Mosque at that site is most likely legal in every reasonable way. I also happen to think it is insensitive, and an inappropriate thing to do.

I also happen to think that burning the Koran at that church is most likely legal in every reasonable way. I further think it is insensitive, and an inappropriate thing to do.

Do those who support the building of the mosque, because it is legal to do so, feel that burning the Koran is to be supported, because it is legal to do so?

[eJM]

Please don't play with the fonts and colors unless you know what you're doing. The font style is already Verdana, I believe, and already black.

Originally Posted by KSagal

I happen to think that building that Mosque at that site is most likely legal in every reasonable way. I also happen to think it is insensitive, and an inappropriate thing to do.

I really loathe discussing this issue with anyone who continues to mis-characterize this as a "Mosque." It's a cultural center, it has always been a cultural/social/education center and only the extremists are calling it a mosque or mimicking some lopsided news reporter/commentator who has twisted THAT into "mosque."

Except for the terminology, I agree.

I also happen to think that burning the Koran at that church is most likely legal in every reasonable way. I further think it is insensitive, and an inappropriate thing to do.

No one in their right mind would disagree, in my opinion. I would go even further and see if he could be arrested for arson conspiracy or something else.

Do those who support the building of the mosque, because it is legal to do so, feel that burning the Koran is to be supported, because it is legal to do so?

Just because it's A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to build a CULTURAL CENTER, doesn't mean those of us who understand that issue agree that it's a good decision to do so. I've seen no evidence of anyone participating in this discussion suggesting that building the center is a good decision. There is plenty of evidence that those who support the Constitution are being maligned and associated with terrorism and/or the pro-build a mosque on ground zero faction. So much fabrication, too little fact.

Although an individual right to speak against any religion, even by burning a book, is constitutional, that doesn't mean organizing a bonfire is legal unless you have the proper permits. That preacher is one whack job and I hope he lands in jail - but not by depriving him of his constitutional rights.

If they would only make it legal to shoot people like that...

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by eJM

Please don't play with the fonts and colors unless you know what you're doing. The font style is already Verdana, I believe, and already black.

I really loathe discussing this issue with anyone who continues to mis-characterize this as a "Mosque." It's a cultural center, it has always been a cultural/social/education center and only the extremists are calling it a mosque or mimicking some lopsided news reporter/commentator who has twisted THAT into "mosque."

Except for the terminology, I agree.


No one in their right mind would disagree, in my opinion. I would go even further and see if he could be arrested for arson conspiracy or something else.


Just because it's A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to build a CULTURAL CENTER, doesn't mean those of us who understand that issue agree that it's a good decision to do so. I've seen no evidence of anyone participating in this discussion suggesting that building the center is a good decision. There is plenty of evidence that those who support the Constitution are being maligned and associated with terrorism and/or the pro-build a mosque on ground zero faction. So much fabrication, too little fact.

Although an individual right to speak against any religion, even by burning a book, is constitutional, that doesn't mean organizing a bonfire is legal unless you have the proper permits. That preacher is one whack job and I hope he lands in jail - but not by depriving him of his constitutional rights.

If they would only make it legal to shoot people like that...

I highlighted a portion of your post, because the statement does not match what I thought I knew of that building. I thought that until very recently, it was a closed Burlington Coat Factory. (I happen to also like Arial typeface, and used it just to be annoying, and to protest your silly complaint about types and colors. Who are you to tell me that I don't know what I am doing?) Furthermore, I believe (because I saw a news report that said so) that the building is currently being used to hold religious services. The report did not say any other activity was going on there, but I will leave it up to you to verify what you believe is going on there now. Of course, I do not know with any sense of certainty exactly what is the story there, because mostly everyone I have seen report on it seems to have an agenda of one sort or the other.

I surely don't owe any explanation, but I often use a different program as a spell checker, when posting from work. I often do a cut and paste, and frequently take a long time to respond to posts while at work, and the response sits in a window on a different laptop, and sometimes the defaults of that other program show up as a slightly different font. It means nothing, unless you choose to complain about non-issues.

I felt your answer to my clear question was a bit unclear, but it seems that you are very much opposed to the cleric who wants to burn the Koran, and are less willing to extend your constitutional support to him, than to the cleric who wants to build a mosque/cultural center. This seems to me to be an uneven application of constitutional rights. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you are willing to go around the constitutional rights of one, but not the other.

Please correct me if my last paragraph is incorrect. I really want to understand.

[eJM]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I highlighted a portion of your post, because the statement does not match what I thought I knew of that building. I thought that until very recently, it was a closed Burlington Coat Factory.

Furthermore, I believe (because I saw a news report that said so) that the building is currently being used to hold religious services. The report did not say any other activity was going on there, but I will leave it up to you to verify what you believe is going on there now. Of course, I do not know with any sense of certainty exactly what is the story there, because mostly everyone I have seen report on it seems to have an agenda of one sort or the other.

You should not enter into a debate about something unless you have done some research. Listening to TV is not research. Lest you wonder why I have entered into this debate, please note that I am not debating the merits of whether or not the center should be near ground zero. My participation in this is merely to protest the mis - and totally twisted - information that has been put forth as fact and the cause of it being the "did so - did not - did so" childishness that has ensued.

I don't know much about the actual building that has been proposed. I heard at one time it was a Burlington Coat Factory, but what used to be there isn't any longer and should have no bearing on the issue. The imam that is trying to negotiate with the powers that be used to occupy a smaller building and now wants a larger building. The original was destroyed as a result of the attacks (believe it or not, over 30 Muslims were killed and an Islamic center was destroyed - do we hate them so much we disregard the innocent Muslim victims?). The smaller building, which was offered to be rebuilt, is closer to ground zero than the larger one. Both buildings, I believe, are owned by The Port Authority (or at least under their control).

There are religious meetings and ceremonies (including prayers) taking place in all buildings used by any religious organization. This is not unique to the Muslims. It doesn't make the building a Mosque any more than a Catholic school is a church.

(I happen to also like Arial typeface, and used it just to be annoying, and to protest your silly complaint about types and colors. Who are you to tell me that I don't know what I am doing?)

You didn't use the Arial font, you used Verdana. This is Arial. This is Verdana. Not much difference, but Verdana is already the default, so there is no reason to use the font code to make it such. You also used the color black, which, again, is the default. In addition to that you had extra font and color tags that were applied to nothing. You obviously didn't know any of that or you would have tried some other trick to be annoying. In any case, it worked, but why play the game anyway?

I felt your answer to my clear question was a bit unclear, but it seems that you are very much opposed to the cleric who wants to burn the Koran, and are less willing to extend your constitutional support to him, than to the cleric who wants to build a mosque/cultural center. This seems to me to be an uneven application of constitutional rights. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you are willing to go around the constitutional rights of one, but not the other.

Please correct me if my last paragraph is incorrect. I really want to understand.

It's going to be difficult to explain your mistaken assumption because you seem to like believing there is no difference between supporting the Constitution and supporting a cause. Apparently you can't have it both ways.

I support the Constitution. I felt so strongly about it at a young and dumb age that I volunteered to serve in Vietnam. But I was against the war in Vietnam. I feel strongly about the right to bear arms and am an expert marksman with a 9mm (I finally sold my trusty sidearm to get computer parts recently). But I am in favor of gun control. I believe in the constitutional right to religious freedom and here I am arguing it, but I am NOT a church goin' man - far from it.

The reverend from Florida has every right to express his "speech" by burning whatever book he wants. My disdain for him personally has nothing to do with his rights under the Constitution. My disdain is based on his reported thievery, lies, radicalism and his danger to other people (mainly service members in Iraq and Afghanistan).

The imam from New York likewise has a right to build his center. I have formed no opinion about whether it's a good idea or not, but I have formed an opinion about the man. He, prior to this issue, has been a very well respected businessman, religious leader, advisor to political leaders and has been very important to the leaders of other faiths. He's got cred.

The dickhead in Florida is a punk. The other guy isn't. If either one of them broke the law, they should get what they deserve. However, it appears that the imam won't be going in that direction and the guy in Florida might, if he organizes a bonfire or incites a riot or spits in the street. But you can misconstrue that to mean I want his constitutional rights suspended just because I don't like the creep, if that's your bent in life. What would that say about your constitutional rights though. Do you think I would deny you yours? How 'bout Civicsman's? You are both at opposite ends of the political spectrum and I don't like either of you the same. But didn't I enter this discussion to defend your right to your words?

Jim

[Civicsman]

I happen to think that building that Mosque at that site is most likely legal in every reasonable way. I also happen to think it is insensitive, and an inappropriate thing to do.

I also happen to think that burning the Koran at that church is most likely legal in every reasonable way. I further think it is insensitive, and an inappropriate thing to do.

Do those who support the building of the mosque, because it is legal to do so, feel that burning the Koran is to be supported, because it is legal to do so?

From the constitutional perspective, both of these activities are unquestionably legal, although there is a question about burning anything in the open in Florida.

However, the similarities end there. Burning Korans serves no purpose other than to further hatred. The "pastor" (and I use the word loosely) has admitted that he has never read the Koran, but he "knows" it is evil. The act of burning the books has no positive benefit, other than to bigots who may get some arcane satisfaction from the act. The message sent to the world is only negative. Muslims throughout the world will be legitimately upset by the destruction of their most holy book, and the fundamentalists, our true enemies, will benefit. This is a publicity stunt for a very small and bigoted man.

On the other hand, Park51 is not a "monumnet (sic) to the killers at ground zero", as one poster here described it. It is nothing of the kind. It is an Islamic community center. Assume that it is a mosque if you wish (although that is not accurate). So what? The thinking seems to be that the terrorists were Muslims, therefore it is insensitive to have a mosque (or whatever) near ground zero. While I have no doubt that those who lost someone in the 9/11 attacks may feel strongly that a "mosque" should not be near ground zero, I believe this feeling is misplaced. Said clearly. I think they are wrong to feel that way. Building a monument to the terrorists would be incredibly insensitive., but nobody is suggesting this. Yet that is the parallel that is being drawn. Wrongly.

A good chunk of the opposition to Park51 is religious prejudice, and in some cases, racial prejudice. People openly admit to it in the news media every day. We even read it on Segway Chat. I have no tolerance for that.

A reasonably good analogy might be comparing a neo-Nazi march to a civil rights march. Both are legal, under the constitution. Both are going to make some people angry and upset, but the difference between the two is apparent to all but the thickest brick. The latter is on the moral high ground, while the former is stinking in the gutter.

[Civicsman]

The smaller building, which was offered to be rebuilt, is closer to ground zero than the larger one. Both buildings, I believe, are owned by The Port Authority (or at least under their control).

The building that will become Park51 is privately owned, not by the Port Authority. As I recall (without researching it further this evening), the building is owned by a bank, and is being leased to the Park51 community center.

It on private property, under NYC jurisdiction, as compared to the Greek Orthodox replacement church, which was proposed on public property owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (a separate government entity from NYC). Those two differences, along with private financing for Park51, compared to a gift of $60 million in public money for the Greek church, are primary reasons that Park51 has building permits, and the Greek Orthodox church does not, prejudicial conspiracy theories aside.

[eJM]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

From the constitutional perspective, both of these activities are unquestionably legal, although there is a question about burning anything in the open in Florida.

However, the similarities end there. Burning Korans serves no purpose other than to further hatred. The "pastor" (and I use the word loosely) has admitted that he has never read the Koran, but he "knows" it is evil. The act of burning the books has no positive benefit, other than to bigots who may get some arcane satisfaction from the act. The message sent to the world is only negative. Muslims throughout the world will be legitimately upset by the destruction of their most holy book, and the fundamentalists, our true enemies, will benefit. This is a publicity stunt for a very small and bigoted man.

On the other hand, Park51 is not a "monumnet (sic) to the killers at ground zero", as one poster here described it. It is nothing of the kind. It is an Islamic community center. Assume that it is a mosque if you wish (although that is not accurate). So what? The thinking seems to be that the terrorists were Muslims, therefore it is insensitive to have a mosque (or whatever) near ground zero. While I have no doubt that those who lost someone in the 9/11 attacks may feel strongly that a "mosque" should not be near ground zero, I believe this feeling is misplaced. Said clearly. I think they are wrong to feel that way. Building a monument to the terrorists would be incredibly insensitive., but nobody is suggesting this. Yet that is the parallel that is being drawn. Wrongly.

A good chunk of the opposition to Park51 is religious prejudice, and in some cases, racial prejudice. People openly admit to it in the news media every day. We even read it on Segway Chat. I have no tolerance for that.

A reasonably good analogy might be comparing a neo-Nazi march to a civil rights march. Both are legal, under the constitution. Both are going to make some people angry and upset, but the difference between the two is apparent to all but the thickest brick. The latter is on the moral high ground, while the former is stinking in the gutter.

Who are you and what did you do with Civicsman???

[Civicsman]

Who are you and what did you do with Civicsman?

My perspective has not changed.