Repeal Religious Freedom at Ground Zero?

It's wrong to "refudiate" the First Amendment

Suppose there were a heavily Muslim neighborhood in New York, with mosques, religious schools, and shops with meat prepared according to Islamic dietary rules. Suppose an evangelical church wanted to build a chapel there. And suppose local Muslims tried to block it as a flagrant insult to them.

Would Sarah Palin urge the church to retract this "unnecessary provocation" in the "interest of healing"? Would her followers? Or would they scorn this disparagement of Christianity and champion the religious freedom on which America was built?

You know the answer. But Palin is not a slave to intellectual consistency. Change the church to a mosque, and put it a couple of blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, and she suddenly loses all patience with the rights of religious believers.

This week, she posted Twitter comments urging Muslims and New Yorkers to put a stop to a proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero because the pain from the 9/11 attacks "is too raw, too real."

The people who live in the vicinity don't seem to agree. The local community board voted 29-1 to approve the project, which would include a swimming pool, gym, child-care center, performing arts space, and other facilities open to the public.

No one objects to putting up other new buildings in the neighborhood. Nor is anyone trying to close down businesses that seem slightly incompatible with the horror that happened there—including a strip club and an off-track betting parlor. The only objection to the Islamic center is that it is Islamic.

For some conservatives, anything Muslim has no place there. When Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams was forced to resign for writing a racist satire, he said he was stepping down so he could concentrate on fighting the Ground Zero mosque, which he says would honor "the terrorists' monkey god."

A group called the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee says that "to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans, they want to build a monstrous 13-story mosque at Ground Zero."

Of course, the "they" who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks are not the same "they" who want to erect this structure. Both groups are made up of Muslims. But associating all Muslims with al-Qaida is like equating all Christians with the Ku Klux Klan.

The number of violent extremists in the American Islamic community is microscopically small. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported that of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States between 1980 and 2005, only 6 percent were committed by radical Muslims.

A recent study by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill found one reason the number is so low is that "Muslim religious and community leaders ... consistently condemned political violence in public sermons and private conversations."

Palin's position is hard to reconcile with the reverence she and her fans claim to hold for the framers, who gave the highest protection to religious freedom.

Anti-Muslim groups think Islam cannot be tolerated because it is inherently violent and totalitarian. Most Muslims disagree. But what if it were? The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of all faiths, not just the ones that are peaceful and tolerant.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had experience with people whose religions were oppressive—such as 17th century New England Puritans, who executed Quakers for daring to preach in Massachusetts, or Catholics, who burned heretics in Europe. The framers knew religion could be dangerous, and they protected it anyway.

The First Amendment goes beyond protecting mere beliefs. It says, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Hi Reason! GM Suki and the other early risers/vampires.

  • Suki||

    Good morning reason!

    Why, hello BL, what are you doing here?


    Suppose there were a heavily Muslim neighborhood in New York, with mosques, religious schools, and shops with meat prepared according to Islamic dietary rules. Suppose an evangelical church wanted to build a chapel there. And suppose local Muslims tried to block it as a flagrant insult to them.

    Suppose this Preacher running the Church was some raving asshole who wanted the USA to be under strict fundamentalist "law" and women couldn't wear "pants" (including scorts) and women couldn't smoke either. Happier with that one? The reason chairs would sign right up for that?

    No, you wouldn't and neither would Sarah Palin (judging from her great outfits). So, just stop with the bullshit. I am all for people who own the land building what they want on it and all against the government having any say in it.

    You just hate Christians and you are using this as an excuse to bash us. If you were truly a property rights person, this article would not have anything to do with Sarah or the Mosque. It would be about building what you want on your own land. It would be about Bloomberg bending and breaking zoning, even better, it would be against zoning.

    If you just hate Christians, write an article about that, kk?

  • Untermensch||

    Suki, I blame you. Now that you’ve shown us how to comment before the article is listed, all the fruitcakes of every stripe are taking advantage of that “loophole” to come here and post their thoughts before everyone else. We need a law against that! (Yes, that is sarcastic.)

  • ||

    post their thoughts before everyone else

    Except the only people who read those posts know the trick too...it's like the H&R Members Only Jacket (ie, the guy wearing it thinks its cool, and other guys wearing one do too...but the rest of humanity quietly feels sorry for them.)

  • ||

    I feel sorry for people who tweet, and really sorry for those who tweet things like "too raw, too real", but especially sorry for reporters who have to cover tweets for a living, and say "tweets" on camera without laughing.

  • Suki||

    Untermensch,
    If you would quit blabbing our secrets then others would not know how we do this. Speaking of the all unknowing, where is RS this AM?

  • ||

    Sleeping in. Mornings suck.

  • Suki||

    Poor RS, food morning xoxo

  • Suki||

    Ouch! I meant *good* morning :(

  • Untermensch||

    I see. Loose lips sink battleships and all. I'll go perform sepukku to atone for my indiscreet actions.

  • Suki||

    Just try a little 数独 to clear your head. Works for me.

  • Untermensch||

    Seems a little less painful, all in all.

  • Some Guy||

    Happier with that one? The reason chairs would sign right up for that?

    If they own the land then sure, let them build it. They'd be assholes, but assholes have property rights, too.

    If they lobby to try to make their beliefs into laws, then we'd go on full attack mode against that, but not their right to have a building.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what you mean by "full attack mode."

    While I agree that it would be a bad idea to use the power of Government to block construction of this Mosque, it is a very good idea for Americans to attack the idea verbally. The un-named Muslims who put up the hundred million dollars for this place are doing it to stick their thumb in our collective eye, and we have a right to cry out in rage and pain.

    The Koran itself mandates that Muslims are to be in a perpetual state of war against all us "infidels" http://historyhalf.com/obama-j.....oly-koran/

    This mosque is a place for muslims to gloat. We have a right to be angry and disgusted, just as the atheists who post hear are always angry and disgusted with the (mostly imaginary) crimes of Christianity. It's a free country.

  • ||

    The un-named Muslims who put up the hundred million dollars for this place are doing it to stick their thumb in our collective eye, and we have a right to cry out in rage and pain.


    Citation needed.

  • ||

    Something tells me that additional documentation won't do you any good. I've got a feeling that you didn't bother to read the Koran excerts linked above.

    But here's another link for you to not bother clicking: http://www.lookingattheleft.co.....o-part-ii/

  • ||

    Using a link that explicitly cheerleads for one view over another is not convincing, sorry.

    Your first one is blocked here for whatever reason. If it's full of cherry-picked quotes from the Koran, whoop-de-fuckin-do. No one has ever selectively collected quotes from holy texts to further their views. NEVER.

  • Fluffy||

    The people Chapman's article is about deserve to be hated.

    Get that through your head, Suki. Hatred is a valid human response to stuff that's hate-able. And Palin threw herself in with that - AFUCKINGGAIN.

  • Suki||

    No she didn't. She dislikes the haters.

  • Tim||

    I think this essay is a thinly veiled invitation to a Palin bash and has little to do with the First Ammendment.

  • Suki||

    So let's have a pig pullin' instead.

  • .||

    I think you're right.

  • .||

    About the Palin bashing, I mean. (damned threaded comments)

  • Suki||

    No plate for you at the pig pullin' then?

  • .||

    Whaaa? Honey, you ain't never et 'til you done had some pulled pork!

  • Grumpy Smurf||

    I hate the word "haters".

  • WTF||

    How about "haytah"? As in "I'm a playah, not a haytah!"

    Ick. Just typing that made a little stomach acid bubble up in the back of my throat.

  • ||

    Religion is the problem as usual. Religious people are stupid fucks!

  • WTF||

    Right. Every single one of them. If only there were more tolerant.

  • Suki||

    Wegie, show us on the intertubz where religion touched you.

  • ||

    One who believes in fairtales is a fucking idiot!

  • .||

    Is that you, Akira?

  • ||

    The people Chapman's article is about deserve to be hated.

    Funny, I thought that pieces of shit such as yourself were the ones deserving hating. I guess perception is everything.

  • ||

    Suki, nearly the entire set of "arguments" against this structure (calling it a 13-story mosque is a nice twist of the truth and is definitely grandstanding - it's a big 'ol community center with a mosque inside somewhere) have something or other to do with "them violent/dirty/evil Mooslimz!!!" and how Islam is and only ever has been violent and extremist everywhere it is. That's pretty much it. The people who object almost exclusively focus on those aspects. Why is Chapman wrong for continuing the argument focusing on why they're wrong on their terms?

    Property rights are a very important consideration (probably the most important) in this whole to-do, but it seems no one who is on the anti-Islamic center side has even approached addressing the issue from that angle.

  • ||

    Fuck. This pre-posting bullshit is worse than threaded comments.

    My post stands, but I guess I'm now addressing the myriad douchenozzles on general news cites who shit the bed over this every fucking time a story is posted on it.

  • Suki||

    Poor thing.

  • The Gobbler||

    So given that the building will house a mosque "inside somewhere", does that mean the entire 13-story structure will be tax-exempt? And if so, does that mean if I build a Hilton Mid-town New York and put a little chaple in it "inside somewhere" that my business will be tax-exempt as well?

  • ||

    I have no idea. That has precious little to do with the objections voiced so loudly thus far, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

  • The Gobbler||

    Because land that was prodicing tax dollars for NY, will likely do so no longer.

  • ||

    That still doesn't answer what this has to do with the bed shitting going on in this fever-swamp of a thread and in general from people across the country who don't live in the neighborhood.

    Was the defunct Burlington Coat Factory actually producing much of anything?

  • WTF||

    Your beef should be with the tax exemption then, not with the specific use of this particular piece of land. Because the same result would occur if they built a church or any other house of worship.

  • The Gobbler||

    I'm inclined to agree with you, Suki. I haven't read down thread, but when this topic came up previously, people were saying that the site is two blocks from Ground Zero and that in NY, two block is a long ways away. And I thought, yeah, that's true.

    But last night I learned that the site used to have two buildings on it. So where did they go? Turns out, they were damaged on 9/11 to such a degree that they had to come down.

    So to assert that these two buildings were not a part of ground zero is nothing short of disingenuous.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I don't think we would have so many Japanese enemies today if we had promoted the building of Shinto temples on the ashes of Pearl Harbor.

    Rather than doing all that ugly fighting, we should have shown our solidarity with those in Japan who were not Kamikaze pilots by allowing the Japanese goverment to fund Japanese impirialist cultural centers so long as they could afford to pay fair market value for Pearl Harbor adjacent property. This would NOT have been viewed by the aggressors as a victory. After all, the vast majority of Japanese citizens didn't fly airplanes loaded with explosives into the harbor. We should have taken measures to appease our agressors. WHEN SOMEONE SLAPS YOU, YOU SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING A FACE. Agressors just need to be understood. We wouldn't still be in this never ending war with japanese impirialism if we had just focused on being more culturally understanding, in response to their attack, rather than absolutely crushing them with military force and showing complete moral confidence to continue until they stop.

    We were so lacking in sophistication then. I'm so glad we evolved into suicidal doves.

  • ||

    D+

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    You know, I think it's great when people say 1=3. Freedom of Speech and all that. We apparently,judging from your post, are also free to ignore facts.

  • Rudan||

    I get the point, but Pearl Harbour is not at all a sensible analogy to 9/11 ever.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    You're right. It is not. If the Commander in Chief's retribution of choice had been to declare a war on kamikaze tactics and put on some "shock and awe" displays in Mongolia while building schools and trying to "install democracy" in Japan, however, we'd have a match.

  • Rudan||

    Pearl Harbour was a military attack on a military base, 9/11 was a terrorist attack on civilian American soil. It's a completely different context and merits completely different responses.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    And because most Americans agree with you, that's what we got. A randomly selected potpourri of completely different responses. Any different response will do so long as it doesn't involve involve identifying and destroying the responsible orginizations and those funding them if they refuse to stop.

  • ||

    A - to the comment, D - to the article.

    Steve Chapman has engaged in some context dropping at the beginning of this article. If his first paragraph were at ALL analogous to the case in point today, it would read:

    Suppose 19 Christians in the name of Christ demolished one of the most important and symbolic secular structures in the Muslim world, and killed over 3,000 mostly Muslims. If a Christian center were to be built on those ashes, would you expect opposition?

    I truly think only an idiot would say, "BUILD AWAY!" in either case.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Shorter and better article than Chapman's.

  • Brandon||

    Lol. That's such a childish argument. "Because they wouldn't accept it, neither should we"? Really...? You're applying THIS kind of example to the intolerant Muslim world, in which at least 2 nations have sharia? come on...

  • Brandon||

    And you forgot the word "fanatical" before "Christians" in your sentence. There's a clear difference between fanatics and moderates, esp. in Christianity. Christ was the Prince of Peace, after all. If a Christian uses violence in his name, clearly they are out of line. They are not Christians at all!

    It's sad to see even libertarians using these bogus pseudo-intellectual far-right arguments on this issue.

  • ||

    The building used to have a Burlington Coat store. It's right next to my office, and I can see it from my office window. I never thought of it as part of ground zero. My office is closer and didn't sustain any significant damage. Neither did the post office another block closer. I've got no problem with a mosque being there.

  • Suki||

    Rachel Corrie pancake breakfasts on my cart right out front during and after construction. Free bacon or pork sausage with every plate!

  • ||

    Hey! Put a head scarf on that pig!

  • Obumer||

    Put some lipstick on it!

  • Suki||

    Do you ever eat ham? We never see any pictures of you eating any sort of pork.

  • ||

    Porkgate!

  • Obumer||

    Whadaya mean? I love pork even more than Robert Byrd did. I distribute it to my supporters whenever possible.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Fluffy||

    Um...you do realize that Rachel Corrie's murderers are probably just as stupidly and irrationally hysterical about pork products as any Muslim?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Um...you do realize that there is a difference between manslaughter and murder: even for Jews.

  • Suki||

    Her fellow protesters pushed her under the bulldozer? The IDF should investigate and bring them to justice.

  • Suki||

    I'm sorry, I should have asked first. Pancakes or waffles for you?

  • Fluffy||

    What makes it funny is that you apparently offer this joke in order to make fun of the silly, primitive Muslims and their ridiculous dietary fears.

    But that makes fun of slightly more people than I think you're aiming at.

  • Suki||

    No, I am making fun of stupid Americans who think they are supporting a bunch of docile poor people who would be nice people if they only got to take more stuff from others.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    +1

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    By the way, Fluffy, your vanity-press books suck. Not that Suki's are any better, but still, I want my three dollars back.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    He knows you're lying because he hasn't sold any yet.

  • Suki||

    The one fanfic story I wrote hasn't sold any either, but the others are doing okay.

  • Fluffy||

    No refunds after 7 days.

    Caveat emptor, baby.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Argh! Damn Kindle and its "Recommended for You" lists!!!!

  • Fluffy||

    LOL.

    Yeah they can really get you that way.

  • ||

    Rachel Corrie was murdered?

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Fluffy||

    So I take it if I ran you over with a bulldozer, no one should complain and I should just get to go on my merry way?

  • ||

    You know there's a difference between the words murdered and killed. And if I had been protecting a tunnel through which criminals were smuggling arms, I doubt anyone would have cared if I was run over by a bulldozer.

  • Suki||

    Never forget the rest of why she got run over. She stood in the blind spot of the driver and wouldn't get out of the way.

    Fluffy, if you intentionally jumped in front of my bulldozer and I ran you over without even seeing you, I might feel bad for you. But not too bad.

  • Suki||

    Too bad Avatar came out so many years after Rachel Corrie killed herself. She would know how to get out of the way, like Jake and Neytiri eventually did.*

    *I hate having to use fiction examples to explain the simplest things to your kind.

  • jtuf||

    If you want to, you have every right to do that, although I'm not sure I would join you. It all depends on what sign you're holding.

  • KK||

    Ok,normally I appreciate reason.com for their libertarian views. The problem I have with libertarians in general though is so many of them are athiests. This article attempts to drag religion into the problem with the mosque being built on 911 sacred ground. That is a rouse. The reality is if Muslims are truly caring they should respect the feelings of the families of the 3000 Americans murdered in the name of Islam. Build the mosque somewhere else. To force the mosque into the ground zero neighborhood is a insult. The author of the article should be honest and admit that religion in general is his real problem. His attempt to drag Christianity and Sarah Palin into it is pathetic. No American should think its okay to soil the sacred 911 ground with a mosque.That includes Amercan Muslims.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    I think your keyboard is stuck on STUPID.

    Freedom = freedom to speak = freedom to worship = freedom to purchase = freedom to build. You can turn your xenophobic bullshit sideways and fuck yourself with it, douchebag.

  • Sadly Amused European||

    Ask any non-Muslim European or Asian or African who actually lives on the "bloody borders of Islam" about how does one play "religious freedom" with Muslims. There is no such concept in that entire religion, and individual Muslims who believe in religious freedom exist, but they are serious sinners according to standard Islamic law. If not complete apostates. Anyway, their position in the community is precarious and if they are publicly visible, they are under unspoken or spoken death penalty from the hands of the "believers".

    9/11 was an act of religious war, not a murder scene. The non-Islamic world is called "Dar al-Harb" (House of War) for a reason.

    Back in 1941, Americans actually understood that they were in conflict not with just Japan, but also the Shinto state ideology.

    No one in sane reason (pun intended) would allow Japanese Shintoists to build a shrine next to Pearl Harbor and worship the Martyrs of Yamamoto there. Not even today, probably.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to Islam, people like you are willfully blind. Not even ten times as much death in hands of Allahu-Akbarites will cure you from that blindness, because you just refuse to see the awful totalitarian Muhammadian cult for the enemy that it actually is.

    Smaller nations cannot afford this type of blindness for long, but America is too huge to be woken up by anything less than Iranian or Pakistani nuclear attack.

  • .||

    I have my doubts as to whether even a nuclear attack would awaken some in America.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Sadly Amused Eurpoean, You are 100% right.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Now I could go for a big long thread of oversimplified bullshit.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    That's great and all, but I can't help but think that you are happy that the United States implicity subsidizes every European military with its own through treaties, agreements, etc. Tell me, when the muslim hordes siege Vienna for a second time, I'm sure you'll stand next to American soldiers forced to die on another continent by governments full of short-sighted and overpaid assholes deserving neither freedom or security.

  • JoshINHB||

    Right,

    And allowing the murderous pigs to build a symbol of victory on the WTC ruins will prevent all that.

    Jackass.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Despite what you think, not everyone of the Muslim faith (Full Disclosure: Religion is a bunch of Horseshit) are "muderous pigs". Yes, it may be a symbol of victory, blah blah blah, who gives a shit, get the sand out of your loose vagina. The worst thing you can do at this point (aside from mudering a bunch of "murderous pigs" for nothing other than a perceived visual and moral offense) is to call attention to this and give them all the free publicity they could ask for thus validating their so-called victory.

    Fuckface.

  • ||

    +7

  • ||

    "Despite what you think, not everyone of the Muslim faith (Full Disclosure: Religion is a bunch of Horseshit) are "muderous pigs". But they are stupid fucks like you!

  • ||

    Drax, sorry! I miss read your post.
    You redeemed yourself with this. "Full Disclosure: Religion is a bunch of Horseshit)"

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    No Problem Wegie. I wouldn't be caught dead wasting my time worshipping space gods anymore. There is far too many hookers and too much blow in the world to enjoy

  • ||

    Should have read misread.

  • JoshINHB||

    not everyone of the Muslim faith (Full Disclosure: Religion is a bunch of Horseshit) are "muderous pigs".

    Neither were most German NAZIs, but only dumbshit liberal tarians would accept a shrine to Hitler in a Jewish neighborhood.

    Shit for Brains.

  • mr simple||

    Yeah, a shrine for Hitler is equivalent to a mosque, you inbred redneck retarded fetus. I guess they shouldn't build churches in Germany since Hitler was christian. Or the south, since the KKK is christian. They own the property, they can build whatever the fuck they want on it, regardless of your infantile sensibilities.

    Also, it was nine years ago. While we should try to not allow something like this to happen again, get the fuck over it. New buildings need to be built and life has to go on. Life is for the living.

  • JoshINHB||

    since Hitler was christian.

    Hitler was not a Christian he hated christianity. You really don't know shit about history do you.

    And it is similar because Muslims believe their god commands them to kill infidels. To be a good moslem is to be a murderer.

    At least your name is accurate, douchebag.

  • ||

    And it is similar because Muslims believe their god commands them to kill infidels. To be a good moslem is to be a murderer.


    If more than a fraction of 1% of Muslims truly believed this, we'd have been annihilated long ago, and we certainly wouldn't have huge business and military presences in friendly Muslim countries. Try again, douchebag.

  • jtuf||

    From the Pew Center research I've seen, there where some Muslim majority countries back in 2000 where over 50% of the population beleived that suicide bombings were sometimes justified. But you are right, over 99% of those same people never commit terrorism. In other words, even among terrorist enthusists most people only like a terrorist attack when someone else is wearing the vest. That realization convinced me that we can assume we are working with rational egoists and proceed from there.

  • JoshINHB||

    over 50% of the population beleived that suicide bombings were sometimes justified...over 99% of those same people never commit terrorism. In other words, even among terrorist enthusists most people only like a terrorist attack when someone else is wearing the vest. That realization convinced me that we can assume we are working with rational egoists and proceed from there.

    Right,

    Because celebrating mass murder is rational.

  • jtuf||

    "Ration egoist" is a technical term for the self-serving selfish person. It is a basis for many theories on human behavior.

    Celebrating mass murder does make sense for a rational egoist given the results. The other guy kills himself during the murdering, not the celebrater. The friends and relatives of the murdered victims get scared and throw money and political concessions in the celebrator's direction. As long as we keep caving in to terrorism or dumping foreign aid on countries with terrorism, it is only rational for their countrymen to celebrate mass murder. Mass behavior tends to be brutish for simple evolutionary reasons.

  • Les||

    Try not to let the documented facts in the link cause your head to explode.

    http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

    Then again, you could go with that feeling.

  • ||

    Don't be so fucking stupid. Hitler was a Catholic, who became a Pan-Christian. He abhorred the 'bolshevik atheists.' Maybe you should read Mein Kampf or any decent history of the Third Reich.

    Stupid fucking shithead!

  • Jake Boone||

    I didn't realize they were building a shrine to Mohammad Atta. I thought they were just building a community center and mosque.

    But hey, obviously you have access to far more interesting "facts" than the rest of us have, eh, Josh?

  • JoshINHB||

    Try studying Islam, not the puff peice you got in intro to world religions.

  • Jake Boone||

    Non sequitur much?

    Your support for your implicit claim that they're building a shrine to Mohammed Atta (or maybe Osama bin Laden) is "try studying Islam"? Really?

    Do you actually have any capacity for rational debate? Or are you really so ignorant that you just don't realize that "Mohammed" and "Mohammed Atta" are not the same thing?

  • Les||

    So, in your mind, Muslim = Nazi. You're either 12 or retarded. Good luck to you.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Les, he's obviously played too much Call of Duty (1-Modern Warfare 2)and has lost touch with all reality. Since you shoot Nazis in 1-3, then the Arabs in MW1-2(by Neocon extrapolation) must be just as bad, and by (General Dumbassery) the Arabs in the real world must be just like them. Gotta love it. I wonder what Josh has to say about practicing muslims who have lived here their whole lives and celebrate the 4th of July. I bet they are all sleeper cells waiting to hear the code word from Allah. HAH.

  • Dirk||

    umm

  • Fiscal Meth||

    AHH...that hit the spot. Thanks guys.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Not you Josh

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Goddamn, you are so fucking funny, you know that? Turd Burglar.

    Oversimplified? I think equating all of your enemies to Nazis and Nazi sympathizers while thinking GI Joe was a documentary and not a moronic cartoon is far worse then recognizing the actual differences in our current situation. If these people are willing to blow themselves up because 1)Religion drove them nuts and 2)They want revenge, how would massive WW2 style casualties prevent either of those motivations? I suppose if you kill them all it might be feasible, but you forget that U.S. is now full of fucking idiots who couldn't plan a full scale invasion of the middle east while conjuring the spirit of General MacArthur.

    Fine, if you want your massive unjustified war, let's have it. Let's tax everyone at 70% and ration everything to kill a bunch of deluded dirt farmers, most of which are too busy/full of shit to actually come after us. I'm sure that would make the world a better place. Let's destroy all that wealth and give all that power to the very entity we should not trust with that power in the first place. I can't wait to tell my kids that the reason we will never have power and plenty again is because Uncle Sam had to punch Cousin Omar in the balls.

    They should have just hired fucking mercenaries to have brutally killed Bin Laden. Problem solved, no fuss, no muss. Oh well fuck it, we're screwed either way. I hope when I am held hostage by some nut job on a bus in 20 years who lost his family in America's "Campaign of Freedom" (or whatever horseshit they will call it) I can tell him Fiscal Meth thought it was justified right before my guts are splattered all over a city street.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "...thinking GI Joe was a documentary and not a moronic cartoon..."

    Well, now I know and knowing is half the battle.

  • Suki||

    +∞

    geugeon peulleoseu muhan, yeong-eo juseog pilteoibnida.

  • ||

    I love it when you talk dirty.

  • Suki||

    +1 ;)

  • ||

    No muslim no matter how liberal he professed to be would agree to anything like this with christians, jews, buddhists or any other group.

    Everyone has to belong to a group. The group must have an identity, which includes even for minorities, a place that is its own and is sacred to it. In the west, since we claim to be democratic, we are told that you can have nothing that is particular to you. That is racist and discriminatory and bigoted. But all around us, we see people very particular in their ways and about their identity, proud, totally disdaining mixing or assimilation, wanting to continue being what they are, and wanting to take over the places of others. No one would imagine for one second trying to build a church in a place important to Islam or anywhere in an Islamic nation. The whole nation is sacred to them. But to americans nothing is allowed to be sacred. And when americans object, the familiar refrain of racism or bigotry is chanted.

    But of course that is where we differ. Most liberals and libertarians reject the notion that people must belong to a group. But they only reject it for one type of people.

    The west is being asked not to have an identity, except for the identity of being tolerant, which means that ultimately the intolerant, those with strong identities, will destroy the west. It can’t be any other way.

    So far, the US has been a nation based mainly on western culture, which is why it is the way it is. Now we are told unless we submit to it being something entirely different, we are something called racists, which is bad. However, the others will never submit to such change in their native lands. Not only that, but when they come here, they espouse loyalty only to themselves, fly their own flags, and openly disdain the western nations.

    The meaning of Liberalism (I don’t mean leftism) is that you must not object to this. This will lead to the total abandonment of liberalism as a way to live.

    It comes down to what one believes about human nature. Can humans exist without any group identity? And why should one group more than others be forced to even attempt such a thing? Can different groups with very different cultures co exist in one nation.

    The truth that no one wants to admit is that tolerance and religious freedom and equality are limited for everyone, even for those who proclaim to be Liberal. It may turn out that the very notion of equality and democracy is false. After all, those who say they believe in it are always accused of hypocrisy and lying. But those who don’t say they want it, who openly say I am about this, and I don’t want you over here, no, you cannot convert my people, if you joke about my people, I will kill you, can never be accused of dishonesty.

    This sort of thing is only going to get worse and the west becomes more diverse.

  • Fluffy||

    The west is being asked not to have an identity, except for the identity of being tolerant, which means that ultimately the intolerant, those with strong identities, will destroy the west. It can’t be any other way.

    Right, except for the fact that American culture sweeps the fucking planet more every year, and our culture-of-no-culture is denounced by every cultural conservative worldwide, whether it's in France or Russia or China or Iran, and will ultimately piss on the ashes of every last non-tolerant culture.

    But yeah, other than that, the west is in danger of being "destroyed".

    The pathetic little bedwetting fantasies you guys come up with never cease to amaze me.

    To see Islam die all we have to do is run out the clock. That's it. Their clock is ticking just like all the petty European ethnic "cultures". They will be assimilated, and resistance is futile. Run out the clock, and not change our "culture of tolerance". That's all we have to do.

  • ||

    I think you are missing the point. Maybe we need to start embracing our cultural identity. Maybe there are some things we can no longer tolerate. Once some demographic has taken it upon itself to begin assimilating others through force or threat of force it becomes necessary to remove them like a cancerous growth.

  • ||

    Maybe there are some things we can no longer tolerate.


    Such as?

  • JoshINHB||

    To see Islam die all we have to do is run out the clock. That's it

    Nice fantasy

    Please cite where this has ever been the case.

    The one country that de-islamized, without being militarily conquered, was Turkey.

    Which is not sliding back towards into an openly Islamic country with Sharia.

  • jtuf||

    When cultures mix, the end result is normally an average of the original cultures. Concerted efforts can pust the end state a little in one direction or another. So, the best strategy is to pick your cultural battles wisely. Stand up strongly for property rights and equality under the law. Don't waste time preserving apple pie.

  • ||

    "When cultures mix, the end result is normally an average of the original cultures."

    Not sure about the accuracy of that. I can't help but think of the Mark Steyn theorem:
    "It's a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice cream and a quart of dog feces and mix 'em together, the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That's the problem with the U.N."

    I think I'll keep defending Apple Pie.

  • jtuf||

    The UN is a collection of government representatives, not a collection of populations. The majority of representatives at the UN come from dictatorships, so the average attitude at the UN is totaletarian.

  • ||

    there is not one example that anyone can name of a nation that stopped being Islamic, except southern Spain, where Isabella forced the moors out and rechristianized. Islam is not like other cultures; it does not assimilate and change. The entire premise of Islam is to change others to Islam. Probably you don't know this, but all the areas that are Islamic today, were once christian, hindu, buddhist or something else. Jihad changed them and they can never change to anything else. Furthermore the tendency is to become more conservative and fundamentalist, not less.

    I give Fluffy this much: he is not one of those liberals who says, oh, goody, our culture is being destroyed. he is one of the optimistic kind who says that eventually we can turn muslims in modern day western liberals. That will not happen. Liberals assume that liberalism is a natural condition desired by all and irresistable. It is not.

  • ||

    What the fuck? All the lands that are Christian now were formerly something else (mostly pagan). Christianity is about conversion, too, you dolt.

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    The Daijingu Temple is 5 miles from Pearl. Vacationers from Honolulu drive past it on their way to the Park.

    Somehow, locals and visitors alike deal with its presence without forgetting the Japanese attack.

  • ||

    I think of the Mosque was 5 miles from ground zero no one would have said anything.

  • Sadly Amused American||

    America has problems with immigration -- Europe has tragedies. Thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

  • ||

    +1, well said.

    Steve Chapman would do well to have a conversation with Dennis Prager about this.

  • ||

    The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not infringe on the freedom of speech, and that the government would "make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof." The people protesting this aren't calling for the government to ban this (for the most part), they (especially Ms. Palin) are asking the Muslim people to respect the site and the people who died their, and not build the mosque there.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    No American should think its okay to soil the sacred 911 ground with a mosque.

    What makes a murder scene “sacred”?

    The word “soil” is begging the question in a huge way.

    I’m glad to know what it is that no “Americans” should get to think. Can I come to you for instruction on the other things I “should” think.

    This article attempts to drag religion into the problem with the mosque being built on 911 sacred ground.

    And your entire post somehow doesn’t? If you weren’t bringing religion into it, why would you have a problem with the mosque? I’m certainly not atheist, but I have a real problem with chest-beating Christianity and its fetishization of 9/11. But that makes me not “American,” I guess.

  • Rabbit Scribe||

    American Muslims should object to a mosque "soiling" the landscape? So refreshing to encounter a straight-up, un-Reconstructed bigot these days.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    Was that in response to what I wrote, or what KK(K?) wrote? If it’s in response to what I wrote, I’m sorry, but I don’t follow at all.

  • .||

    ... but I have a real problem with chest-beating Christianity and its fetishization of 9/11.

    Somehow I doubt that it is "Christianity" that is fetishizing it - unless of course, you equate patriotism and self preservation with Christianity.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    Actually, many brands of Christianity do/did fetishize 9/11 as the start of the End Times, the apocalyptic final conflict between the followers of Jesus and the Antichrist. So year, “chest-beating Christianity” (not plain “Christianity”, you did rather misquote me by leaving out those words) has fetishized it: your response to it becomes a test to know which side you stand on...

  • .||

    your response to it becomes a test to know which side you stand on...

    Then it's a faulty test. I'm neither a Christian nor a believer in any other religion, but the tragedy of 9/11 affected me and means something to me. You can call that "fetishization" if you wish - I don't particularly give a damn.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    I never said it doesn’t matter. I was objecting to the hijacking of the matter by some Christian groups for their own blood and soil-type agenda.

    9/11 matters to me as well, but I’m not going to get my panties in a wad over a mosque nearby the WTC site. If I care about 9/11 and what it means, frankly there are much bigger fish to fry, and getting worked up over the mosque may actually be counterproductive to the whole notion of trying to overcome this conflict.

  • Fluffy||

    The problem is that you are a fucking idiot.

    You do realize that in what we can for the sake of the discussion call the "War on Terror", Muslims are our allies in at least six nations?

    So you're basically arguing that the "sacred ground" in question would be despoiled by the presence of our allies.

    That's one of the many reasons that people like Beck who talk about "Japanese Cultural Centers Near Pearl Harbor" are fucking morons with absolutely no sense either of history or of the current geopolitical situation. If there had been a North Japan and a South Japan, and North Japan had attacked us but South Japan was our ally, anyone who walked around talking about how all Japanese people should hide themselves away to not give offense to people's "raw" wounds would be an unbelievable douche and would be insulting our ally to boot.

  • The Gobbler||

    Bull shit. They chose the name Cordoba for a reason.

  • ||

    Because the Cordoba Initiative (which existed long before this proposal) is funding it? So what? Will this offend the NYC portion of the 8th century Andalusian diaspora?

  • Mo||

    The mosque is just as close to city hall as it is to Ground Zero. Of course, calling it the City Hall Mosque wouldn't annoy anyone.

  • jtuf||

    On 9/11, a piece of the one plane that flew into the World Trade Center landed through the roof of the current building on Ground Zero Mosque building site. It is valid to connect that land to Ground Zero.

  • Brandon||

    What "sacred ground"? The "mosque" (community center) will be TWO BLOCKS AWAY! Got it? I don't think even Bloomberg would let someone build right over the 9/11 attack site. You people are such idiots.

    And 9/11? That's not an argument! It's an event! How long do these people need to grieve? 50 years? 9 years is a pretty fucking long time. You guys act like 9/11 happened just yesterday. Move on already. Stop living in the past.

  • ||

    Picture if you will...Suppose there were a heavily Muslim neighborhood in New York, with mosques, religious schools, and shops with meat prepared according to Islamic dietary rules. Suppose an evangelical church wanted to build a chapel there, Only after a few year where over 3000 muslims died innocent DEATHS. Well hell's bells, I'm sure they would roll out the red carpet. I swear to all things holy people in this nation have their heads up their tails. In other nations, and you can pick one, THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN. America has gone weak with all this PR crap. I lost friends when the towers went down, I lost family in this war... and IF they build that tower.. thats fine.. But I will exercise my rights by shooting my friends with water guns filled with pigs blood. and if innocent gets hit.. well I guess thats just Allah's will.

  • Rabbit Scribe||

    They can build whatever they please on their property. And if you commit the felony of battery (any unwanted touching, including spitting, squirting, etc.) we'll put you in a cage for a year or so, just like everybody else.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, If the thought of some one having issues with a false religion, who only promotes harmful act and child raping bugs you. But A cage is what we all are in already.. so you need a better threat then that.

  • ||

    I thought we were talking about a mosque, not a Catholic monastery/church.

  • ||

    Mohammed the Perfect Man (pbuhomgwtfbbq) was a baby rapist, too, you know.

  • ||

    So it is rumored. God impregnated a young teenage virgin and left Joseph with the fallout. Who fucking cares?

  • Fluffy||

    Abraham was also a rapist. So what?

  • Erisian||

    And willing to murder his son because some *voice* told him to.

  • jtuf||

    Please cite the verse that shows this, Fluffy.

  • nobody||

    False religion?! Hah!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Redudant, no?

  • ||

    +1

  • Some Guy||

    In other nations, and you can pick one, THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

    That's why I live here. Because we still care about freedom (at least more than others.)

    So you can go pick and choose any of those other countries to live in if bigotry and/or theocracy is what floats your boat.

  • Law Student||

    +1

  • ||

    +10

    I'm sick of the "they wouldn't accept it in the Middle East!" argument. We're supposed to be better than them. That's the whole damn point. I don't understand for one second the argument that we should sink to their level.

  • ||

    It's not just that, though. It IS accepted in the Middle East. I've seen it with my own damn eyes. So basically they're taking a lie as an article of faith and arguing against it. That's basically the definition of a straw man.

    That said, we ARE still a whole lot better than most of the rest of the world at the whole religious tolerance thingy.

  • ||

    Americans have built a shrine/church/monument at or near a place where Americans conducted a terrorist sneak attack?

    And you've seen this with your own eyes?

  • ||

    That wasn't the point I was answering, dumbfuck.

    As long as we're missing the point: what sort of shrine would "Americans" build?

  • ||

    Aside from military bases, that is.

  • jtuf||

    It depends on which Middle Eastern government. The PA has a law against selling any land to a Jew.

  • ||

    Of course it does. I didn't indicate that it's accepted EVERYWHERE in the ME.

  • jtuf||

    Okay ... Educate me. Which country did you see it in?

  • ||

    UAE.

  • jtuf||

    UAE has more religious freedoms than its neighbors, but it does ban the public distribution of non-Muslim religious literature.

  • ||

    I thought the question was freedom of worship and existence of houses of worship? Do you enjoy moving the goalposts?

  • jtuf||

    Sorry I drifted off the topic. This is from the USA State Department. Non-Muslims must ask the government for permission to build a temple. The page does not mention similar requirement for Muslims. Also crosses and curchbells are banned, although they sometimes are allowed. So, the UAE is better than most Middle Eastern Countries, a bit worse that Switzerland, and much worse than what the Tea Party folks are proposing.


    Non-Muslim groups can own houses of worship, where they can practice their religion freely, by requesting a land grant and permission from the local ruler to build a compound (the title for the land remains with the ruler). Those with land grants are not charged rent on this property. The Emirate of Sharjah also waives utility payments for religious buildings. There is no national standard for granting official status to religious groups or approving land grants. Rather, rulers of the individual emirates exercise autonomy in choosing whether to grant access to land and permission to build houses of worship within their emirate. The lack of clear guidelines can present a barrier to the acquisition of official status, leading to confusion and delay; a handful of requests were pending, some for years. Religious groups without dedicated buildings of worship often use the facilities of other religious groups or worship in private homes. There were no reports of government interference in this common practice.


    Even though Christians represent a minority of the non-Muslim population, their facilities for worship outnumber those of other non-Muslim communities. The Government appears to look upon Christian congregations more favorably when considering land grants for houses of worship.


    There are at least 33 Christian churches in the country built on land donated by the ruling families of the emirates in which they are located. In some cases, chapels are clustered in close proximity to one another or in locations some distance from the residential areas in which their congregation members live, effectively limiting attendance. Four emirates are home to Christian primary and secondary schools, in which students are generally free to study Christianity and perform religious rituals. The Emirates of Abu Dhabi and Dubai donated land for Christian cemeteries, and Abu Dhabi also donated land for a Baha'i cemetery.


    The Government does not permit churches to display crosses on the outside of their premises or to erect bell towers; however, this restriction is not always enforced, and some churches display cross designs on their buildings. Some churches were overcrowded and conducted services or masses in open courtyards on special occasions due to limited space. There was no government interference within church compounds. As the Government does not recognize or permit conversion from Islam to another religion, churches accept converts from all religions except Islam.
  • Fluffy||

    Please die in a fire.

    Thanks.

  • ||

    Even in places WITHOUT true religious freedom, there are Christian churches in majority Muslim lands (UAE, Qatar, Turkey, even Iran). There certainly are Christian churches in places that are less overwhelmingly Muslim (Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia)

  • ||

    Shit, add Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt (who have quite a large number of very old Christian churches).

  • Southern Baptist||

    Coptic Christians don't count.

  • ||

    Why not?

  • ||

    We can add Ethiopia to that list. It's the cradle of at least two early Christian sects, and has a sizable Muslim population.

  • jtuf||

    Sizable, but not the majority. In that respect it is like Russia. Ethiopia is a Christian nation at heart. It was never conqured when Muslims colonized Africa.

  • jtuf||

    The B'hai are forbidden from practicing their relgion in Iran. The Iranian government does not recognize any relgion the started after Islam, because they believe that Islam is the last word of G-d. So, Protestants would be out of luck there.

  • ||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

    Jesus, make an effort.

  • jtuf||

    Wikipeida? Come on.

  • jtuf||

    Sorry, Timon. I was assuming to much common knoweledge. Read this and catch up.

    The oppression Baha'is face in Iran.

  • ||

    I don't recall disputing the Baha'i aspect. You said Protestants "would be out of luck" in Iran. The Wiki link throws that assertion into question.

    Is there something you find fault with on the Wiki link? Wikipedia is not a great primary source, but it's very often a 1st source for initial facts. Best of all, it's editable, so if you have contradictory information, such as that there are not 600 Christian churches there and that several Protestant denominations are among them, by all means, fix the page.

  • jtuf||

    You have not shown any articles about the current legal status of Protestants in Iran. Iran was not a theocracty until the Cater administration. Were those Protestant churches built after 1980?

  • jtuf||

    Read up on the persecution of Christians in Iran. It is not exactly rosy there. You can go to the websites list of countries that oppress Christians. It includes Saudi Arabia, where spreading non-Muslim faiths is illegal along with printing, importing, or distributing non-Muslim religious material; Egypt, where Copic Christians face discrimination when ever they try to work on their churches; Turkey, where Christian organizations are not allowed to buy land; and several other countries. Read the rest sometime. I'm not here to spoon feed you Timon.

    By the way, my name is not Jesus. I haven't be called that since I was a teenager.

  • ||

    Did I say it was rosy in Iran? No. I provided a link that calls into question your assertion about the effective absence of Protestant churches.

    I'm well aware that Saudi is an intolerant shithole. Saudi was never brought up as a place that has Christian churches. I'm also aware of the violence involving the Copts in Egypt. The point is that they are allowed to worship.

    Also, as I've said before, a link that cheerleads for one side or the other is rarely free of bias and cannot be trusted to objectively report.

    BTW, your site didn't see fit to give Turkey a persecution rating.

  • jtuf||

    I said that Iran does not recognize religions that were created after Islam. State recogniztion of a relgion has legal ramifications in Iran. Life is not great for the Jews of Iran, but it is even worse for members of religions that the Iranian government does not recognize. I didn't make any statement about the presence or absence of Protestant churches in Iran. If you have evidence that the Iranian government recognizes Protestant denominations, please present it.

  • jtuf||

    The page on Iran didn't have a rating either. Try reading the body of the text. The page on Turkey says:


    A separate government agency, the General Directorate for Foundations (Vkiflar Genel Mudurlugu), regulates some activities of “non-Muslim” religious groups and their affiliated churches. There are 161 “minority foundations” recognized by the Vakiflar, including approximately 70 Greek Orthodox foundations and 50 Armenina Orthodox foundations. This group also includes Syrian Christians, Chaldeans and Maronites.

    In 1936, the Government required all foundations to declare their sources of income. In 1973, amid political tensions over Cyprus, the High Court of Appeals ruled that minority foundations had no right to acquire properties beyond those listed in the 1936 declarations continuing today.

    You are grasping at straws, Timon.

  • ||

    I did read the body. There was a lot of "one the one hand...on the other hand" type of language while still saying it's oppressive. Well no shit that a website specifically focused on finding instances of oppression of Christians would cite instances of oppression of Christians.

  • jtuf||

    You mean like how the NORMAL website focuses on marijuana laws?

    The topic at hand was the right to build temples. You read my source that says Turkey makes it illegal for non-Muslim organizations to buy land. That means you knew the Turkish governmnet makes it impossible for non-Muslims to build new temples. Instead of acknowledging that fact, you brought up the lack of a ranking as a red herring. When I posted the relevant paragraphs from the source, your response boils down to, "You can't trust those Christians to be honest about the pursecution of Christians." If anything, the presence of the "on the one hand" language should show that the website is fair and balanced.

  • jtuf||

    Timon, the debate is not over the existance of temples. The debate is over the right of people from all religions to build temples. Have you seen any non-Muslims building temples in the countries you mentioned? What was the process like? Do you have evidence of tolerance there that contradicts the report of religious freedom from the USA State Department?

  • Mo||

    Last I checked we built churches in Iraq.

  • Mo||

    And by churches, I mean chapels on American bases. The mosque in question is just a place of prayer within a community center.

  • Zeb||

    Muslims lost friends in the twin towers too, asshole. This isn't Christians vs. Muslims, it's fuckers who think it is OK to kill lots of innocent people vs. people who don't. And I don't give a fuck what other countries would do.

  • ||

    Plenty of muslims did die innocent deaths in that neighborhood you stupid fucking cunt!

    Biggest tragedy of 9/11- you weren't one of the victims- you fucking Christian cocksucker!

  • ||

    Wow. Apparently this is why my subscription to Reason expired - its content follows the views of its readership.

    To this date nobody has yet provided ANY proof that crazy Muslims did 9/11; in fact the FBI doesn't even list 9/11 as being an event for which Bin Laden is wanted and this is because there was NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE.

    We have since invaded and occupied two nations, are threatening another with attack, doing drone flyovers another one killing thousands of innocents a year and prodding two others throughout the year. Muslims have not gained but have lost a lot from 9/11.

    Always ask who gains in all things. That's the one who did it.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Wait, so the hijackers on 9/11 were not Muslims? Care to prove that one?

    Oh, I get it... You're a truther. Should I hold Reynolds Wrap responsible for 9/11? Someone had to profit from the hats you idiots wear.

  • toaster||

    +10

  • Untermensch||

    If Troofers are the ones talking about unsubscribing, do we have to drink?

    Muslims have not gained but have lost a lot from 9/11… Always ask who gains in all things. That's the one who did it.

    Not at all. Sometimes other take advantage of things that have happened. By your “logic,” if Company A makes a bad product and Company B gains a lot from it, Company B is the one that really made the bad product. You ignore the very real possibilities that (a) people’s plans often backfire horrendously and (b) opportunists exist.

  • ||

    +5

  • Chris||

    Shorter sharpinchitown:

    It's teh Joos!

  • .||

    O.J.???!!!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    He drove his Bronco into WTC 7.

  • Suki||

    He was just trying to get his trading cards back.

  • ||

    It seems to me that nutcase conspiracy theorists gained more from 9/11 than anybody. I guess you Truthers did it, then?

  • ||

    +1

  • MWG||

    Your right. It must have been the US. We've invaded two muslim countries and have gained a lot from both occupations.

  • Mr Whipple||

    For some conservatives, anything Muslim has no place there anywhere in the US.

  • ||

    For some liberals, anything christian has no place anywhere in the US

    Works in 360 degrees I guess.

  • Zeb||

    Most of the liberals I know are Christian. And none that I know who are not Christian think anything like what you suggest. But I suppose at least one thinks that way, so I can't say you are wrong.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Inverted images would be 180 degress, you dumbass.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Gah - I hereby publicly renounce joe'z law. Bring me the head of joe on a platter!

  • ||

    hmm...Mr. Whipple's 180 degree view plus my 180 degree inverted image equals, why, yes, math is sooo hard! Dumbassedness in your mirror.

  • ||

    Wow you're a retarded troll.

  • ||

    No mosque there. Life's unfair.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Oy. I hope this isn't a representative random sample of Reason's readership. Maybe it's only cranks and losers who hit the computer before eight am. Right on, Stevo! Your best column in years!

  • .||

    I note that your post is time-stamped at 7:36 AM, Vanneman.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    You're so right, dude. That was, like, a joke.

  • .||

    But you didn't smile! And as you say, it was only like a joke - not actually one. ;-)

  • The Gobbler||

    Shouldn't you be at home working on your next Michael Chabon novel?

  • jtuf||

    Don't worry, only the articles about Islam, Israel, or immigration turn into brawls. When prostitutes, drugs, and porn come up, we're all togther.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Suppose there were a heavily Muslim neighborhood in New York, with mosques, religious schools, and shops with meat prepared according to Islamic dietary rules. Suppose an evangelical church wanted to build a chapel there. And suppose local Muslims tried to block it as a flagrant insult to them.

    That's not what is happening Mr. Chapman. This mosque is being built as a memorial to the 9-11 hijackers. If you can't see that, you're all kinds of willfully ignorant.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    This mosque is being built as a memorial to the 9-11 hijackers. If you can't see that, you're all kinds of willfully ignorant.

    Cite, please. You are making a statement of fact that I have seen nowhere substantiated except in the imagination of folks in the fever swamps of places like RedState. The burden of proof is on you now to show how your assertion is true since you are the one positing it. And simply calling someone “ignorant” for no agreeing with you is not an argument against anyone but you.

    What way would you propose for a Moslem group to show that it is committed to the American vision and playing a positive role in the community? Or is “get the hell out” your only answer to Moslems?

  • JoshINHB||

    What way would you propose for a Moslem group to show that it is committed to the American vision and playing a positive role in the community?

    Publicly denounce terrorism.

    Live like americans.

    Cease murdering upitty women.

    Publicly denouce sharia law.

    When American "muslim" nations do those things I'll believe they're Americans practicing religion instead or threats.

  • .||

    They might also publicly denounce fatwahs and other assassination contracts put out by the lunatic imams.

  • jesus||

    Yeah, because American Muslims don't watch the NFL, eat fast food, or drive SUVs. Nope. No American Muslim or American Muslim organization has ever denounced terror. Nope. Never. And all American Muslims do honor killings.

    ...

    If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is the kind of Us vs Them "ALL _______S ARE EVIL AND MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS" thinking that usually leads to apartheid or worse.

  • Suki||

    The truth is out there. Go look it up.

  • ||

    What part of "cite, please" do you not understand? You've just employed one of the top tactics of the Truther community. Well done.

  • ▲ ▲||

    http://is.gd/dC7O1

  • ▲ ▲||

    And by that, I mean http://is.gd/dC7O1

  • ||

    I ain't clicking on that at work. Random collections of characters in a URL are not to be trusted.

  • ▲ ▲||

    Probably smart. Here's the original link: http://media.giantbomb.com/upl....._super.png. Try to figure out what it is from the URL.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Cite, please"

    Caliphate of Córdoba.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_Córdoba

  • ||

    You posted a Wikipedia entry about 8th-16th century Spain/Andalusia as a citation that this mosque is built as a memorial to the 9/11 hijackers?

    I think you're going to have to be a bit more specific and actually address the question.

  • Mo||

    So Campus Crusade for Christ wants to invade and occupy Jerusalem? Those sneaky bastards.

  • ||

    From that link:

    "Córdoba was the cultural epicenter of al-Andalus.[12] Mosques, such as The Great Mosque, were the focal point of many Caliphs' attentions. Córdoba was the intellectual centre of al-Andalus, with translations of ancient Greek texts to Arabic, Latin and Hebrew. Appreciable advances in science, history, geography, philosophy and grammar occurred during the Caliphate.[13] Al-Andalus became susceptible to eastern cultural influences as well. Ziryab is credited on bringing hair and clothing styles to the Iberian peninsula (as well as toothpaste and deodorant)."

    Sounds terrible don't it?

  • .||

    Appreciable advances in science, history, geography, philosophy and grammar occurred during the Caliphate.

    Actual advances, ie., new stuff - or just preservation and introduction of the same from much more ancient cultures such as the Greeks, Babylonians, Chinese, etc.?

  • ||

    Jesus, does it fucking matter that much?

  • .||

    It does if you are living in it. Was it a culture conducive to discovery, invention, human progress, etc. - or was it sterile and conservative, preserving only the traditions of the past?

  • ahem||

    Believe it or not Muslims have contributed quite a bit to human progress. Ever hear of them "ARABIC NUMERALS", or do you prefer the non-terrorist Roman kind?

  • The Gobbler||

    ^^THIS^^

  • High School Dropout||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_crusades

    We should start tearing down Catholic churches in NYC immediately.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Fine! Even Better!

  • affenkopf||

    The mosque is not at ground zero, it's two blocks away. You can't even see it from ground zero. Also it is not a new building. The mosque will be located in a existing building.

  • The Gobbler||

    "The mosque is not at ground zero, it's two blocks away"

    Bullshit.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_1810714

  • ||

    Now you're citing your own posts in the same thread? It's two blocks away. The buildings currently there were damaged by debris from the WTC complex. The two things are only related by debris flung by the destruction of WTC1 & 2.

  • ||

    "The two things are only related by debris flung by the destruction of WTC1 & 2".
    Oh ,that's all.Just a little debris.So if it wasn't for the 9/11 attacks they wouldn't have been damaged.Read your own post,contradict yourself much ?

  • ||

    If it wasn't for the 9/11 attacks, NYPD and transit cops wouldn't be performing random pat-downs of people. So?

  • jtuf||

    Like I said above, a part of one plane that flew into the World Trade Center landed inside the current building on the site for the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.

  • TXLimey||

    Agree that the two situations posited aren't really equivalent, and I would guess a church being built in a 'muslim' neighborhood were some radical christian had recently slaughtered thousands of innocent muslims, the protests would make this one look like, well, nothing. Odds are if a neighborhood was sufficiently muslim in character that the residents essentially considered the are "theirs" you'd get protests like this one even without that context.

    Then there's the idea that only a tiny portion of American muslims are violent extremists. That's true, but it's also largely irrelevant. The issue is the number of American muslims who are sympathetic to violent extremists, and whether or not this mosque in particular is likely to cater to them. If they allow them to build it and what we get is daily praising of the 9/11 'martyrs', well, aside from being morally sickening the end result is likely to end badly.

    Finally, religious buildings, just like any other, are subject to zoning, planning permissions, etc. before they are built. Unless Sullum is advocating that all laws of the land must be thrown out whenever a religious institution is involved, a citizens group arguing against the granting of such permissions is hardly the jack-booted foot of christian hegemony stamping down on the neck of freedom.

  • affenkopf||

    Finally, religious buildings, just like any other, are subject to zoning, planning permissions, etc. before they are built.

    The ground zero mosque (actaully two blcoks away from gz) is located in an existing building. No building permission required.

  • jtuf||

    The proposed Islamic Center will be new construction. The owners plan to tear down a 19th century building to make room for it. That building was designed by an architect who made other New York City buildings that got landmark status. I highly doubt the city would allow these construction plans to go through in their current form if it wasn't intended for a mosque.

  • Fluffy||

    Well, actually, your comment demonstrates very nicely that all zoning and land use laws are always designed in bad faith and employed in bad faith.

    Anyone who was actually, you know, a libertarian would in fact say that they should all be thrown out, not only for religious institutions but for everyone.

  • High School Dropout||

    If zoning boards were universally restricting the building of all churches within a two block radius of ground zero due to zoning restrictions you would have a leg to stand on, but I don't believe this is the case.

    And regarding your point concerning the potential speech being inflammatory: they certainly don't need to build a mosque to praise 9/11 martyrs if that's their ultimate aim, unless you're proposing some sort of speech restriction zone around the site.

  • .||

    Restricting the building of all churches misses the point.

    Its the Muslims. We have to get rid of all the evil manipulative Muslims who live among us and pretend to be Americans BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

  • Law Student||

    We managed just fine in Houston without all those silly zoning laws. Many libertarians would advocated throwing out all those "laws of the land." Further, using those laws to specifically prohibit a certain religious group from building a place a worship is an example of why those laws shouldn't exist.

  • ||

    "We managed just fine in Houston without all those silly zoning laws"

    Houston ? One of the most gawd awful examples of urban sprawl ever.

  • zoltan||

    There's a good reason why it's one of the cheapest places to live and one of the easiest to get a job in right now. Would you rather have beauty and restriction and poverty altogether? Or ugliness, freedom, and relative wealth due to the low cost of living?

    (Heh, I'm sure many women and men ask themselves the same question of their partners.)

  • jtuf||

    Um. Look at the Huston skyline sometimes. You'll see that Huston is a cluster of neighborhoods and that each one has a collection of skyscrappers in the middle. That a very good balance of building up and preserving open space. If you want to see sprawl, visit me here in the overly zoned Jersey suburbs.

  • jtuf||

    +5 to Law Student's comment.Let's throw out the zoning laws.

  • MJ||

    I saw on CNN the other day an interview with the man behind this Muslim Center. One of the reasons he gave that the center should not be opposed is that on 9-11 the USA was attacked by "terrorists" not "Islam". What struck me about this was seeing here the complaints about the term "War on Terror", because terrorism is just a tactic. But this guy was absolutely adamant that 9-11 should only be described as the work of terrorists.

    I think part of this response is that we as a society have been walking on eggshells to avoid offending Muslims, and people don't see much concern from the Muslim community to avoid offending the rest of us.

  • People Power Hour||

    Uh, the 9/11 attacks WAS the work of terrorists, not Islam as a whole. Or are you trying to say the terrorist attacks perpetrated by McVie, et al was the work of Christians as a whole?

  • ||

    Was McVeigh even a Christian?

    McVeigh wasn't screaming 'For Jesus!' as he blew up the building. The (/11 terrorists WERE yelling 'allahu akbar'.

    Christians aren't selling Glorious McVeigh t-shirts and memorabilia. Google Glorious 19.

  • JoshINHB||

    on 9-11 the USA was attacked by "terrorists" not "Islam".

    Damn straight.

    Further,

    The crusades were perpetrated by knights, not Christianity.

    The holodomor was caused by bureaucrats not collectivism.

  • ||

    +5

  • Zeb||

    Not apt and not relevant.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Why not? and why not?

  • ||

    The crusades were perpetrated by CATHOLICS, not Christianity.

    fixed

  • Fiscal Meth||

    +1

  • Amateur Sociologist||

    "But the real question is: What part of "no law" does she not understand?"

    Perhaps Steve Chapman can point out where Sarah Palin has called for government/legal action against the Cordoba Mosque?

    From the article it appears that all she has done is to call for the Moslem leaders in this to not be "provocative" and to voluntarily withdraw their plans. The tenuous attempt to tie Palin to something someone in the Tea Party leadership said is pretty slimy on Chapman's part.

  • People Power Hour||

    She also called on New Yorkers to actively work to keep this mosque from being built. Since New Yorkers have no means to do so without resorting to governmental coersion, I believe Chapman is correct.

  • Amateur Sociologist||

    "Since New Yorkers have no means to do so without resorting to governmental coersion, I believe Chapman is correct."

    New Yorkers can't protest (just cause an embarassing stink) without it resulting in government action?

  • Some Guy||

    It appears that you are unfamiliar with New Yorkers.

  • Amateur Sociologist||

    "It appears that you are unfamiliar with New Yorkers."

    LOL-well, maybe. But I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and my larger point is that unless Chapman can show that Palin has called for something that is an explicit violation of the 1st Amendment clause he cites above his whole take here is pretty low.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • jtuf||

    There are exceptions. The Gay Pride Parade each year in New York City is a good example.

  • jtuf||

    Oh, there's also the Union protest and the occasional Al Sharpton shake downs.

  • Ben||

    At the very least, this is just rude behavior. Society permits it, but frowns on it nonetheless. To pretend that it's religious discrimination requires a willful ignorance of that fact.

    It doesn't matter that it's a Mosque. If wanted to build a gigantic "Prayer Center" at the center of Ground Zero, you would here the same complaints, just from different people.

    What's wrong with putting up something non-controversial? Maybe something like two massive office buildings surrounded by a complex? Maybe you could throw in a memorial for the victims, and let the buildings stand as a reminder that you can push us around, but we'll get back up again. Or would that be too old-fashioned?

  • Ben||

    So it doesn't like the greater than/less than signs...

    Should read "If (insert your favorite televangelist here) wanted to build a gigantic "Prayer Center"...

  • ||

    The comments are in basic html. Since "<" and "> are used as the flags for html commands (eg "<b> and "</b>"), they can't be used as is without saying to the browser that what follows the less than is a command. You can use html entities, though. For less than, type "&lt;". For greater than, "&gt;". Hope that helps.

  • affenkopf||

    Again: The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero and can't be seen from there. Also it's in an existing building, no new mosque is being built there, a mosque is put in a building already there.

  • jtuf||

    Again, affenkopf, you don't have your facts straight. The owners plan to knock down the current building on the site and build a new Islamic Center. A part of one plane that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11 landed in that current building.

  • DBN||

    At the very least, this is just rude behavior. Society permits it, but frowns on it nonetheless.

    Absolutely correct!

    Oh, wait, you're talking about the builders of the community center. Nevermind.

  • ||

    Recently, in Detroit, at a fair with an Arabic/Islamic basis, evangelical Christians wanted to walk around and proselytise. They were attacked.

    Now, their version of events was riddled with drama, the 'attacks' were not like those they'd suffer from saying 'Merry Christmas' in Riyadh, but they were attacked. Police escorted them away.

    There was an 'official' Christian booth at the fair and the Muslim organizers thought that was enough. They fought to prevent the wandering evangelicals from getting in at all.

    So, maybe you've got a point--of course, the evangelicals were forced to leave.....so maybe that whole First Amendment thing doesn't apply to Islam.

    Being a faith that does not have a seperation between church and state puts them in an odd place with regards to the First Amendment. Yes, they should be allowed to worship as they please---but an integral party of that worship is a societal structure that is not only wildly at odds with the one whose amendment is protecting them, but one that ecourages the spread of the faith/social system by any means necessary.

    It's hard to allow the 'free expression of religion' when part of that free expression is the overthrow of our society--violently if need be.

    And we must take into account the meanings of their symbols. We already abide by their proscription on showing images of their prophet, so we've already accepted that the 'establishment clause' exempts Islam.

    But what is the meaning of the Cordoba mosque? Is it the same as the one we get from the Hagia Sofia? From the Dome of the Rock? From the destroyed Buddha statues? Because it might be. All those things are symbols of Islamic conquest. Could the mosque in the former Burlington Coat Factory be the same?

    You know something? I'd do some research into how accepting Muslims are of churches being built in their neighborhoods. And some research into how the State reacts. Because, see, it's the States' reaction that's important--not sarah Palins'.

  • jacob||

    [citations needed]

  • ||

  • Mo||

    I'm sure Christians would be pissed if Muslims or Hare Krishnas went to a Christian Festival and tried to convert people there. I don't get what your point is. They weren't asked to leave because of their religion, but because they were moving around trying to convert people.

  • ||

    "They weren't asked to leave because of their religion, but because they were trying to convert people."

    But, if their particular flavor of Christianity requires them to spread the gospel to non-believers, then they were being religiously persecuted and their First Amendment rights were nullified by the event planners.

    This has a little to do with the argument in the story, but it needs to be discussed. A large problem in America is the diminished right of religious people to exercise all requirements of his/her religion the way they see fit, be it proseletyzing (sp?), prayer vigils in public schools or universities, excluding non-believers from leadership or voting positions within it's own fraternal organizations at public universities, etc.

    More than a few Christians have been made to sacrifice many of the strictest tenets of their particular sects because of convoluted definitions of the 1st Amendment. They pushed their views all the way to the Supreme Court, and upon losing have either submitted to the law or have faced the consequences in a mostly-passive manner. (If there have been violent uprisings when school prayer, etc have been outlawed, I can't remember any.) I hope our Muslim brethren are able to react in a similar fashion when an overzealous Supreme Court diminishes their ability to pray in schools or beat their wives or sexually mutilate their infant daughters.

    Note: That last sentence was not meant to denigrate Muslims, but certain sects practice those things as a rite of passage in their faith....even here.

  • jacob||

    Thank you

    So the muslims didn't throw the evangelicals out, it was the cops. Were the cops muslim? Also, was there an 'attack?' This was mentioned in Azathoth's post but not in the article you posted.

  • ||

    Private activity. They rented the site, they get to control attendance. Easy enough.

    I don't care "how accepting Muslims are of churches being built in their neighborhoods". Doesn't matter a bit. Even if they reacted the same way as the people who are protesting this cultural center/mosque. It doesn't matter. The argument for why this has to be allowed doesn't change.

    We're not 5 years old. The "but he did it first!" argument doesn't work when you're an adult.

  • ||

    +a lot

  • ||

    I'm afraid your argument is a good example of moral solipsism.

    There's also a psychology at work. Harvard's Ruth Wisse calls it "moral solipsism"—obsessive regard for your own moral performance; complete indifference to the performance of those who wish you ill.
  • Fluffy||

    Then Ruth Wisse is a stupid cunt.

    OF COURSE my own moral performance is my primary concern.

  • ||

    As a gay man and an atheist I don't have a luxury of focusing exclusively on my own moral performance. I occasionally have to pay attention to the performance of those folks who spread hatred towards people like me.

  • WTF||

    And why did those evangelical Christians want to walk around and proselytize at a Muslim fair, other than to be annoying pricks? Sounds like they were doing the exact thing many are now accusing the mosque builders of doing. They were sticking their thumb in the eye of the muslims holding the fair. They got exactly what they wanted - attention.

  • zoltan||

    The problem was that a private group was "renting" public land (I don't think they actually paid anything) so this creates confusion between who is allowed and who is not allowed to be there. I doubt this event had a registration desk.

    As for the "Christians" there, they were of the most obnoxious sort--more interested in making others look bad than their supposed interest in saving souls.

  • ||

    Well, according to the California University System (and the Supreme Court), the Christian gatecrashers should have not only been allowed in, but they should have been involved in the planning of the event, right down to the ham sammiches they would have wanted on the menu. It was on public use land after all, so if they were not granted equal access and equal protection to exercise their beliefs, then their 1st Amendment rights were taken away. IMO, they should sue the event planers, the property owners, the police and the person who signed the use permit. Then we'd see if the 1st Amendment actually guarantees people the right TO religion, or only guarantees people the right FROM religion.

  • Some Guy||

    Incorrect interpretation of the ruling. They shouldn't be allowed to use the land for free if they wanted to control what was going on and who was allowed in.

    Now if they paid for it at some rate which would be available to any group, then I'd be fine with it.

  • ||

    They are an Arabic Christian group. It was an Arabic fair as well.

  • jtuf||

    Dude, proselytizing is a central tennent of Christianity. I lost count of how many times Christians tried to proselytize me in college a decade ago. They still knocked on my door once in a while. I just say "no thanks". There is no reason to drive them out of a fair.

  • ||

    Proselytizing is interpreted in about as many ways as there are denominations in Christianity, and probably even more ways than that. My particular Evangelical Lutheran Church growing up actively discouraged open, public proselytizing of the type seen in Detroit and by the zillions of mega-church denominations in favor of committed, organized missions and private conversations.

  • jtuf||

    OK. Spreading the faith is a central tennent of many Christian denominations. Prohibbiting members of those denominations from spreading their faith violates their rights. If the fair was on privately owned land, then they can be kicked out. If it is in a public park, then they can't be kicked out.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Concerning this subject, Pat Condell eloquently speaks truth to power.

  • ||

    Yeah, baby.

  • ||

    In summary, Sarah Palin is a caricature.

  • ||

    You just have to laugh at Reason "libertarians" and their quaint naivety. Their proclivity to political correctness and tolerance. Their pathetic lack of knowledge of the staples of Islam and why building a mosque THERE is a clear political message and a provocation rather than just an exercise of "freedom" as if a majority of Muslims even know the word.
    "Libertarians" defending the rights of a totalitarian, fascist, expansionist ideology to grow in freedom in a nation that doesn't have the first clue how to respect property rights when it comes to people NOT interested in cultural and religious conquest, victimhood and rampant hatred of Jews, gays and contempt for women and everything not groveling before the feet of Allah.
    Ayaan Hirsi Ali cannot even move in America because of threats to her life by 'guess who'. The likes of SouthPark's bosses quake in their shoes to the point where the first ammendment is rendered meaningless.
    How's the woman who called for "Mohammed cartoon day" doing?
    Isn't the future looking better for the cause of liberty every new day?
    Is this what they mean with "beltway libertarian"? That they are utterly self-destructive and hopelessly moronic in their refusal to analyse real-life consequences of tolerating intolerance personified?
    Building a mosque there is not a sign of "peace" but a sign of "victory". Anyone who has studied Islam even remotely would know this. But to make conclusions based on a harsh reality wouldn't be in line with the pathetic concept of multiculturalism, now would it?

  • ||

    Tony, you win the award for the best bed-wetting, pants-shitting satire on a Moozlimmm thread.

    Your other posts are crap, but that was hilarious.

  • jtuf||

    satire on a Moozlimmm thread

    Cause if someone pronounces a word differently than you, he must be an idiot?

  • Warty||

    I'm not sure if you're better or worse than our regular Tony, but you appear to be his opposite. Stick around, and maybe Tony and Anti-Tony will annihilate each other.

  • ||

    And power our warp drive? 'Cause that would be cool.

  • ||

    Of course Libertarians defend the rights of those with opposing viewpoints. I'd rather be naive in your eyes than hypocritical.

    Then again, I'd rather not be in your eyes at all.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    +10 Tony. I agree with every single word you just said. It feels wierd to say that.

  • ||

    In summary, Tony is a caricature.

  • .||

    Speaking of "caricatures", that's rather an odd handle you use.

  • ||

    It distinguishes me from the other crackpots.

  • Chris||

    Where are these people coming from? Did someone link to this article over at Stormfront?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is this a Godwin-by-proxy?

  • Suki||

    +1

  • jacob||

    LOL I thought the same thing

  • SpeechTherapist||

    Obama voter and supported Steve Chapman uses a slip of the tongue to try and prove his intellectual superiority.

  • nobody||

    Who the fuck are these sick fuck commenters? I didn't read the fucking article, so did Chapman mention chemtrails or something?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It's like a paleo-lib Marielito around here today. Maybe Lew Rockwell opened the cells.

  • ¢||

    Where are these people coming from? Did someone link to this article over at Stormfront?

    Libertarians used to be righteously hostile to authoritarian religious wackjobbery of all sorts, not only to people they can frame as religious wackjobs in a way that shows class solidarity with TEAM BLUE!

    Some people don't know things have changed, yet.

  • ||

    The mosques up here in NE Ohio have never tried to be anything other than centers for well-integrated Muslims to gather and worship. I have yet to see any "authoritarian religious wackjobbery" to come out of any of them.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Maybe Theo Van Gogh should go hide out there next time so he doesn't get so killed.

  • ||

    WTF does that have to do with anything?

  • ALL BLACKS ARE TERRORISTS||

    Maybe he should. Considering they wouldn't murder him like his wackjob jihadi murderer did.

    You *do* know that all Muslims aren't wackjob jihadi murderers, yes...?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yes, I do. Very, very,very few Muslims(and very few from any religion) actually take it upon themselves to follow all the most vile teachings of their religion. Those few who do, and especially the leaders and thinkers who encourage them and call for more to join these few, should be regarded as among the most evil people in the world.

    However, until this extreme majortity of the most popular and fastest growing religion in the world (the majority which rejects Jihadi murder and Sharia law) use their great numbers to expose and eliminate these few murderers rather than allow themselves to be used as human camouflage for their purposes, they will not have earned the same reserved tongue-biting courtesy that I extend to other child-indoctrinating religions(to the extent that the members do demonstrate intolerance of violence in the name of their religion). To argue that this is not their fault because they are threatened with violence or excommunication, is to say that they are not the extreme majority.
    ---------------------------------
    Your name: ALL BLACKS ARE TERRORISTS is designed to set the terms that /To identify Islam as the motivation for Jihadi murders, is to accuse a race of being murder prone, which assumes that Islam is an unchosen genetically inherited trait /That the extent to which you are Muslim depends on the darkness of your skin/ It is designed to hide the fact that Islam is actually an ideology/philosophy/religion which must be chosen and held by ones mind.

    There is no such thing as a Muslim baby, no one is born with these ideas. No matter the tricks you use, a judgement on an ideology is not racism.

    And now the useful idiot's incantation...

    "You *do* know that all Muslims aren't wackjob jihadi murderers, yes...?"

    I also know that the Catholic church did not stop its mass murdering crusades because those, both in the church and out, who were opposed to them were so tolerant. And modern priests aren't going to stop the kid-raping because those outraged by it are "big" enough to show tolerance and accept the Vatican's cries for sympathy and understanding. Evil men hiding in groups only benefit from those in the group who look outward and cry "Ya know, we're not all evil" rather than look within and cry "this child fucker right here! He's fucking evil! He is hiding among us and he is evil! His behaviour is encouraged by his ability to hide within this group! We don't want you here!"

    My answer to the useful idiot's incantation...

    A good man or woman is one who works to rid his/her surroundings of evil or, at least, to rid his/herself of such surroundings.

  • jtuf||

    For what it's worth, I haven't heard of any problems from the mosque in the town just south of mine. Timon, I think we mostly agree on the fundamental principles. I just think your claims about Middle Eastern governments are incorrect.

  • ||

    Refresh my memory on my claims about Middle Eastern governments.

  • jtuf||


    Timon19|7.22.10 @ 10:19AM|#
    It's not just that, though. It IS accepted in the Middle East. I've seen it with my own damn eyes. So basically they're taking a lie as an article of faith and arguing against it. That's basically the definition of a straw man.

    That said, we ARE still a whole lot better than most of the rest of the world at the whole religious tolerance thingy.
  • ||

    So you're disputing that I've seen Christian churches in Middle Eastern countries, churches that have been sanctioned by Middle Eastern governments?

  • jtuf||

    You asked me to remind you when you talked about Middle Eastern governments. I quoted where you said it. I read that passage as meaning that Middle Eastern governments give non-Muslims equal freedom to build temples. If I misread your comment, I am sorry and I await your clarification. We've already debated the ability of Christians above. In that debate, I clearly documented how discriminatory laws in Muslim majority Middle Eastern countries hinder the constructionn of non-Muslim temples. You can add more to that discussion there if you want. I don't feel like repeating myself in this section of the comment thread.

  • Chris||

    I think Islam is a silly belief system, but true freedom means the freedom to do and say stupid things as long as they aren't infringing on the negative rights of others. What they do on their own property is not my concern. Simply building a mosque is not forcing me to convert to Islam or to worship there against my will.

  • ALL JEWS ARE TERRORISTS||

    B-b-b-b-but ISLAMIC TRIUMPHALISM!!!! THIS IS PART OF THE MASTER MUSLIM PLAN!!!!!!!!!11

  • zoltan||

    Libertarians used to be righteously hostile to authoritarian religious wackjobbery of all sorts

    Have you seen the threads concerning Islamic-related barriers to trade, stoning of "adulterous" women, restrictions on speech, etc? Or are you new here?

  • Fluffy||

    No Stormfront link is necessary.

    The site suffers from an excess of people who have an acute need to defend every statement Sarah Palin makes, no matter how absurd.

    If Sarah Palin called for the nationalization of all industries and the hanging of the rich from lamp-posts, these Freeper douchebags would show up to explain to us how that doesn't actually contradict the principles of liberty at all.

  • ||

    Teh Rich are Totalitarian!

  • ||

    who have an acute need to defend every statement Sarah Palin makes

    I've seen that and find it quite baffling. Beyond a degree of Milfiness, I'm not clear on why anything she says inspires people who even tangentially consider themselves libertarians.

  • High School Dropout||

    Meh, she's not even looking that fuckable any more to be honest. Starting to get that under the chin sag.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    She's still the only GMILF politician I've heard of. She's not even close to "take one for the team" territory yet.

  • Hmm||

    Does Yulia Tymoshenko have grandkids?

  • ALL CATHOLICS ARE TERRORISTS||

    There's nothing un-libertarian about restricting religious freedom. Not at all!

    Source:
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.....s-for.html

  • ||

    Palin should have never come out on this. Even if the Mosque pure evil, banning its building isn't going to stop the ideas behind. Banning it just makes victims out of them and obscures who they are. Let them build their mosque and let who they are good or bad stand out to the whole world.

    That being said, Doherty engages in a bait and switch here. The issue is should the Mosque be built in that spot, not should it be built at all anywhere. The fact that the founders said the government should allow free exercise of religion says nothing about whether this mosque should be built in this place or whether doing so is in good taste or worthy of criticism.

    C- work.

  • ||

    Palin should have never come out on this.

    I say let Mama Grizzly talk. Encourage it. Each imbecilic comment diminishes her credibility a little more. This thing, this beast, must be destroyed.

  • ||

    The beast isn't going to be destroyed. And the more faux elite assholes attack her for being stupid, the more popular she will become.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    She needs to realize that to be electable she doesn't need to have an opinion on everything.

    She's not Glenn Beck.

  • ||

    I agree. But maybe she doesn't want to be elected. Being Glenn Beck sounds a whole lot more fun than being the President.

  • WTF||

    It certainly pays better.

  • ||

    faux elite assholes attack her for being stupid

    But John, she is stupid, the existence of "faux elite assholes" notwithstanding. Does it get any more sickeningly trite than her "Mama Grizzly" ads? Palin is a walking, squeaking, empty-headed, religious/mystic hick. Not that her effect on the left is not entertaining, but rational people shouldn't be taken in by her ignorant, vacuous, flag-waving, god-fearing jingoism.

  • ||

    So what? didn't say you would like it. I just said that was the way things are. A lot of people in this country identify with. And they are really tired being lectured by the people who have fucked things up so badly about who is smart and who is not.

    She has become a brand the same way Obama became one. Obama became the brand of the cool and intelligent in 2008. Voting for him was a way to associate yourself with that. Palin has become the brand of the anti-cool and anti-establishment. Liking Palin is the best way to say fuck you to everyone who runs or claims to run this country both R and D. That is an incredibly powerful brand to have in these times. And that is why the more people insult her the more popular she gets.

  • Fluffy||

    Liking Palin is the best way to say fuck you to everyone who runs or claims to run this country both R and D.

    Then there are a lot of really stupid people in this country, since Palin was a national ticket nominee of one of those two parties.

    Why not just make John Kerry the symbol of opposing everyone both R and D? That would make as much sense.

  • ||

    I am just the messenger here. I am not saying it makes sense. But if you want to blame anyone, blame the liberals who started eating the furniture after she was nominated. If they had just shut up she wouldn't have been that big of a deal. They are the ones who made her a star being so relentlessly unfair to her.

    Palin didn't create the dynamic as much as blundered into it and took advantage of it. Jumping up and down and screaming about it isn't going to change it. In fact, it makes it worse. Every time some asshole in the media screams about how stupid she is, the people who like her like her more.

  • ||

    And Fluffy, the Republican establishment hates Palin. She is liked by the rank and file not the establishment. Kerry is an establishment figure. Palin is most certainly not.

    And if you are so in love with the idea of Presidents being brilliant, vote for Obama again. He was editor of Harvard Law Review after all.

  • WTF||

    Liking Palin is the best way to say fuck you to everyone who runs or claims to run this country both R and D.

    Huh?

    I think the best way to do that is to simply say "Fuck you" to everyone who runs or claims to run this country both R and D.

    I see no need to like Palin to effectively do that.

    I found her interesting for the first nine minutes. Then I realized what an empty head she is. She is almost, but not quite, exactly unlike a highly qualified candidate for president or VP.

    But she's apparently good at spouting populist rhetoric. You can't "refudiate" that.

  • ||

    Good for you. But you people think everyone is like you. They are not. The biggest favor you can do for her is put on your best smug, "only stupid people like Palin" routine. And if you some media shitbag that the country hates to begin with, you do her a huge favor with such an act.

  • WTF||

    Who the fuck is "you people"? And what the fuck is "you people think everyone is like you" supposed to mean?

    Jeebus H. upjumpin' Christ, so many people these days are just so ready to leap to "us versus them" mode at every opportunity.

    A little touchy at the criticism of Palin, are we? Show me where I said "only stupid people like Palin." I merely expressed my opinion. It apparently is different than yours. Deal with it.

  • ||

    You people is you and fluffy who can't figure out why people like Palin. I am just telling you why. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can't understand it. The rise of Palin is totally about the class resentment going on in this country. She could misspell every word she tweets from now on. And she could be revealed to have an IQ of 70 and that would not make dime's worth of difference in her popularity.

  • WTF||

    Show me where I said I can't figure out why people like her. In fact, I expressly acknowledged why people like her: she's developed a knack for spouting populist rhetoric. She seems like a good old-fashioned, common sense, hard-nosed, strait-talking, but nice, traditional, conservative, Christian, family values, apple pie, kind of person. I totally get that.

    I never indicated that only stupid people like her, nor that I could not understand why people like her. I merely stated that I did not believe she was brilliant or that she is presidential or VP material.

  • .||

    I merely stated that I did not believe she was brilliant or that she is presidential or VP material.

    So then do you figure the Marxist and the moron presently serving in that capacity are?

  • zoltan||

    People like Palin for the same reason people like Obama. They are too stupid to understand that politicians shouldn't be likeable.

  • ||

    "An IQ of 70? Mom always said, Stupid is as Stupid does."

  • ||

    "An IQ of 70? Mom always said, Stupid is as Stupid does."

  • Some Guy||

    Palin has become the brand of the anti-cool and anti-establishment.

    Palin = Teenage angsty hot topic clothes?

    Now suddenly it all makes sense.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    If you strike Sarah Palin down, she will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

  • Sarah Spitz||

    I agree. If Palin had a heart attack right in front of me, I would laugh loudly like a maniac and watch her eyes bug out as she writhed in torment.

    Oh, my! I never knew I had this much hate in me. But she deserves it.

  • WTF||

    Well that's a pretty shitty thing to say.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I think it was a quote from something that was recently said about Limbaugh

  • Mo||

    What spot? Since when is the empty Burlington Coat Factory building a special spot?

  • ||

    So you think it is a great idea to build it there. Good for you. But that issue still has nothing to do with the founders' position on the government's power to oppress religion.

  • Law Student||

    Ok, what about property rights? It shouldn't be anybody but the owner's business what gets built there.

  • ||

    that is a good argument. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean I don't have the right to say it is a bad idea. And should the government be able to zone them out of existence? No. But bitching about infringements of property rights in Manhattan is like handing out speeding tickets at the Daytona 500. Either way, the founders have nothing to do with it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Chapman wrote this.

  • ||

    Chapman. My mistake.

  • Fluffy||

    The issue is should the Mosque be built in that spot, not should it be built at all anywhere.

    Making that the issue doesn't make Palin look any better.

  • ||

    Didn't say it did. It just makes Dohertys essay look worse, which was my point.

  • DBN||

    That being said, Doherty engages in a bait and switch here. The issue is should the Mosque be built in that spot, not should it be built at all anywhere. The fact that the founders said the government should allow free exercise of religion says nothing about whether this mosque should be built in this place or whether doing so is in good taste or worthy of criticism.

    Why wouldn't it be in good taste?

  • ||

    I don't know. Why would building a mosque run by some fairly intense people a few blocks from where radical Muslims killed 2800 Americans be considered by some to be in bad taste? Why oh why?

  • Fluffy||

    Because you hate our allies.

    It's your shitty war and not mine, and you still hate our allies.

    Amazing.

  • ||

    And you apparently can't read. I have never said it shouldn't be built. In fact above I said it should be built. And in other threads on this, after being informed that it is not on Ground Zero but blocks away I relented and said it should be built.

    If you would just stop flying off the fucking handle and having PTSD over your objections to the Iraq war and read the god damned posts, the conversation would go a lot better.

  • Fluffy||

    If that's your actual opinion, then you already know the answers to your rhetorical questions from 11:20. So why did you post them?

    And if that's your actual opinion, why are you defending Palin?

  • ||

    I am not defending Palin.

    John|7.22.10 @ 9:12AM|#

    Palin should have never come out on this. Even if the Mosque pure evil, banning its building isn't going to stop the ideas behind. Banning it just makes victims out of them and obscures who they are. Let them build their mosque and let who they are good or bad stand out to the whole world.

    Nothing in that post defends Palin. It is just that you are so insane on the issue of Palin you assume anything short of irrational hatred is defending her.

  • otherhmm||

    I'd just like to add I'm enjoying the John bashing. I got annoyed a while back and stopped reading the comments on this site mainly because John was stinking up the place like some social conservative rank and file Republican "law & order" asshole. Glad to see people here finally arguing against him.

    I get annoyed with these "conservatarians".

  • DBN||

    I don't know. Why would building a mosque run by some fairly intense people a few blocks from where radical Muslims killed 2800 Americans be considered by some to be in bad taste? Why oh why?

    Because you shouldn't group them with terrorists simply because they're muslim?

  • JINGO||

    3,000 AMERICANS BUDDY.

    3,000 AMERICANS.

    YOU THINK THERE WERE ANY FOREIGNERS OR MUSLIMS IN THE WTC? HA

  • toaster||

    Good sir! What are you doing here? This is the bog of troll wars!

  • DBN||

    John has long been one of the filthiest trolls on this site.

    http://www.grylliade.org/old/m.....w=previous

  • ||

    Wow. I didn't know I had a fan club. It not much but the thought that I make like a little more unpleasant for people like you makes me smile.

  • ||

    Dude, that is so fucking meta...man!

    Someone insulting you on a board with a link to another board, get ready for it, of people insulting you. That little nugget will be lost forever among the +'s and the one time poster garbage.

    I will say, John, that people are a lot nicer to you with a democrat in office...I wouldn't get used to that.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    "It's hard to allow the 'free expression of religion' when part of that free expression is the overthrow of our society--violently if need be."

    We already extend "free expression" to such zealots as Nazis and Marxists.

  • Obumer||

    Yeah, we even elect them to the office of the Presidency. Well some of us did anyway. Thanks, people. Siggy, siggy!

  • Obumer||

    Er,...seigy, seigy.

  • Obumer||

    siegy, siegy? (damn, what happened to my gift?)

  • ||

    You're welcome.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Ok, that was a funny joke email addy.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Jesus. The nuts are out early today.

  • ||

    You got all the words right but organized them in an odd way.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Heh heh

  • ||

    ""Suppose there were a heavily Muslim neighborhood in New York, with mosques, religious schools, and shops with meat prepared according to Islamic dietary rules. Suppose an evangelical church wanted to build a chapel there. And suppose local Muslims tried to block it as a flagrant insult to them.""

    If a dozen evangelicals had purposefully crashed a plane into that neighborhood and devestated it in the name of their evangelical God, I would kind of expect that the muslims in that neighborhood would protest the building of an evangelical church in that neighborhood.

    But that's just me kicking around some logic.

  • ||

    Well, tens of thousands of evangelicals (a.k.a. 11th+ century Catholics) purposefully did all manner of naughty shit to lots of neighborhoods upon which they later built churches (some of which still stand) in areas that are majority Muslim.

    Of course the difference is that integrated Muslims are building this, just as Christians integrated into Muslim societies built and still build churches in which they worship.

  • ||

    Bullshit. The Crusades were a response to the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land. I am sorry but the Muslims came out of the desert in the 7th Century and forcibly conquered, colonized and converted most of the eastern half of the Med. Which is the way life goes sometimes. But, that prevents their whinny asses from complaining about the Crusades.

  • ||

    I'm not saying that the Crusaders did what they did without having had their feelings previously hurt. I was responding to the shitbag above in kind. John, not everything posted to refute someone else's post requires its own refutation if that's not the damn point.

  • ||

    Yeah, but I think the whole "we get to whine about shit that happened 1000 years ago" is bullshit. Grievances die with the generation who suffered them. So, the people of New York today get to have a beef over 9-11. A hundred years from now, not so much.

  • ||

    Again, John, the Crusades specifically are not the point.

    I somewhat agree with you, but that's New World colonial culture influencing us. The cultures of other civilizations may have different views on such things.

  • ||

    But they are, Timon. You used Crusader aggression to justify this--but Crusader aggression was defensive. Hell, the Crusades started in answer to Islam trying to conquer the world. Sound familiar?

  • ||

    I did not use Crusader aggression to justify "this" (being the mosque, I presume). I don't feel the mosque needs justification. I was responding to BackToReality on his own terms using similar silly arguments.

  • ||

    I am unclear about how his argument was 'silly'.

    If a Christian group actually did attack a Muslim neighborhood, killing and destroying property, I would expect the Muslims in that neighborhood to be against the idea of a Christian group building a place for themselves to worship in that neighborhood--particularly if the group in question had any ties or sympathies for the killers.

    You brush this off with your comment about Christians having done similar things to Muslims in antiquity--only to be annoyed when it is pointed out that those actions were retaliatory in relation to Islamic terror--in much the same way as the protests today are.

  • history is full of epic lulz||

    For what its worth, the Muslims were the guys who stopped the Mongols.

    *cue 70s sitcom catchphrase*

    *canned laughter*

  • .||

    Grievances die with the generation who suffered them.

    Not in Islam they don't.

  • ||

    "Grievances die with the generation who suffered them."

    Um, could you please keep that down.

  • hey||

    oppression of blacks ended with the Emancipation? COOL! Knew the Libs were lying about all this "Jim Crow" nonsense.

  • history is full of epic lulz||

    Hey remember the Fourth Crusade?

    Catholic army sets out to Kick Muslim Butt, runs out of money, accepts a quick mercenary gig for a Byzantine prince, things go awry, Catholic army winds up going Rape-of-Nanking on Greek Orthodox Byzantine capital (looted the churches! banged whores in the Hagia Sophia!), severely weakened Byzantines get conquered by same Muslims the Crusaders were SUPPOSED to be fighting.

    Good times, good times.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    You go back 1000 years and halfway across the world to counter his argument? Seriously?

  • Fluffy||

    Again, there is no way to restate this objection that doesn't overcome the simple fact that MUSLIMS ARE OUR MOTHERFUCKING IN-UNIFORM ALLIES in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

    So you are saying that you spit on the religion of our allies and they aren't welcome within sight of Ground Zero, because they are too contemptible to be seen there.

  • zoltan||

    I guess no Muslims died in 9/11 and they are not allowed to worship their god and pray for their dead near that site. Frankly I'm surprised no one has built a church there but I imagine the most religious group in NYC are Muslims (not the largest though).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I guess no Muslims died in 9/11 and they are not allowed to worship their god and pray for their dead near that site.

    No, I heard that all the Muslims called in sick that day. Seriously, I read that on a website run by some dude named Alex Jonesawitz. Haven't you seen "Spare Change" on youtube?

  • ||

    I am intrigued with this movie. Could you please go on.

  • truth||

    We have no Muslim allies. Eradication should be our policy.

  • DBN||

    But that's just me kicking around some logic.

    No, that's you pulling shit out of your ass. If you want to use anecdotes as evidence, at least use real events.

  • ||

    re: damned white-elephant real estate that no one cares about--this all is referred to as "filling out the paperwork"

  • Bingo||

    Hey religious nutjobs:

    STOP USING PUBLIC POLICY AS A PROXY BATTLEGROUND FOR YOUR INTERFAITH WARS.

  • Hmm||

    The simple solution to test the voracity of each group is to get a Christian group to offer to split the cost and put a chapel in, and while your at it go lookin for a Jewish group to go in threesies and put in a mosque.

    How's that for a touchy feely solution.

  • .||

    go lookin for a Jewish group to go in threesies and put in a mosque.

    Uh, Jews worship in Temple or synagogues (sp?) dude.

  • Hmm||

    Jeebus imatard.

    I knew that, was just stuck in Mohammad mode.

  • jtuf||

    It depends on the congregation. The Temple (with a capital T) refers to either the first Temple or the second Temple, both of them built in Jerusalem. A "synagogue" (from the Greek meaning "community center") is any other Jewish house of worship. Early Reform Jews called their synagogues "temples" (with a lower case t) to indicate that they don't expect G-d to ever rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Today, most congregants don't know why their building is called a temple or a synagogue. The terms are rather interchangable.

    Considering that English uses the term "temple" for Buddhist, Ancient Greek, and Ancient Mayan houses of worship, I think it's safe to just say "temple" when ever you mean a generic house of worship. For example, "Lets put a Christian temple, a Muslim temple, and a Jewish temple all in the same building."

  • pmains||

    I think the best way to test the voracity of each group is with a pie-eating contest.

  • ||

    Shoooore. Ve'll go in treesies vith yooo. Let me dooo ze books and ve vill save a bundle as vell.

    (bends over and rubs hands menacingly)

  • keep it simple||

    I propose that a Priest, Rabbi, and Imam all walk into a burning furnace. The one who walks out will obviously represent the One True Faith, which shall be given exclusive House-of-Worship construction rights within a 4 block radius of Ground Zero.

  • Tony||

    Jesus H. Christ these comments are not doing much to dispel the suspicion that libertarianism = freedom for white people to own the planet. Oh and the boners for Sarah Palin, give me a fucking break. What's the difference between George W. Bush and Sarah Palin? Lipstick.

    I think a mosque at the cite would be a wonderful symbol of American values. And I'm not about to cede defining those values to xenophobic rubes who think America should be about white Christian domination.

  • WTF||

    You presume that the people who commenting here to whom you refer truly are libertarians or in any way represent those who are.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    Exactemente, mon ami!

  • Jason||

    Tony's equating libertarian ideas with American values???

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Jesus H. Christ these comments are not doing much to dispel the suspicion that libertarianismChauvinistic Conservatism = freedom for white people to own the planet.

    There. MORE accurate. Don't mention it, Tony, my pleasure.

  • jtuf||

    I highly doubt that Tonie Nathan has ever gotten a boner for Sarah Palin.

  • Ari||

    To me, this issue is less about religious freedom and more about property rights.

    They want to build a - whatever it is - on land. The owners of the land are OK with it. Why does anyone else have a say in the first place?

  • jacob||

    Because-because-because the land is SACRED!

  • jtuf||

    +5 to Ari's comment. Unfortunately, the collectists that dominate political debate will not defend the Ground Zero Mosque on property rights grounds, because then they won't get to pick which groups we're requried to be tolerant towards.

  • ||

    For the record, I agree 100% that this is first a property rights issue.

  • ||

    So do I, Timon. It is not only FIRST a property rights issue. It is ONLY a property rights issue. It would be the same as someone opening a bar across the street from a urban youth center (which is actually not a bad idea so I call dibs).

    Although potentially socially distasteful, it has to be embraced by all freedom-loving Americans.

    Look, either you stand up for the Constitution or you don't. If you hate Islam, then fight it the right way. Exercise YOUR 1st Amendment right to free speech and call them out on all their ills. There are plenty of things to publicize....ritual genital mutilation of infant girls, spousal inequality to the degree of servitude, institutional patriarchy, physical and emotional intimidation of the weak, etc, etc, etc.

    There, that was easy, and you know what.....I didn't have to take anyone else's rights away to make my point. Let's not continue down that path when we can take this stand and really prove a logical point to most sensible Americans (progressives and neo-cons excluded, obviously).

  • ||

    Right, but I think the entire motivation of this article was to address the bedwetters on their own terms. They frame it as a religious matter. People saying "STFU, it's a property rights issue, end of story" isn't really making much of an effort to engage them (though you might wonder why it's worth engaging bigots).

  • jtuf||

    Actually, presenting the case as a property rights issue is a great strategy. Frist, because support for property rights is a common priniciple between Conservatives and Libertarians. Second, because Liberals have used false accusations of bigotry so often that Conservatives now shrug those accusations off. Frankly, when I hear a main stream news outlet call a group "racist" I look them up. Half the time, the accusation is completely unfounded, and I like the group enough to donate or sign up for their e-mail notices.

  • curious||

    What about the other half?

  • jtuf||

    The other half of the time, the organization is not racist, but I still disagree with their views.

  • ||

    For Chapman and all the rest of you trying to impute opposition to the mosque only to Sarah Palin-esque religious BS, please look around and check out the even more extreme opposition of Leonard Peikoff and most of the "conventional" Objectivists.

  • ||

    You have it backwards. It isn't Sarah Palin's religion that is the problem. It is her belief that Islam isn't covered by the Constitution that's the problem. Anybody, religous, atheist, fence sitter, whatever, can hold this view.

  • ||

    Expressing one's objection is not the same as making a law, and freedom of speech is also protected by the First Amendment.

  • ||

    Nobody is saying we should ban Sarah Palin from advocating for unconstitutional measures.

  • dhex||

    The mosque in question is just a place of prayer within a community center.

    shhhhhhhhh you're confusing the rabble!

    question for the jackassery: how many of you retards have actually been down by ground zero? you might find the story a bit more redonkulous if you knew the lay of the land. (but only a bit, since the core is pure bigotry)

  • jtuf||

    *Raises hand, although I'm not a jackassery*

    I've visited the site half a dozen times since 9/11. I live 5 miles from Manhattan. Everyone else can get the same exact information from google maps. So ... what relevant facts should we see that would change our opinion?

  • Gay Communist Gun Club||

    "But associating all Muslims with al-Qaida is like equating all Christians with the Ku Klux Klan"

    Or like associating all Tea Party Members with racists. Turning building a Mosque into a paranoid conspiracy to take over America does not do much to advance mutual understanding;
    Neither does turning the author's article into a paranoid conspiracy against Christians.

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    My quibble with the "church in a muslim neighborhood" hypothetical is that Wall Street wasn't/isn't primarily a Christian neighborhood. It's a commercial center.

    Nor did the 911 terrorists choose their targets because they were symbols of Christianity. To the Bad Guys, the Towers were symbols of American economic dominance. The Pentagon represented American military hegemony.

  • ||

    I'm feeling a little sorry right now that I chose to read these comments so early in the day. The ass-raping that the First Amendment is taking by these jingoistic authority freak motherfuckers is not what I really want replaying in my head all day.

    Look, I'm an atheist. I don't hate religion, nor play games like "x's belief system is even more delusional than y's." I unapologetically enjoy a great deal of the art, music, architecture, and literature inspired and/or commissioned by religions whose actual belief systems are entirely antithetical to my world view. The notion of a deity of any stripe is simply alien and irrelevant to my life. I have no bone to pick with believers simply because they believe, and do not think they are by definition stupid. I also cannot imagine attempting to use the instruments of the state to further the cause of unbelief. I am as intolerant of the notion governmentally enforced atheism as I am of the notion that we are somehow a "Christian Nation."

    I don't really care if some versions of Islam make no distinction between the civic and religious spheres. I don't have to accept what anybody else believes, and I can find their dogma repugnant and anti-human without blacklisting their sect and depriving them of their inalienable rights; those rights are inalienable, and the truth of them self-evident, precisely because they are not "granted" or "allowed" by the First Amendment. They are explicitly protected by it from any government interference. Each and every possible belief system is on an equal footing, with the absolute assurance that the government will not elevate or promote any one set of beliefs as being somehow more equal. Majority rules? Fuck that. Liberty and democracy are not always compatible, and we have a Constitution in place to assure that when the two are at odds the default is liberty.

    I do not care what the motives or intentions are behind establishing this mosque in lower Manhattan. Nobody is required to pass a purity-of-motive test in order to qualify for First Amendment protection or to justify exercising their rights as property owners. If you don't like it, oh well. You can protest 24/7 outside their doors, call them the vilest names you can think of, make a mockery of their symbols-- have at it. Don't bother to point out to me the alleged irony of the situation vis-a-vis fatwas imposed by some Islamic jihadists against people exercising the same rights I insist on extending to the co-religionists of those issuing the death threats. It isn't irony, not even if you're a whiny-ass female Canadian singer-songwriter. It's the very essence of what it means to make no law, to neither establish nor impede. Sorry, life's not fair and freedom isn't guaranteed to be pleasant or easy.

    Please also refrain from trying to paint me as somehow un-American, anti-Christian, and/or naive. I have never once said, even at my most exasperated, that Fred Phelps should be kept a respectable distance from the funerals of dead servicemen. I have a 21 year old son in the Marines who has just returned alive from Afghanistan. He took part in Marjah, he lost close friends, and until the day he called to say that he had just disembarked from his plane out of Afghanistan I had no illusions that simply being exceptionally good at his job (Marine of the quarter for his battalion the 1st quarter of 2010) somehow would protect him against an IED. When I say Fred Phelps would have the same right to picket my son's funeral as I would have to hate him (even more than all decent people surely do already) and wish him dead for doing so, I am not talking out of my ass. I love my kids beyond all reason, but I can't imagine allowing all of that love to be tarnished by being used as an excuse to further erode the liberty of which we've already lost too much. Sorry, but the treasonous bastards here are the ones who think that somehow THIS TIME it's an aberration and abomination of such magnitude that we can just pretend that as Americans it's ok to betray our founding principles when it's expedient to do so in the cowardly pursuit of some illusion of safety. Life isn't safe, and freedom (once again) isn't amenable to warm, fuzzy feel-good notions of what it means to be a good citizen.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    Thanks for posting this. I think far too often even so-called Libertarians slip into a utilitarian view of the First Amendment when they dislike what is said or done.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Match. Point. Threadwinner.

  • Jake Boone||

    As far as I'm concerned, you win the thread, Xenia. The nail's head has been well and truly hit.

  • ||

    +1,000,000

  • toaster||

    +1,000,000? +infinity

  • Eric||

    Great post, totally agree (though I'm Christian).

  • ||

    This might be the best post ever. Seriously.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I gotta say, I was wrong and you, sir, are right.
    Brilliant post.

  • AGAIN||

    but, what if there were a heavily Muslim neighborhood in New York where...

  • mattrue||

    I'd reckon that NAMBLA can't build a "community center" two blocks away from a school with a history of sexual predators, or at least the community would not make them feel welcome.

    So the question is: is Islam as bad as NAMBLA? Do they overtly legitimize immoral behavior? I think you need to look at which sect of Islam is financing the center to determine that.

    If the center is built, the onus is on the Muslim community to make their neighbors feel comfortable, otherwise it's not going to last very long.

  • zoltan||

    All NAMBLA members are pedophiles; not all Muslims are terrorists.

  • DBN||

    All NAMBLA members are pedophiles; not all Muslims are terrorists.

    Good point. The metaphor works much better if you replace "NAMBLA" with "catholic church."

    Hardy har har har.

  • ||

    Actually, none of us are pedophiles. That other group just stole our name.

  • ||

    Now, step over here and see my six-assed monkey and four-assed sloth.

  • mattrue||

    The point I was trying to make is that property rights don't trump everything. You can't open a strip club in your neighborhood. And since certain sects of Islam preach martyrdom in a collateral damage maximizing kind of way, it's sort of important which sect of Islam was behind the mosque.

  • mr simple||

    analogy fail

  • ||

    That is what Sarah Palin is saying, i.e., since we shouldn't let NAMBLA build a community center near a school hit hard by sexual predators, we can't allow any GLBT community center in the area. (see below)

  • david a||

    To me it's a simple issue of demographics. Is there a significant Muslim community downtown? Not at all. Therefore it makes no sense to put an Islamic center in that neighborhood.

    But I think the community board's decision has political correctness and "white guilt" all over it. I'm guessing the CB wanted to counter the rah-rah sentiments around ... See MoreGround Zero. "Look how progressive and tolerant the residents of Lower Manhattan are. We're brave enough to approve a Mosque next door to Ground Zero. Yay, us!"

    (No surprise CBs here are almost universally reviled by residents.)

  • ||

    To me it's a simple issue of demographics. Is there a significant Muslim community downtown? Not at all. Therefore it makes no sense to put an Islamic center in that neighborhood.

    It isn't gentrification if they aren't white.

  • ||

    But thet ARE white. They're Arabs, Jordanians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians--those are all caucasoid ethnicities.

    The Nation of Islam wasn't invited.

  • Grumpy Smurf||

    "I'd reckon that NAMBLA can't build a 'community center' two blocks away from a school with a history of sexual predators, or at least the community would not make them feel welcome."

    That is what Sarah Palin is saying, i.e., since we shouldn't let NAMBLA build a community center near a school hit hard by sexual predators, we can't allow any GLBT community center in the area.

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Outstanding. A better analogy does not exist.

    I toyed with comparing this to the Klan putting their national hq in Southeast (DC), but there are no moderate Klan members. Except Senator Robert C. Byrd.

  • Phil O.||

    I don't understand why we permit Episcopalian churches in DC. Remember 1814! Peaceful Brits, please refudiate!

  • i lol'd||

    WIN

  • WTF||

    This young guy named Qasim Rashid is a law student at the University of Richmond and occasionally has opinion pieces published in the Richmond Times Dispatch. I am presuming he is a Muslim - at the very least, he seems to be pretty knowledgeable of the religion and the Quran. This morning's article is directly on point, and I thought it was pretty thoughtfully written.

  • Fluffy||

    Rashid's argument explicitly is in the form of "Forget the actual facts of the matter, let's just try to be sensitive," which is a contemptible attitude whether applied here or to US race relations.

    Whenever anyone walks up to me asking for "sensitivity" even in the face of the facts, it reminds me to say, "Fuck sensitivity."

  • ||

    I am no fan of Palin (I am appalled that this is the best the Republicans can do), but it seems all she said is that siting a mosque near the World Trade site is a provocation and not conducive to healing. Did she ever say that the government should or could prevent it? It's all well and good to remind everyone of the First Amendment, but it is a bit of a straw man in this case. One can certainly defend the Constituional right to build this mosque while thinking that this is provocative and inappropriate.

  • Fluffy||

    Sure.

    But thinking it's provocative and inappropriate also makes Palin look like a douchebag.

    So her choices are:

    1. Douchebag who hates the 1st Amendment

    2. Garden-variety douchebag.

    I am happy to go with #2, and agree that Chapman does not have enough evidence to claim #1.

  • ||

    During the City's debate over whether to allow the project to go forward, she urged people to "reject" the project.

  • ||

    Context matters. If Congress is debating whether to ban Activity X, and I write an op-ed saying how terrible Activity X is, but I never say we should ban it, isn't it reasonable to assume that I am writing in support of the ban unless I say otherwise?

  • ||

    I would agree were Sara Palin not being heralded (with no small encouragement from the lady herself) as a crusader for the restoration of our vanishing liberties. She is nothing of the sort and should be called on it. She's just another in a long line of populist demagogues cynically appealing to the worst in us. That she is doing from the right doesn't buy her a break from me.

  • zoltan||

    She's Williams Jennings Bryan.

  • ||

    Right down to her adorable little creationist toes.

  • zoltan||

    I doubt Bryan had adorable toes, heh.

  • jtuf||

    Good point, Terry. It was poor writing for the article to mention Palin and not link to her comments so we can judge them for ourselves.

  • ||

    Okay, the fact that the Cordoba mosque is being put into an area that doesn't really have a 'community', much less a need for a community center, Islamic or otherwise has been made clear.

    And you don't really need to have a community to build a community center--it is, after all, a constructable structure.

    But surely you can admit that it serves no real function as a community center where it is being built?

    Can we agree on that?

    How about this...

    While a lot of you think the interfaith war going on is stupid and irrational--can you admit that it is going on?

    Can none of you see that this community center that has no community to serve might be being built for reasons that might have to do with the irrational adherents of the One God who call him Allah being in conflict with the irrational adherents of the One God that call him Jehovah?

    These are not rational people, after all, right?

  • ||

    No, we can't agree on that. They want to establish a community there, and they can't do that just by hanging out on the corner with Willy and the Poor Boys.

  • ||

    But it'd be less a strain on tax dollars because "you don't need a penny just to hang around, but if you got a nickel won't you lay your money down."

    Run completely on donations without being subsidized at all by government? I change my earlier stance, I'm for the Willy and the Poor Boys setup.

  • ||

    Okay, the fact that the Cordoba mosque is being put into an area that doesn't really have a 'community', much less a need for a community center, Islamic or otherwise has been made clear.

    And you don't really need to have a community to build a community center--it is, after all, a constructable structure.

    But surely you can admit that it serves no real function as a community center where it is being built?

    Can we agree on that?


    What? No, we can't. The mosques that I know about here in the Greater Akron area are in places zoned for residential and light industry, and are sparsely populated. The Muslims who go there daily mostly have to drive multiple MILES (not just to a different neighborhood in the same city) just to attend. So these mosques, by your logic, have no community to serve.

    How close is the church you attend on Sunday to your house? I know mine is about 12 miles away.

  • ||

    I don't worship the One God.

    The nearest church, however, is about two blocks from my house, there is another larger one about three blocks from that, and a third about four blocks from that. Catholic and two different schisms.

    And what has this to do with what I said? You can build something like this anywhere you want. But is it not possible that this particular mosque/community center is being placed where it is as part of the irrational religionists war over who worships the One God best?

    You seem to be summarily ruling out that possibility.

  • ||

    But not everyone in your neighborhood attends THAT church. They are going to another church as part of ANOTHER community. How is this different? There are Muslims in NYC. This serves their interests.

    As far as paranoia about inter-religionist war, I don't know what to say other than immediately ascribing to a community motives which one has zero proof of simply due to association with another community (however tenuous) AND USING THAT AS A BASIS to refuse their legal use of their property is...well, paranoid at the very least.

  • ||

    I said is it possible. Possible. You seem to dismiss the concerns some people have outright.

    I don't.

  • ||

    Anything is possible, especially if one is paranoid and uneducated enough.

  • ||

    But not everyone in your neighborhood attends THAT church. They are going to another church as part of ANOTHER community. How is this different? There are Muslims in NYC. This serves their interests.

    As far as paranoia about inter-religionist war, I don't know what to say other than immediately ascribing to a community motives which one has zero proof of simply due to association with another community (however tenuous) AND USING THAT AS A BASIS to refuse their legal use of their property is...well, paranoid at the very least.

  • jtuf||

    Any Manhattan contruction project has a large status symbol gain associated with it, so I'll grant that it's possible for the Ground Zero Mosque builders to be motivated by PR bennifits of having an Islamic center at that address. However, PR moves are perfectly legal, so it doesn't matter either way.

  • Mo||

    It's pretty centrally located. Most of the subway lines, plus the PATH have a stop nearby. It could setve a larger more dispersed community by being centrally located.

  • ||

    I know exactly where it is. I shopped at that store.

  • ||

    There is plenty of precedents for
    when and where free speech can be restricted in a limited way. Protesters
    are often told where they can and cannot demonstrate. They can build a mosque and worship as they please - just not at that location. They should have some common decency and respect for the people who lost loved ones

  • ||

    They should have some common decency and respect for the people who lost loved ones

    I wonder if the loved ones of the muslims killed on 9/11 have the same objections.

  • ||

    What's the difference between "sensitivity" and "political correctness"?

  • ||

    I guess the question is whether one is willing to defend the rights and freedoms of all Americans, or just for the ones we like and feel like defending...At times one must be strident and defend the rights of the seemingly indefensible. If you call that PC, so be it.

  • Voton||

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported that of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States between 1980 and 2005, only 6 percent were committed by radical Muslims.

    Wow, that's counter-intuitive. Why do none of the 94% none-camel-jockey terrorists ever make the news?

    Two blocks away? I say put that mosque on the very tippy-top of the tallest building at Ground Zero. Insurance.

  • jtuf||

    It's not counter-intuitive. Muslims only make up about 1% of the American population. The vast majority of terrorist attacks are conducted be people living in the attacked country for two reasons. Attacking a location in another country takes much more effort, and changing the policies or power balance of another country grants much less benefit to the attacker. It's rational egoism again.

    The news focuses on Muslim terrorists more partly because Muslim terrorists plan their attacks to get maximum press coverage. They'll target culturally signifigant sites, launch attacks on holidays, issue press releases the day after the attack, ect.

  • Tony||

    A society should discourage religious fanaticism. The best way to do that is to promote tolerance among religions. That means you too, Christians.

  • Unamerican, I guess||

    Wow, Chony, glad to see you haven’t given up on the primacy of “society” over the individual. Nothing can go wrong with that...

  • Gay Communist Gun Club||

    The underlying problem is the lack of a civil dialoque between those that want to build the mosque and those that oppose it. However, I doubt those that have made up their minds that Islam is bad, period, could be persuaded, which is apparently what the Muslim organization that wants to build the mosque fears. An effort should be made nonetheless.

  • ||

    Dialogue? The dialogue is just fine...the downtown NYC community appears to overwhelmingly support this community center. It's those mid-western know-it-all elites that are making such a fuss.

  • Gay Communist Gun Club||

    Lamar, I realize that. Manhattanites support the mosque 46 percent to 36 percent. An article in the Ahmadiyya Times, entitle "Ground Zero Mosque: A Muslim's Perspective" gives the issue more context: "It appears that the Cordoba House's organizers sought to avoid early publicity around the proposed construction project and apparently waited months before seeking public comment. The ensuing firestorm from the local neighborhoods and communities does not, therefore, appear to be all too surprising. A better and potentially more palatable approach would have been to conduct broad community outreach and enlist broad community support before pushing the Center's plan through local government channels."

    What should be considered the "community" is vague however. If you think that "community" should include the 911 families in particular, then it seems not enough was done on the part of the Cordoba House organizers to reach out to them.

    If you think that "community" simply means the local community surrounding the proposed mosque, then it should be cased closed, build the mosque. The controversy will still rage on though

    I however don't think that the organizers should simply cave into the pressure of the bigoted, but try to reach out to some of the more level-headed individuals that oppose the mosque construction.

  • ||

    Level-headed opposition is in extremely short supply as far as I can tell.

  • Gay Communist Gun Club||

    You're probably right, and it may be because of that we haven't seen, to my knowledge, a wider civil forum on the issue.

    But at least in Manhattan, such forums have made progress:

    "Speaking at last week’s Community Board 1 meeting on Cordoba House was both distressing and heartening. Distressing because too many voices were raised in anger, too many names were called. Heartening because our community ultimately embraced tolerance over division and neighborliness over exclusion."

    http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_371/talkingpoint.html

  • ||

    The Cordoba House organizers followed the law regarding notice and public comment just like everybody else. I wouldn't criticize them for that. In fact, as an attorney, I would advise them to strictly comply with the law, as they did. It's always easy for newspaper hacks to dish out bogus legal advice, but I wouldn't suggest anybody actually follow it.

  • .||

    It's those mid-western know-it-all elites that are making such a fuss.

    "Midwestern know-it-alls" are almost by definition not elites. They're fly-over country.

  • ||

    The name's irony, nice to meet ya.

  • Suki||

    GCGC,

    Do you know how to make an AR-15 pink and blue instead of the scary black they make them at the factory?

  • Gay Communist Gun Club||

    Go buy one of these:

    http://www.2dayblog.com/2008/0.....ult-rifle/

    Perhaps you would be happier with one that had a biblical verse on it. I recommend "Thou shalt not kill."

    http://www.ar15armory.com/foru.....83907.html

  • Zeb||

    I am really shocked and distressed at how many people are coming out against freedom here. If your reaction would not be the same to any group who wanted to have a church, synagogue or any other religious clubhouse at that location, you are just a bigot and should go fuck yourself. If you value freedom, you must value it for everyone, even people you don't like. Even people who do not value freedom. Otherwise you are just another privilege seeking fucker.

  • ||

    Yeah, all these people acting like complaining about something is some kinda crime--I know just what you mean.

    There's 'freedom of speech' clause in that freedom of religion thing they seem so fond of.

    If you value freedom, you must value it for everyone, even people you don't like. Even people who do not value freedom.

    Why? How does that make any sense? I value my freedom greatly. I don't value it for people who I think would infringe on my freedom--and I sure as hell don't value freedom for people who don't value freedom.

    Because they'll just screw with me and try to take my freedom--and call me 'intolerant' and 'against the first amendment' when I won't let them.

    What kind of idiocy has infected libertarianism?

  • well||

    Certain AM talk/Fox News hosts who INSIST that they're "a libertarian, not a republican" might have something to do with it.

  • unfortunately...||

    blind Conservative hatred for all things Muslim is only going to get worse. I mean, I obviously expected some anti-islam sentiment in the wake of 9/11, but....I've actually seen posters at Free Republic call Slobodan Milosevic a HERO....because "he fought the muslims". Where does it stop?

    I truly fear where this is all headed. What will happen if Al Qaeda pulls off (GOD FORBID) a WMD attack that kills more Americans than the Civil War? Concentration camps and pogroms, it seems. Maybe worse.

    I used to think Osama was crazy for thinking 9/11 would be the catalyst for a West/Islam war. Not anymore.

  • ||

    I think the more important point to realize is: "The people who live in the vicinity don't seem to agree. The local community board voted 29-1 to approve the project, which would include a swimming pool, gym, child-care center, performing arts space, and other facilities open to the public." If the community members who live there and have been the most affected in their daily lives wants it, then who is Palin, or anyone else for that matter to interfere???

  • ||

    If Christians are so worried about there being a mosque in downtown New York that will attract more people to the Muslim faith, then maybe Christians ought to be doing a better job teaching more people about God.

  • ||

    Meh. Let 'em build it. If it really is a let's-all-hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya Muslim center, yay for them. If they're closet Wahhabists, they aren't going to find many converts in lower Manhattan, and maybe a lesson will be learned all around.

  • Hank||

    Build away Moozlimz. I just hope a Joo finances it. You own it, build it. I would personally like to see a porn palace built instead with a grand opening to Storm Squirters 3-D.

    I am no Palin hater and think the hatin' is a little absurd, but I give a fuck about what Palin thinks about, well, anything, as much as I care what the hot topic on the Ed show is going to be this evening. Which will be Palin, of course.

  • ||

    If only we could harness the overwhelming stupid in this thread as an energy source, then we could finally kick the fossil fuel habit and former vice presidents wouldn't be able to win Oscars and say, "take care of this."

  • ||

    This has probably been said multiple times upthread in the 400 or so comments so far, but, as much as I favor the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause, putting a mosque at Ground Zero seems like a recruiting tool for terrorists, letting them claim they are winning.

    Unless they rebuild the Twin Towers, with a mosque imbedded in it, so any repeat attack would destroy said mosque.

    That said, if someone wants to buy up Ground Zero and then build a mosque with their private money with no government help, then go ahead. Do whatever the fuck you want with your private property.

  • ||

    As mentioned upthread, the building formerly at the site of the new mosque was so heavily damaged on 9/11 that it had to be demolished. So it's likely that another attack would destroy this mosque.

    As for your point about the mosque becoming a recruiting tool -- that's a pretty gigantic stretch. Gay marriage in the US is probably a bigger recruiting tool, but I seriously doubt you'd discourage gays from marrying because they'd be giving the terrorists a recruiting tool.

  • jtuf||

    The UN has been asking us for a new building for years. I think we should give the UN the top floors of the new World Trade Center complex.

  • sigh||

    For the record, Al Qaeda already destroyed one of the most cherished mosques in the Islamic World.

    They. Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

    Also,

    1st Amendment > "seems like a recruiting tool for terrorists"

  • sigh||

    Ah, I missed the "Do whatever the fuck you want with your private property." line, which instantly makes you 100000x better than the "This offends me, therefore let's shit on the Constitution" crowd.

    Sincere apologies.

  • DBN||

    All NAMBLA members are pedophiles; not all Muslims are terrorists.

    Good point. The metaphor works much better if you replace "NAMBLA" with "catholic church."

    Hardy har har har.

  • ||

    Most NAMBLA members are ephebophiles, actually, drawn to adolescents rather than children. Also, terrorism is an overt act rather than a mere desire, so it's not really comparable.

  • ||

    Sure it is.

  • PFJO||

    Mr. Chapman seems to be missing the point. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment and everything to do with how a local community chooses to manage its own affairs.

    The board may have approved this 29-1 but most people who live in that community (at least according to the polls, I think) don't care for this and that's their right. The board can approve or disapprove for whatever bloody reason they want (although they may not be able to acknowledge it) in order to best reflect the preference of their community.

    Might it be racist? Maybe... but it doesn't deny anyone their rights and in a free society, that matters most. They might not be able to build THAT mosque but surely, they will be able to build some mosque.

  • ||

    How does telling someone they can't build what they want on their own property not violate anyone's rights? Absent a clear, tangible, and unambiguous harm that would be caused to neighboring properties, I don't see how.

    And anyway, you're dead wrong about what the community thinks. A poll linked to upthread showed that most Manhattan residents think the mosque should be allowed to go up.

  • ||

    Because it's just talk. It's saying we(the complainers) really don't want this here, we think it's a bad idea--and maybe even a deliberate further affront to our country(NOT our church).

    As long as it stays talk it's fine. If the protestors try to take down the building, it's terrorism.

  • jtuf||

    No one objects to putting up other new buildings in the neighborhood.

    Actually, there have been massive objections over the details of the new World Trade Center buildings. It took over a decade to get the plans approved. Getting anything built in New York City normally takes years unless the builder is a political favorite. The planned mosque is going to relace a 19th Century building. Other buildings by the same architect got landmark status, and owners of those buildings are not allowed to tear them down.

    I stand up for the right of the building owners to turn it into a mosque. I would also be very happy if New York City repealled its historic building preservation laws. However, the builders of the Ground Zero Mosque should have to follow the same laws and procedures as the rest of the city. It would be an afront to the principle of equality under the law if the city expidites the approval process or allows the current building on the site to be destroyed.

  • sigh||

    "Actually, there have been massive objections over the details of the new World Trade Center buildings. It took over a decade to get the plans approved. Getting anything built in New York City normally takes years unless the builder is a political favorite."

    This is why I can't stand the "WAHHHHH, WHY IS GROUND ZERO STILL A GIANT HOLE?!" crap people do. Like, *come on*.

  • Rich Woods||

    Note: written by an Atheist...

    Although Sarah Palin bashing is among my favorite hobbies (Christ on rollerskates, she is a dolt)... There is a consistant lie being told about the nature of Islam, and that is a "religion of peace" being hijacked by extremists. I was conditioned to feel the same way until I actually read the Koran. The premise of Islamic faith is to "Kill or convert" ALL infidels (non muslims)... Although there are a few contradictory passages that mention living in peace... They are eclipsed by page after page of murderous edicts designed to create a soldiers for an army... who, upon believing that Allah is on their side, will have no trepidation about either killing, or being killed. The truth is that there are many more parralells to Nazi-ism than to religion... Both are totalitarian, both hate Jews, and both were able to justify mass murder and managed to acquire land while they were at it (note the present day Islamification of Europe)...

    Although I am no fan of Christianity... Islam by its very nature hates any democratic society... Their mandate is clear... It is MUSLIMS who oppose the first ammendment, and protest (if not murder) whenever an offensive cartoon is drawn... Allowing truth and common sense to be sacrificed for political correctness is what people who would do America harm are counting on. Their intention is not to co-exist in peace, but rather to plant a flag where the devestation took place.

    Are there Muslims who are nice people?... Sure there are... But I bet there were some Nazi's who were just delightful once you got to know them too... The thing is, The "nice" ones, are the ones NOT following the convictions of their faith...

  • sigh||

    Truly, Mike Godwin was a visionary.

  • Rich Woods||

    I would also like to add... that as a New Yorker, born and bred, who watched the towers come down (not some Bible thumping midwestern Right-winger) .. There is hardly an overwhelming consensus on this issue... it all depends on what media source you read/watch... The majority of people I speak with are vehemently oppossed to this...

  • ||

    You seem overly concerned that everyone understands you're not religious. Are you compensating?

  • jtuf||

    No, he's just reponding to the stereotype that opponents to the Ground Zero Mosque are all Conservative Christians from the middle of the country.

  • ||

    Maybe he ought to speak for himself.

  • Rich Woods||

    Not compensating, But after re-reading my post, I understand why you might make that assumption... I was just concerned with disclosure, and allowing you to understand the premise from which *I* operated... and like jtuf said... I also wanted to make the point the not everyone who opposses this this a bareley litterate, bible thumping goober

  • ||

    I saw the towers come down. I have no problem with a Muslim community center. Perhaps you speak to people who hold similar views, which is why they are your acquaintances. FYI: I don't live in the neighborhood (34th and 1st)

  • ||

    "The number of violent extremists in the American Islamic community is microscopically small."

    Reminds me about Italians and the mafia. Less than 1% of I-talians are in the mob.

    But they make for such gooooood movies!

    -I make you laugh? How? Am I here to amuse you? Am I fucken clown? (I paraphrase of course).

    -Leave the gun, take the canoli's.

    *Wipes tear from eyes*

    That being said, I think we forget many Muslims aren't even Arab. Unless these guys are funded by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al-Queda (and I profess total ignorance here) what's the issue? Yeah, I guess it's a little "testy" to build "there" but guess what? Over the centuries I'm pretty damn sure we've built all sorts of shit in places and spots that pissed people off.

    For cripes sakes, people argue over where a fence should be put.

  • ||

    This IS the issue. That they are funded by the Muslim Brotherhood. The name of the project was "Cordoba Initiative." (recently changed to Project51, maybe because people were catching on). Cordoba was the place in Spain that Muslims conquered and then built their mosque. The symbolism is that Islam builds its temples on conquered land.

  • ||

    That they are funded by the Muslim Brotherhood.


    Citation needed.

    Also, the fact that Cordoba was once conquered by Muslims is pretty immaterial to modern-day anything. Cordoba was once conquered by the Romans who built all sorts of shit there. SO FUCKING WHAT?

  • ||

    Are you asking me about the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, reread the sentence carefully. I didn't say they were.

  • ||

    I was replying to Katherine. She repeated your hypothetical as if it were true.

  • ||

    Actually I find Project51 to be even more sinister a name, since it sounds like it's funded by aliens.

    I'm all for property rights and freedom of religion, but once you start involving Grays in your project the community needs to intervene.

  • jtuf||

    Then haul them into court. The penalty for conspiring with terroist is a fine or jail time. No statute calls for denying building permits as a punishment for this offense. The accusted also have the right to due process.

  • Maimonides lived in Cordoba||

    Cordoba was also a thriving center of culture where Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace.

    You know, the type of place that the Spanish Inquisition set out to destroy.

  • jtuf||

    The Golden Age of Spain under Muslim rule was better than most in terms of religious tolerance, but there were the occasional progroms. The Ottoman Empire was also better than most nations in the 16th Century. Like the British and Dutch Empries, it accepted Jewish refugees from the Spanish Inquisition.

  • ||

    Rich Woods. Quite frankly let the people decide if nay or yay. If they feel it's in poor taste - free of bigotry - so be it.

  • ||

    If by "the people" you mean "the people who own the property", I agree. But I think you mean some more nebulous "people", so fuck off.

  • Rich Woods||

    Fair enough Rufus...however I believe most Americans have been lied to about the nature of Islam (Politically correct jargin has determined that it's a religion of peace)...and when people stray from Political correct speach, they are branded and discarded...In order for the public to be able to to offer educated consent, Islamic Law, and moreover, at least a basic, candid explaination of the Koran would have to be offered publically, on mainstream News (even Fox is afraid to go there)

    My guess is if people knew what the truth was about Islam, not only would this mosque not be built, but it might lose its status as a religion

  • WHAT||

    "lose its status as a religion"?

    Oh you mean like how Scientology (google "Operation Snow White") or the Unification Church or Wacko Cult #37 lost its "religion" status once the truth came out about their beliefs?

    Fuck outta here with that nonsense.

  • WHAT||

    "lose its status as a religion"?

    Oh you mean like how Scientology (google "Operation Snow White") or the Unification Church or Wacko Cult #37 lost its "religion" status once the truth came out about their beliefs?

    Fuck outta here with that nonsense.

  • jtuf||

    Suppose an evangelical church wanted to build a chapel there.

    Unfortunately there are a couple of other examples of people opposing religious construction in the New York City area. In both cases, Bergen County, NJ Democrats were fighting the building. In case 1, Orthodox Jews wanted to build an eruv to make it easier to live in a town. More secular residents opposed it. They were concerned that after the eruv went up, more Orthodox Jews who send their kids to private school would move in and start voting against the school budget. In my town, a church wanted to sell a slice of land to balance its budget. That chruch currently rents space in its building to an Asian Christian congregation. The Asian Christian congregation wanted to buy to slice of land to build their own church on. The town council swooped in to buy the land and turn it into a park. The major reason given by the council was that they didn't want the land on the open market where a developer might buy it for building low income housing. However, on council member added as an aside that there would be too much traffic if the Asian Christians built a church on that plot.

    This highlights the need to respect property rights. Once a community takes it for granted that building decisions are collective decisions, every contruction plan becomes open for unjust objections. The only thing new about the oppostion to the Ground Zero Mosque is that it became news.

  • ||

    ""The only thing new about the oppostion to the Ground Zero Mosque is that it became news."""

    Very true.

    People have opposed most of everything at the WTC site. Including the freedom tower.

  • ||

    Islam as a representative of a foreign power cannot claim to be a religion. A religion is a voluntary association of practitioners of a common social philosophy. Islam is not voluntary.
    They can build a Mosque in New York right after they allow a Synagogue in Mecca.

  • Tony||

    Because America should follow Saudi Arabia's lead on individual freedom.

  • LeSigh||

    Because New York is a holy site in the American religion?

  • ||

    Because walter is a fucking moron.

  • heh||

    Yeah, basically. Easily the weakest "1st Amendment shouldn't apply to Muslims" comment made so far.

    F

    (woulda been a D- were it not for the hilarious "Islam is not voluntary" line. Are you a Muslim? No? Want to be one? No? *BULLSHIT DISPROVEN*)

  • ||

    "They can build a Mosque in New York right after they allow a Synagogue in Mecca."

    We should conform all of our laws to how they do it in Mecca.

  • ||

    Exactly. The thing that's really fucked up here-- aside from the things I already included in my earlier screed-- is the amount of shit being spouted about how Islam has no use for the sorts of protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. Because, um

  • ||

    Goddamned touch screen phone, posting of its own accord while I'm still typing. Upon reflection, though, I think that "because, um" kind of sums it up. I really shouldn't't have to go any further. To people who claim to value freedom the argument ought to make itself.

  • ||

    How is it some people think 9/11 was a Islam action, then turn around and support us spending hundreds of billions to fight for them on their soil?

  • ||

    Because hardly anyone has even the remotest idea about intellectual consistency when it comes to swarthy brown people from sandy places.

  • jtuf||

    Actually, of the dozens of Arabs, Persians, and Pakistanis I've met, only one was swarthy or brown. The rest were White. Supreme Court rulings on this are mixed. Some calssify Syrians as White; others classify Syrians as non-White.

  • ||

    Well, I've met all sorts of Arabs, Persians and Pakistanis (and I think a few Syrians). Most of them were brown, though there were some who were pretty white.

  • jtuf||

    So I guess Middle Easterners come in all skin tones, just like North Americans do. It still makes playing the race card just as illogical.

  • ||

    I'm not the one playing the race card. It's the bedwetters yammering on about them Ay-rabs and towelheads and sand n*ggers and moon-god worshippers and whatnot.

  • jtuf||

    Timon, your rhetoric boild down to crass insult and stereotyping your opponents.

    If you weren't playing the race card, why did you bring up skin color? How is skin color relevant to the debate?

    Too many Liberal believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be racist.

  • ||

    I'm not a liberal. Have you seen any comment threads other than this one on a more general news site? It's appalling, and likely would be to you.

  • ||

    No, you're a 'liberaltarian' >wink, wink

  • ||

    Wrong again, fuckface.

  • ||

    Oh, no, Timon, don't get me wrong--you can call yourself anything you want, and I'm fine with it. I support it, even.

    But I'll think you are what my lying eyes tell me you are.

  • ||

    If one issue make me a "liberaltarian", then you're a bigoted shitbag - because of one issue. My lying eyes told me so.

  • You'll die slow but calm....||

    He's not a Liberaltarian...but I am.

    Reaganomics Suck, Abortions For All, Smoke Weed Everyday, I Heart My Guns

    That's right. Come and get me, motherfuckers. I'm right here.

  • jtuf||

    Face it, if dark skin and desert living was the deciding factor, we would be invading the deserts of Australia.

  • Rich Woods||

    On that point, I will agree... We Americans, and our populist opinions have become increasing easy to steer

  • ||

    Because some people(usually retarded inbreds from flyover country) understand that while the enemy practices a violent strain of Islam, and that violence pervades much of Islam, there are people there in need of help. They say that it's good to stop the bad folks while trying to help the good.

    Fortunately, those with intellect understand that farm animal humping Christians just want to kill all Muslims because they're 'brown'.

    See how simple?

  • ||

    Mr. Chapman,
    Who siad we should make a law prohibiting the mega mosque? That's not the discussion. The argument is that every American should rise up vigorously in the public square to oppose it. What part of "public square" don't you understand?

  • ||

    So you only want protests? Is that ALL you want? Because at this point, what's going to stop it IS some sort of law.

  • ||

    every American should rise up vigorously in the public square to oppose it

    And considering that's not going to happen, the folks on your side of the issue are trying to use the coercive power of the state to stop it.

    Yours is the Hannitite argument, "if only everyone agreed with me, we wouldn't need a law to enforce my opinion."

  • jtuf||

    Isn't that Bloomberg's shtick? "If only people would stop eating trans-fats. Then we wouldn't have to ban them".

  • ||

    Honestly, the reason I read Reason is because I try to get away from the "religion rules the roost" mentality. No mosque, no synagogue, no church near the site! Period! Thousands of wars have been fought and millions of people have died through the centuries over religion and faith in a particular ideology. How about a library or a peaceful park where all people are free to visit.

  • ||

    Reason, above all, advocates for property rights.

    Basically, it's pretty hard for me to understand how you square your post with your implied invocation of "...for a magazine called 'reason'".

  • jtuf||

    Suppose there were a heavily Muslim neighborhood in New York, with mosques, religious schools, and shops with meat prepared according to Islamic dietary rules. Suppose an evangelical church wanted to build a chapel there. And suppose local Muslims tried to block it as a flagrant insult to them.

    Obama and other top Democrats are pushing the Jerusalem municipality to systematical deny building permits to Jews in sections of the city that Jordan once occupied. Many of those neighborhoods where historically Jewish for centuries before the government of Jordan tore down all the synogogues and other traces of Jewish life in them. How is Obama's segregationist policy not relgious discrimination? Why didn't Reason make an arguement compaining about Obama's religious intolerance?

  • ||

    You might have noticed that Reason criticizes Obama a lot, so it's certainly not favoritism for him personally. The probable reason is that it's an obscure story from halfway around the world.

  • jtuf||

    The probable reason is that it's an obscure story from halfway around the world.

    The policies of Jerusalem's municipal government is. However, when Obama pushes the Jerusalem government to enact segretationist policies, that is worth an article. I know Reason is not kind towards Obama. My point is that off the top of my head I thought of 3 cases of American Democrats showing religious intolerance through construction regulations. The article started off with a hypothetical case of Christian churches being banned as if this was an impossibility. The truth is, Liberals do exactly what they accuse opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque of doing all the time. This isn't a "Muslim situation". This is just a symptom of our America's collectavist approach to building.

  • Palestinians||

    Woah, what are WE complaining about? We're only STARVING.

  • jtuf||

    Aid to Gaza Flows Despite Rocket Attacks on Israel

    But of course, you keep up the myth about Gaza being in dire straights. Hey, if folks see what's happening there, they might not keep sending hundreds of millions of USA tax dollars each year to Gazans and the PA.

  • unpleasant fact alert||

    "The prime minister told Blair that he never thought the blockade as constituted was particularly wise, as he understood that the civilian population, and not Hamas, bore the primary brunt.

    'It’s important for me to have a policy that I can defend before the world,' Netanyahu told Blair."

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/ar.....216,2.217,

  • jtuf||

    Hamas was elected democratically. It's actions reflects Gaza, and Gazans have conducted war against Israel ever since Israel's unilateral withdrawl. Gazans have fired about 10,000 rockets into Israel, but of course, what do you care. You can easily dismiss the rockets, because you figure it's only Jewish lives at risk.

  • jtuf||

    So... are you arguing that banning Jews from living in a region is OK?

  • Lord Ballsac||

    They should be able to live where they want as long as the situation is voluntary...which it is not.

    Regarding foreign aid...the libertarian position is to pull it all back and say Fuck it.

  • jtuf||

    I would like to pull back all foreign aid too. I've mentioned it ad nauseum at the Israel articles. However, about half the time that commentators on Reason mention foreign aid, they are concerned exclusivily with aid to Israel.

    The case of Jews building in all parts of Jerusalem is voluntary. A few months ago, when a Jew tried to build on land in Jerusalem that he bought and owned outright, Clinton, Obama, and Biden raised hell in protest. To summarize, when a collection of private citizens oppose the right of Muslims to build on private land that they own, it's news, and swarms of religious freedom advocates write to support the Muslims before any government action is taken. When the President of the USA makes it USA foreign policy to Jews from building on private land that they own, those same religious freedom advocates don't say a word.

  • jtuf||

    correction:

    USA foreign policty to ban Jews from ...

  • hmm||

    Well those "commentators" are idiots who should be glad to stop sending taxdollars to Mubarak, etc.

  • ||

    Unless they're on a scale someone decides is different.

    Then, you can toss property rights out the window...

  • ||

    I try to get away from the "religion rules the roost" mentality

    ...and apparently yearn for the "atheism rules the roost" mentality.

  • Rich Woods||

    Or another strip club?

    Kidding aside... admitting my bias... I do like the idea of No Religion downtown, except that Trinity Church is an untouchable landmark

  • ||

    Separation of church and state. One man's religion, or lack there of, is nobody else's business. Why is this an issue? A religious group wants to build a community center 2 blocks from the WTC property. Had it been a condo developer or a Starbucks, then I find it difficult to believe this issue would have made it past the local news in NY.

  • jtuf||

    Had it been a condo developer or a Starbucks, the approval process would have taken 3 times as long and they would not be allowed to tear down the Burlington building. Bloomberg is abandoning legal equality in his zeal to look more tolerant than thou.

  • ||

    More than anything, this reminds me of the controversy over the crosses at Auschwitz, where the Jewish branch of the outrage industry managed to get the Polish government to remove them from a death camp where nearly half of the victims were Christian (Russian POWs, Polish priests and other troublemakers) despite the fact that Naziism was an atheist ideology.

  • jtuf||

    Rabbi Shmuley brought up that point a while ago on his talk show. He was one of the few commentators that spoke well on the topic. He said that in both cases, the construction that people opposed is going up because we failed to build anything there ourselves. He suggests letting the Ground Zero Mosque go up but asking the owners to make it a center for tolerance as well by hosting interfaith dialogues ect.

  • eh||

    Alot of the Nazis had a thing for the Nordic shit. Odin and Thor and all that.

  • ||

    Reason's mission statement:

    Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity.

  • ||

    Mission statements are meant to be broad. If you've cracked open a magazine recently (you say you do!), you'll find that property rights are held in extremely high esteem.

    I'd say a large minority (maybe even plurality) of posts on H&R can be traced to property rights.

  • ||

    Not sure how the mission statement is in any way negating property rights. I believe it reads, "making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity." I'm going to agree that might just include those rights, too. (Plus, I'm not sure how we got off on this track, but I am all for property rights.)

  • ||

    You wanted to have no religious building on the site whatsoever.

  • jtuf||

    491 comments. Wow. It warms my heart to see a great magazine like reason get so popular. On the other hand, having such a large crowd can make it difficult to debate on some topics. So ... here's a shameless plug. My website (Intercourse and Conception) was a response to local anit-obscenity laws and zoning laws. It is mostly about 1st Amendment rights and sexual freedoms. It covers mature topics sometimes, but there are no graphic pics or videos.

  • tee hee||

    SPAMMER, PLZ DELETE ALL OF THIS MAN'S COMMENTS

  • jtuf||

    I disagree with the logic of most of the people who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, but I think it is wrong to brand them as racists or biggots. Just keep reminding them about the principles of legal equality, religious tolerance, and property rights. They will come around with enough calm debate.

  • ||

    Is it wrong to brand them so? Have you read the relatively calm cnn.com comments every single time a story on this is posted? It's an onslaught of bigotry with a few yelps of "wait a second" and "why are you being such dicks?" tossed in.

  • jtuf||

    I don't follow CNN. I don't have cable. If you hang out on a site that is full of biggotry, perhaps that is what is cloudy your judgement.

    I do subscribe to the Atlas Shrugs e-mail notices. I've also talked with some local Tea Party members who opposed the Ground Zero Mosque. Their arguments follow two basic lines of reasoning. One is a historic preservation argument that is rather standard in debates over city construction. The other is conspiracy theories about the particular corporation that wants to build the Ground Zero Mosque. I disagree with both of their arguements, but their arguments are not biggotry.

  • ||

    cnn.com doesn't require cable. It's a general news site that has moderated comments. There are many OTHER general news sites that are even worse.

  • jtuf||

    So, why do you go to them?

  • Rich Woods||

    Timon... You strike as a lucid, intelligent person, with an exceptionally evolved sensibility...Although you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, I like anyone who is unafraid to call someone a douche bag...

    What often happens though, that in our desire to be object, and oreover to NOT be racist, we overlook behavior that if it occured in our own culture, would never be tolerated....In our striving to be better people, we often become tolerant of intolerance...

    For instance...if a group decided to form a religion using Mein Kampf as its doctrine, and naming Adolph Hitler as its prophet... Claiming God was on their side, They would have every right to form a "religion", even if they were quite clear that their intentions were murderous, and totalitarian... would it be rational to condone a 13 story building in Manhattan with a huge swastika on it?

  • ||

    You take it, then, as an article of faith (heh!) that all of Islam works toward these ends. That the express aim of all Muslim congregations is violence and conquest. If you talk to the vast, vast, vast majority of them, they only care about a few things: living their lives and worshiping their god. And unless they encounter actual Americans and Westerners being complete and total shitbags (which happens among tourists and workers), they tend not to care about the US or the West one way or the other (as long as they get to watch our cast-off TV series in subtitles).

  • Rich Woods||

    Obviously our expectations about the ability for Islam to assimilate into American culture are entirely different, hence our disagreement on this issue. From everything I have ever read about Islam internationally, it is a culture that at this point in history is not living in peace with any westernized culture, and I offer france, Italy, and Spain as examples... where a very small percentage of the overall population is muslim, yet holds a disproportionate amount of political influence, due to threats of violence ie: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Lars Vilks... but the list goes on and on...

  • dude||

    You keep talking like Muslims haven't already assimilated. I play Xbox and smoke Dutchmasters with Muslims, man. Are they waiting for a "signal" to behead me and start waging jihad?

    How about you stop reading about Islam and like, talk to one of its adherents for a change?

    There are also gay pro-life Catholics that think kidfucking should be punished with prison time, btw.

  • LIIIIIIBEERRRRTARRRRIANNNNN||

    Fuck it, YES.

    Let em build the Swastika Tower.

  • ||

    500! bitches, now what's up

  • Sniktpool||

    Sarah Palin? Being a fucking stupid cow? HOLY PENIS WHAT A SCOOP!

  • cheap ghd||

    I disagree with the logic of most of the people who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque

  • ghd||

    Wow. It warms my heart to see a great magazine like reason get so popular.

  • ||

    Just to be clear: If the NRA decides to build an office next to Columbine High School, anyone who considers that in bad taste is a horrible person, right?

  • Lord Ballsac||

    You can consider it horrible all you want, but that does not mean you can prevent someone from building it (aside from becoming a terrorist yourself). If the whole thing bothers you so much, quit your job, got to Manhattan and protest while screaming bloody murder about those evil Sand Niggers. I, for one, have shit to do and couldn't care less about the whole thing. There are bigger things to get your panties bunched over like Obamacare, unsustainable fiscal situations, a military machine currently incapble of actually extinguishing the actual threat while supplying endless fortunes to all sorts of worthless people, etc. In essence, we've got bigger fish to fry.

  • jtuf||

    Yeah. The presence of a mosque at Ground Zero doesn't bother me. That's why I skipped the protest against it in June. The prospect of the Burlington building not getting landmark status because Bloomberg is playing favorits does bother me. That's why I emailed the commission that will decide on landmark status.

  • CaliforniaCajun||

    Lord Ballsac lol

  • ||

    Only people I see using terms like 'sand nigger' are mobies. You sportin' an Ahab necklace, Ballsac?

  • ||

    @suki
    According to Palin herself she is a penticostal,well, pensticostals ARE those christians you describe. She has stated publically in HER church that America is in a holy war with ISlam and "God is on our side"

  • ||

    She has not.

  • ||

    Apparently for some the Constitution is a suicide pact. No one is allowed to commit treason, cause panic, or provoke violence because of the 1st Amendment You would apparently ignore that for Muslims only.

    The mosque at GZ is not about "religious freedom". It's about telling Muslims overseas that "Look, we destroyed Wall Street and planted a mosque. You go and do likewise." And their little Wahabist school will make sure we train terrorists right at GZ.

    Meanwhile, in Michigan, Christians were arrested for giving away Bibles and other literature _near_ a Muslim festival.

    Your "reason" on this topic sounds a lot like Romans 1:22 to me...

  • ||

    You are a douchebag. Muslims in general are not committing treason, and certainly not by building a mosque in NYC (I wonder how many mosques currently exist in NYC, and how little attention they've gained).

  • jtuf||

    A seach on google maps brought up about 50 mosques in NYC, and they don't get much attention. Even the oppoents of the Ground Zero mosque don't have no problem with mosques in general. They just object to building on this particular site because of it's historic value.

  • heh||

    Its 2 blocks away. Offensive.

    3 blocks away would still be offensive.

    4 blocks away would still be offensive.

    5 blocks away would still be offensive.

    6 blocks away - you know what, how about no mosques in NYC period?

  • jtuf||

    The current building plan calls for tearing down the Burlington building on 51 Park Place. That building is over 100 years old, was built by a famous architect, and a part of one plane that attacked the WTC landed in that building on 9/11. Other preservationists got land mark status for buildings built by the same architect who designed 51 Park Place. Do a little research before jumping to conclussions about the other side.

  • CaliforniaCajun||

    This mosque is intended by muslims to be a slap in the face to Americans. Muslims have historically built giant mosques on conquered territory to assert their cultural authority. Of course we are not conquered, but I wonder how wise it is to let this religion (which any logical person would consider a hindrance to the progression of the human race) construct a religious house of their backwards thinking next to GZ or any other place where the "religion of peace" used violence to murder the "infidels."

  • ||

    So what does it mean when they construct a community center with a small mosque hidden inside when the entire building is completely dwarfed by the skyscrapers that signify the power of American industry?

  • CaliforniaCajun||

    It doesn't have to be a huge mosque like they have built in the past. Just the fact that a mosque at such close proximity to GZ would be a victory for them. Do you think it is a coincidence they chose that specific spot?

  • ||

    I'm not sure you are qualified to divine the intentions of people you've never met.

  • CaliforniaCajun||

    Any person with half a brain in their head can tell they chose that specific spot to make a statement. Close-minded? Stereotyping? No. It's common sense.

  • oh how i adore this trope||

    "Any person with half a brain agrees with my opinion concerning this controversial subject!"

  • jtuf||

    construct a community center with a small mosque

    I think the builders of the building are calling it an "Islamic Cultural Center". Your description of the proposed building is a bit misleading. It is like saying that a JCC or a Hillel center is not a Jewish building.

  • ||

    They can build a Mosque in New York right after they allow a Synagogue in Mecca.

    We worship their oil wells, isn't that enough?

  • Rich Woods||

    I would also like to add... We haven't even touched on the rampant violence against women that is part of Islamic Law

    ...Yet another reason NOT to condone this...

  • ||

    Islamic Law doesn't have jurisdiction in America, fuck mouth.

  • Rich Woods||

    Please don't tell me that you're ignorant enough to believe that Muslim women here in America are going to be liberated in any way... Perhaps they won't just get beaten in Public?... and I assume you believe that being forced to wear coverings and not obtaining a driver's liscene will be their choice? You're probably right though... Islamic Law justifying Violence against women could *NEVER* happen here in America... Schmuck.

    You seem like an apologist who condones hitting women... Hope you grow an inoperaple brain tumor, and spend the rest of your miserable life dribbling into a cup.

  • ||

    And domestic violence NEVER happens in Christian, agnostic, Jewish households? Jesus Christ...

  • Rich Woods||

    Of course it does... I am not remotely defending Christianty or judiasm... but they are not the subject of this conversation...

    Comparitavely, you have to admit that violence against women , although not limited to...is more prevelant in islamic Culture, simply as a result of sharia condoning (instructing actually) men striking their wives...

  • ||

    Sorry Rich Woods, when you are talking about singling out a particular religion for distinct treatment, you have to show that such religion is, in fact, different for some reason. As such, Christianity and Judaism, as well as redneckery and race, are part of the discussion.

  • um||

    rampant violence against women that is part of Islamic Law

    ........has NOTHING to do with the rights of Muslims to buy property and build on it.

  • ||

    Let the Muslims show how tolerant they are by letting the Jews build another temple next to the Dome of the Rock.
    When they do that I'll be in favor of them building a mosque near ground zero.
    I liked the comment about building a Japanese monument at Pearl Harbor. While we are at it why not build a museum honoring Adolf Hitler on the grounds of Auschwitz. I mean as a way of showing respect for the fallen, which is the argument the Muslims are making for building this mosque.

  • for the love of God||

    Islam is not some monolithic, tightly centralized entity, you fucking morons. Islam are not a hivemind entity. Muslims are not neurally interconnected like Borg drones. Get that through your fucking heads. There are Muslims that -SHOCK- DON'T SHARE AL QAEDA'S BELIEFS!!!! IMAGINE THAT!!! DIVERSITY AND DIVISIONS IN A GROUP OF ALMOST 1 BILLION PEOPLE. HOW AMAZING! NEXT THING YOU KNOW, MUSLIMS WILL START COMMITTING TERRORISM AGAINST ONE ANOTHER!!!!

    What's this? Muslims have suffered HORRIFYING acts of violence at the hands of other Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and other places? HOLY SHIT!!!! WOW!!!! WHO'D A THUNK IT!!!! DAMN!!!! WHAT'S NEXT, MUSLIMS DYING IN 9/11?

    ...

    OH MY GOD!!!!

  • ...||

    This rant is dedicated to Rahma Salie, a Muslim who was 7 months pregnant when she stepped onto American Airlines #11.

  • jtuf||

    That is why it makes sense to judge a nation by it's laws and court rulings, not by individual speeches or the acts of criminals. The laws in Middle Eastern Muslim majority countries are rather intolerant. Indonesia is better, but not great. I've read good things about Kosovo, and Kazakhstan is on par with other former Soviet Union nations.

  • ||

    This article does not belong in Reason magazine. It's partisan and misleading. Palin mis-spelled a word? Gosh, she must be a moron. And only 6% of terrorist attacks are committed by radical muslims? In America, perhaps. But what about worldwide? And instead of attacks, let's look at the percent killed by terrorists in the U.S. There, radical Islam accounts for 94%!

    A mosque at ground zero is an insult to the victims of 9/11. And it sends a message to the Muslim world: blow up a building in America and Allah puts a mosque there.

  • Brandon||

    Actually, with idiocy like this, I think it is YOU who don't belong at Reason. Who CARES if some terrorists are Muslim? What does that have to do with this community center? As far as I know, the people behind it are good, decent Muslims. What's all the fuss about? It sounds like simple bigotry to me disguised as "protecting America." Just like when homophobes disguise their bigotry as "being pro-family."

    Do you really think the terrorists give a flying fuck about a mosque at Ground Zero?? Oh, what's it gonna do that no other mosque ANYWHERE ELSE in the U.S. couldn't?? come on... the terrorists are trying to think of ways to blow us up, not build mosques, for christ sake. This is a red herring.

  • Brandon||

    Is it just me, or does it seem like blindboygrunt here is probably not the type to frequent Reason much? He sounds like a neocon or archconservative douche rather than a libertarian. Or maybe he's a "conservatarian" or a stupid Republitarian.

  • ||

    And another thing...this 'freedom of religion' thing is a bit much. The Koran says Muslims must live under Sharia law. It is essentially treasonous. The Freedom of Religion that the founding fathers intended did not include a religion whose implicit aim is to overthrow the government. What if a bunch of Nazis during WWII wanted to open a Nazi meeting hall in Washington, claiming Nazism as a religion?

  • jtuf||

    I don't know what the policy was during WWII, but in the 1930's Nazis marched down the street in New York City. It made my grandnana very nervious at the time.

  • ...||

    Thomas Jefferson owned a Qu'ran, you fucking moron.

  • jtuf||

    Since you brought it up, ..., John Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" specifically mentions that religious tolerance should apply to Muslims too.

  • insanity||

    one world,

  • p90x||

    one dream

  • ||

    The guy behind this mosque is not squeaky clean. If he was, I might still have a problem with the symbolism of the mosque being that close, but I would say there's nothing we can do about it.

    But he's not clean. We can't let the warning flags get lost in a resounding chorus of kum-by-ya.

    And what part of "Congress" does Chapman not understand? Last time I checked, the city of New York ain't Congress.

  • ||

    Before somebody beats me to it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I....._of_Rights

  • ||

    Quran: 4;144

    O you who believe, you shall not ally yourselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Do you wish to provide Allah with a clear proof against you?

    A center for better understanding between Muslims and non-muslims ?

  • ||

    Quran: 60;1

    Ô you who believe, you shall not befriend My enemies and your enemies, extending love and friendship to them, even though they have disbelieved in the truth that has come to you. They persecute the messenger, and you, just because you believe in Allah, your Lord. If you mobilize to struggle in My cause, seeking My blessings, how can you secretly love them? I am fully aware of everything you conceal, and everything you declare. Those among you who do this have indeed strayed off the right path.

    NOTE: Ennemies of Allah are all people who are not muslims.

    See also Quran: 3;28,28,149 4;139,144
    5;5,51,57,80 9;13,23 58;22

  • Brandon||

    Exactly! Finally some common sense on this issue. I've said more on my blog as well.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement