In Praise of Michael Bloomberg

Since I don't think I have ever had occasion to praise New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and may never again, I will seize the opportunity to say that he is taking exactly the right position in the controversy over the proposed mosque and community center near the site of the World Trade Center. Yesterday (as Radley Balko noted this morning), Bloomberg gave what seemed to be a heartfelt speech on the subject of religious tolerance. Here is part of what he said:

This building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

By contrast, the Anti-Defamation League, which is supposed to stand against unreasoning bigotry, is following the lead of jingoistic dimwits like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich by opposing the mosque. "It's the wrong place," says ADL National Director Abe Foxman. "Find another place." Why? Here is Foxman's explanation:

Asked why the opposition of the families [of 9/11 victims] was so pivotal in the decision, Mr. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said they were entitled to their emotions.

"Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational," he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, "Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted."

That's not a bad argument. It's not an argument at all. Obviously, the survivors of people killed in the attack on the World Trade Center are entitled to their feelings. But they are not entitled to enlist the government's assistance in forcing other people to accommodate their feelings. And while the principles at stake here would be the same no matter what variant of Islam the mosque represented, it is worth emphasizing that the people behind the project are not exactly Al Qaeda enthusiasts:

Those who support it seem mystified and flustered by the heated opposition. They contend that the project, with an estimated cost of $100 million, is intended to span the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim, not widen it.

Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers and Y.M.C.A.’s in Manhattan. It is to have a board composed of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders and is intended to create a national model of moderate Islam.

"We are looking to build bridges between faiths," Mr. Sultan said in an interview.

So Foxman is right that the positions of the mosque's opponents look "irrational" and "bigoted." Because they are.

Steve Chapman refudiated Palin's position on the mosque in a column last month.

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.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Let the whiny neo-con Bitch-fest begin!

  • B.P.||

    What's all this chatter about rights and private property and U.S. Constitution and stuff?

    Does not compute.

  • The Gobbler||

    I'm thinking about buying the parcel of land adjacent to the Cordoba Muslim Center. Great place for a dog park.

  • Pip||

    A pork processing plant would be a more profitable venture.

  • ||

    Should you successfully purchase said land, knock yourself out.

    Of course New York will probably subject you to some asinine zoning laws, but the principle is the same - you own it, you do what you want with it.

  • Gene Berkman||

    I think Mayor Bloomberg means "this is private property and they have the right to build a house of worship on it, unless some Russian billionaire wants to build a new stadium..."

  • ||

    "Those who support it seem mystified and flustered by the heated opposition."

    Amazing. Muslims kill 2800 innocent people in the name of their religion and people are now shocked that said religion is not popular in that city? That may offend the delicate sensibilities of all right thinking people, but that is reality. And that is why terrorism is a bigger threat to Muslims than it is to non-muslims. Radical Muslims are never going to destroy this country. But they might succeed in getting this country to be pissed off enough to destroy all Muslims.

    This is ten years on now with only a few small attacks. If there ever comes a day when a rogue nuke goes off or there are a series of 9-11, God help any Muslim living in this country.

    I am not saying it is right. It is just reality.

  • The Gobbler||

    Thank G-d Catholics hold a more considerate nature:

    WARSAW, April 14— In a last-minute letter apparently intended to defuse the controversy on the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, Pope John Paul II told Roman Catholic nuns today to move from their convent at the Auschwitz death camp.

    The Pope's letter, made public by the Polish news agency here today, said the 14 Carmelite nuns must move to another convent within the diocese in the Auschwitz area or return to where they came from nine years ago.

    Kalman Sultanik, the vice president of the World Jewish Congress, said he had been informed by Bishop Tadeusz Rakoczy of the diocese of Bielsko-Biala, where the convent is situated, that the sisters had agreed to move. A Sore Point

    The presence of the nuns, who live in a convent converted from a two-story building used by the Nazis as a storehouse for the deadly Zyklon B gas, has been an impediment to improved relations between Roman Catholics and Jews in Poland and elsewhere.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04.....hwitz.html

  • Mo||

    Waiting 50 years to move a convent is considerate? Though this is the same organization that took over 350 years to apologize to Galileo, so relatively speaking 50 years is lickety split.

  • B.P.||

    Also, isn't the place blocks away from the World Trade Center site?

  • ||

    "blocks" as in 2 (two) blocks

  • ||

    I thinks it's the second block north, with just one block between the former WTC and the block where the Mosque will be built. Though I only deduced (guessed at) that from looking at Google maps to look at the vacant lots.

  • ||

    While I agree that it is not the governments place to control what folks do with their property (although,hell the government constantly tells us what we can do with our land through EPA, conservation, zoning and code enforcement, eminent domain can even force us to sell it to some other private party). Opposing the mosque is not irrational or bigoted given the history of Islam and the events of 9/11 and the stated intention of it's builders. If the intention were to promote religious understanding and tolerance they would build it somewhere else instead of deliberately stirring up this very foreseeable reaction.

  • Bill||

    Unless they deliberately chose it so that a few years from now it can serve as a potent example of healing and tolerance. If they actually do what they say they want to do and if they speak out against Islamic fundamentalism and terror it could really make an impact.

  • ||

    Very true. But call me cynical. But I bet they don't do anything like that.

  • IceTrey||

    It was planned BEFORE 9/11.

  • Ryback's Cook||

    OZ SULTAN PLANNED 9/11?!

  • ||

    So was 9/11...

  • Jamie||

    Healing and tolerance?? Not in our lifetime. That is just so much polictally correct bs. Take a look at what is happening in other tolerant countries where Islam has spread. Islam is not a tolerant religion and those who bend over backwards out of tolerance for them ultimately have to accommodate them not vice versa.
    hppt://www.pointlomaelectric.net

  • Jamie||

    Healing and tolerance?? Not in our lifetime. That is just so much polictally correct bs. Take a look at what is happening in other tolerant countries where Islam has spread. Islam is not a tolerant religion and those who bend over backwards out of tolerance for them ultimately have to accommodate them not vice versa.
    hppt://www.pointlomaelectric.net

  • ||

    The history of Islam IN THE UNITED STATES is a long one, of unremarkable blandness. This would be an American Islamic congregation.

  • ||

    It was bland in Europe too. Until they reached a critical mass and started demanding that society should accomodate to their sensibilities. No gym school for girls, segregation in public swimming pools, nurses not following washing procedures, turning hospital beds to face Mecca...the list is endless. These are the "moderate muslims".
    Heck, even in Minnesota cab drivers didnt want to transport liquor. They were OK with it initially, and suddenly found it was against their religion.

  • ||

    Oh, noes! Turning hospital beds toward Mecca!

    Otherwise, [citation needed].

    Except for the cabbies. They don't have to accept a fare. If they think that's actually GOOD for business, that's on them if business then drops off due to their intolerance. If they're stupid enough to alienate potential fares by being stupid, well, then they get what they deserve.

  • Zeb||

    No, it is irrational and bigoted. Sorry.

  • ||

    "That's not a bad argument. It's not an argument at all. Obviously, the survivors of people killed in the attack on the World Trade Center are entitled to their feelings. But they are not entitled to enlist the government's assistance in forcing other people to accommodate their feelings."

    But of course everyone else is. I would imagine the people of Harlem would have hurt feelings if the KKK decided to build a community center there. But I doubt Reason would bother to care if they used the government.

    Yeah, I know Reason objects to zoning laws. And they are consistent about it. But come one. People use the government all the time to assage their feelings. People who like old buildings, who don't like traffic, who don't like the fact that the company building something is non union, you name it all run to the government to assuage their feelings. That is just how things work in this country.

    And now Reason is shocked that the people who didn't want this thing built used the zoning laws of New York to stop it? Give me a fucking break.

  • Bill||

    John,

    Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are about the only two Rights that are consistently upheld by the courts and respected by most people. Of course I/we understand why people are upset but that is not relevant. I don't want to see any really bad precedents set on either speech or religion since they are the only ones that have been really strongly protected. I know you don't either.
    If the KKK wants to build a community center in Harlem I (and Reason) would support their ability to do so. I think it would get burnt to the ground pretty quickly anyway.

  • Fluffy||

    I'd go further than that and say that not only do I support it, but if it took the National Fucking Guard to protect that property from vigilante violence, then tanks in the streets it would fucking have to be.

  • ||

    I am fully aware of the issue. And in principle you are absolutely right. It is a free country. They can build it there if they want. But, reality of course is that zoning wars is how we fight about these things now. And by the laws of New York people have a right to object to these things and demand the city not let it be built. The laws suck. But they are the laws. For Sullum to act shocked that they would do such a thing or that this is in anything that doesn't happen on a daily basis all of the country is just laughable.

  • Fluffy||

    And Reason would ABSOLUTELY oppose any of your examples and does so routinely, John. Come on. Grow up.

    Just because you hate Muslims doesn't mean that Reason's multiple fucking decade history of supporting property rights suddenly disappears and didn't happen.

  • ||

    It is funny you think Muslims. When I have actually lived in a Muslim country and lived in a primarily Muslim town in Germany. You can say a lot of things about me, but hating Muslims is not one of them. I just don't feel insecure about it. Or feel the need to prove my PC bonifides on every issue. Further, I have only said about a hundred times that they should be able to build it there. In fact I said it above.

    But you pay no attention to that. The prospect that I don't hate Muslims and can't be dismissed by playing the "you are just a Muslim hating redneck" is something you are apparently horrified of facing.

  • Whatever||

    John's right! The law is the law, dammit. You don't like zoning laws, get them overturned. Until then at least we can use them to honor the wishes of the dead.

  • ||

    You know the wishes of the dead? Can you talk to my beloved Grandpa for me?

  • Whatever||

    He said he thinks you're a fag and that you should stop rubbing hot sauce on your butthole.

  • ||

    Whatever that means.

  • WTF||

    Whatever has a food-oriented sex fetish. He like to fantasize about watching you fuck a taco, or a tamale, while rubbing hot sauce on your poop chute.

    Such a precious and precocious lad.

  • Whatever||

    Stop looking at me for a boyfriend, WTF. Maybe you and Timon were meant for each other. You're both braindead leftist morons who want to make it easier for Moslems to kill Americans and wipe their hummus stained asses with the American flag.

  • ||

    Mmmmm...hummus.

  • JEP||

    Not saying I agree, but that was actually a really good response Whatever.

  • ||

    Whatever, I don't agree with what you are saying, but I support your comedic right to say it.

  • Zeb||

    I am sure that as the towers collapsed, the last thought of most 911 victims was, "I sure hope no one builds a mosque near here in 10 years".

  • ||

    And unlike you I actually appreciate Muslims as people. They are like everyone else. There are good people and bad people. They are human beings. They are not above cynicism. I am sorry but I find it hard to believe that anyone would have built that center where it is out of anything but a desire to stick 9-11 in people's faces. I think that is crazy and stupid of them. But I fully understand that is probably what they are doing. And I also understand why people don't like it.

    You are smart person. But empathy is not one of your strong suits.

  • Fluffy||

    It doesn't matter if they're trying to stick 9/11 in people's faces or not.

    If I want to open a 24 Hour Laugh About 9/11 Adventure Land that's my absolute right.

    And for someone who loves Muslims, you sure spend a lot of time going out of your way to find ways to justify the actions of people who single them out for state abuse and discrimination, John.

    You would go to bat for the Kelos, but when it's Muslims losing their property rights, you're all like, "Well, come on, understand the other point of view," and "Hey, that's the way the law is now, man, everybody does it!" You're never that way about anyone else. Are you down in the Montgomery thread right now talking about how people shouldn't complain about having their houses demolished, because that's just how the law is now? I haven't been in that thread but somehow I doubt it.

  • ||

    How am I not going to bat for these people? I agree they should be able to build it. I think it is a dumb move by them. But it is a free country.

    And as far as understaind the other side, yeah I understand why people are pissed off about this. I also understand why the city government in Kelo thought it was a good idea. They were wrong and horribly mistaken and no doubt some of them were corrupt no doubt, but I understand why they did what they did.

  • Fluffy||

    OK, so then I suppose you can direct me to your posts on the subject where you freaked out that anyone would criticize the city government in Kelo, and got outraged about Reason's coverage of the case, and told everyone that the law is the law so we shouldn't complain or act surprised.

    Right? You should be able to do that, since your attitude toward all property owners is the same. Right?

  • ||

    It doesn't matter if they're trying to stick 9/11 in people's faces or not. If I want to open a 24 Hour Laugh About 9/11 Adventure Land that's my absolute right.

    This is one of the core issues, sure, but does a right absolutely always trump discretion, taste, manners, politeness, and other social virtues? I'm not enough of a purist to say "yes." I'm not saying those should have the force of law, but it's not unreasonable to hope that people exhibit those qualities in matters of extreme controversies, which many supporters of this mosque do not. People may have the right to be insensitive jerks, but I'm not going to encourage them.

    If this imam was really interested in "healing" and "mutual understanding," he wouldn't build this so close to Ground Zero. Period. He would know it would be extremely provocative to some, especially given the historical Muslim tradition of building monuments at the sites of military victories. And he would not call it "Cordoba House," referencing the Spanish caliphate. It smacks of triumphalism. It's a bit like building the Rising Sun Shinto Shrine and Community Center at Pearl Harbor, or the Asian Co-Prosperity Shinto Center at Nanking, and claiming they're for "healing" and "mutual understanding." Yeah, right.

  • ||

    There are alternate interpretations of everything. For example, calling it Cordoba House was probably intended as a reference to Cordoba being a well-preserved cultural capital of the Caliphate where the culture of the conquered was integrated and quite well-protected and stood as an early beacon of multiculturalism on a continent otherwise living in insular squalor at the time. It was a place where East and West merged quite completely, especially for the time.

  • ||

    Muslim tradition of building monuments at the sites of military victories.

    That's a muslim thing? Cause i could swear everyone does that.

  • BH||

    Uhh... I hate to break it to you, but there is a Shinto shrine not far from Pearl Harbor. It's actually quite pretty and has been there some time.

  • ||

    There's an order of magnitude difference between two blocks and five miles. Few would object to a mosque five miles from Ground Zero. I wouldn't.

  • ||

    No, there's not, other than mathematically. You (and others) have simply decided arbitrarily that 2 blocks is too close.

  • ||

    I am sorry but I find it hard to believe that anyone would have built that center where it is out of anything but a desire to stick 9-11 in people's faces.


    You finding it hard to believe has zero bearing on the truth of the matter, which you have ZERO evidence of (and neither do I).

  • ||

    Beautifully reasoned John. I heartily agree.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Yeah, but let those Mohammedans slip too much salt into their hummus or transfats into the kibbeh and Hizzoner will be on them like hair on a gorilla.

  • ||

    There's a difference between saying that (1) you find the placement insensitive and wish Cordoba would pick another place and (2) asking Bloomberg to use zoning to force Cordoba to open up someplace else, right?

    Out of (1) and (2), which one did Palin and Foxman do?

  • ||

    There's a difference between saying that (1) you find the placement insensitive and wish Cordoba would pick another place and (2) asking Bloomberg to use zoning to force Cordoba to open up someplace else, right?

    Out of (1) and (2), which one did Palin and Foxman do?

  • ||

    Both of them did (2), but Sullum is not good enough to confront the strongest arguments of the people he disagrees with, he attacks the weakest ones.

  • ||

    Shit, of course I wanted to say that Palin and Foxman did (1).

  • WTF||

    I heard Foxman on the radio this morning, and he very explicitly did (1). He explained that he knows the Imam personally and has talked to him about it and has said he will defend the guy and his people to peacefully practice their religion, and that the Imam is moderate, not a radical Islamist. He also said that as a moderate Muslim, that moderation should mean a respect for the sensitivities of those who lost loved ones at the site, and consider not building the center so close.

    I never heard him call for the use of government power to force or prevent them from building it there.

  • Whatever||

    Those falafel-fuckers should not even be in this country in the first place. Let them keep their dirt-religion in the countries they have already fucked up.

  • Fluffy||

    Please die in a fire.

    Thanks.

  • -||

    Please come up with a new death cliché. That one is soooo lame. Thanks.

  • ||

    "Please go get an infected ingrown toenail that gives you a blood disease and die," isn't as catchy though :(

  • Coke Zero||

    When my brother tells me to die in a fire, I always tell him to fall off a cliff. I'll license that death cliché out if you'd like.

  • -||

    Nice family.

  • Fluffy||

    How's "Please sit still so I can carve out your eyes and eyesocket-rape you to death"?

  • BakedPenguin||

    SugarFree's written about that so many times on his blog, it barely even registers with anyone around here anymore.

  • -||

    SugarFree has a blog? What's it called?

  • WTF||

    How about "please eat a bullet"?

  • waffles||

    I can pass a small bullet with no gastric trauma whatsoever!

  • Whatever||

    Maybe in a fire of TRUTH.

    We're on the same side here. Like you, I'm fine with Moslems killing Israelis, I just want them to keep it over there and not bring it to New York.

  • Coke Zero||

    I'm pretty sure these guys aren't going to mount an attack on the guys in the temple next door.

  • ||

    You're out of your depth here, Spazzo.

    I'm not sure John appreciates your support.

  • Whatever||

    John's the only one on here that makes any sense. Straighten you left-libertarians right out.

    Reason should give him a column, but they are too cosmotarian for that. Got to suck up to the Beltway if they want to go to any parties.

  • ||

    I am surprised to learn that I am a left-libertarian as opposed to a libertarian who tests pretty much dead center libertarian on any of those left-right/libertarian-authoritarian quizzes.

    I guess one issue of disagreement with a (whatever the fuck you think you are) equals leftward shifting!

  • Whatever||

    I just call them as I see them. Timon? What shade are you? Coffee with a little cream? Go back to the third world shithole you came from.

  • ||

    While Massillon, OH is a 3rd world shithole, my Latvian-ness and Slovenian-ness make my shade a bit on the ecru side.

  • ||

    Nice to know you're a fucking raging racist, though!

  • Zeb||

    His link should have given it away. But I am beginning to wonder if Whatever is performance art.

  • ||

    Hopefully he'll drop the N bomb, and Reason can drop the banhammer on him.

    It's good to see that Whatever is so proud, his handle links to a crappy URL and not an actual email address.

    Go spam feministing, or kos, or anywhere else. Go AWAY.

  • halfdoghalfdeer||

    Reason bans people for using the word nigger? That seems a bit inconsistent. Are all racial slurs banned, or just the one?

  • Fluffy||

    Dude, I am the whitest guy here by several shades. I am so white I am translucent. I am so white that when I plant seeds in my garden Volvos and Starbucks cups and pith helmets and monocles grow instead of plants.

    Go back to whatever southern or eastern European shithole you crawled out of. You're not really white, you know. We're just pretending you are and laughing about it at our secret Nordic parties.

  • waffles||

    the troll is strong with this one, the stupid, however, is stronger.

  • JEP||

    Agreed

  • JEP||

    with Timon

  • Ragin Cajun||

    What is it with you and the food fornication? One of the fetishes you share with Kevin MacDonald?

  • Fluffy||

    Awesome!

    Hamas is now entitled to their feelings!

    They may be bigoted or irrational, but these are grieving people. Right?

    So let's indulge Hamas in their feelings, and if they use armed force to assuage those feelings - AWESOME!

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    Oh goody. Let me get my popcorn. This thread is gonna be good.

  • Bill||

    Which post do you want me to respond to?

    Post (1) or (2) sorry, little joke

  • ||

    jingoistic dimwits like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich

    Gingrich isn't a dimwit, but he's wrong as often as he's right, which can be said about most conservatives. Palin, on the other hand, isn't a dimwit, because she has no wit.

  • ¢||

    So...like the JournoList story, this story, even in the absence of any new-post-justifying developments, requires an individual "TEAM BLUE!" from each contributor who feels his class-solidarity obligation to Whitey is unmet somehow. Great.
    MOAR

  • Zeb||

    ?

  • Mad Max||

    Speaking of praising unlikely politicians . . .

    OK, bad seque, I'll just confess that this is a threadjack.

    County supervisors oppose Stalin bust [at D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia]

    http://www.bedfordbulletin.com.....6030030001

    Facebook page of the bust's opponents:

    http://www.facebook.com/group......ef=search#!/group.php?gid=183561572942

  • Mad Max||

    So (to minimize the threadjack), which is worse:

    1) A mosque constructed on private property with private funds, or

    2) A bust of Stalin erected on a memorial site, which receives taxpayer money, and which is dedicated to honoring those who fought on D-Day?

  • WTF||

    Not so sure the D-Day memorial receives taxpayer money yet. They were working on trying to get the federal gubmint to adopt it to take care of it, but it was built by private funds. Not sure of the current status, though.

    The bust of Stalin was put there to educate people about who he was, lest anyone forget. I actually don't think that's a terrible idea - it's not there to honor him as a great guy; it's more like, "Here is Stalin - this is what he did; this is what he looked like." People need to know and recognize historical figures and learn from what they did - both good and bad.

  • Mad Max||

    I didn't mention federal funding - one of the participants in the debate quoted in the article said the public had the right to object to the bust because (in paraphrase) "the Memorial received $8 million from the state [of Virginia] and $700,000 from Bedford County."

    Where does the bust say anything about what Stalin did? It's a memorial about D-Day, which is one thing Stalin *didn't* do.

  • ||

    You mean This?

  • Mad Max||

    My apologies to Reason - I must have been busy when they ran that article about the Stalin bust.

    Just to be clear - "Stalin bust" doesn't refer to his moobs.

  • Mad Max||

    *So* sorry about that mental image.

  • Old Mexican||

    This building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    Absolutely true. My eyes drown in tears from major Bloomberg's SUDDEN preoccupation with people's private property rights. It's so beautiful to behold! It's so awe-inspiring, it could light up the whole city of New York!

    When, oh when was the pivot point for you, Mr. Bloomberg? Could it be that you saw the light and that all those prohibitions against smoking in bars and Trans-fats and other stupid mandates will be a thing of the past? Will you be CONSISTENT in your newly-found principles? Oh, I just wish it were true!

    Even though major Bloomberg is being totally correct in his statement, I still see him as a partisan hack and a sociopathic liar. I don't trust the guy - there's something else to this story than a simple realization that people have rights.

  • Jeffersonian||

    +1

  • ||

    Body snatchers.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The "Islamic Center Fund for the Re-Election of Mayor Bloomberg" has nothing to do with his position on this issue, you cynic.

  • Mo||

    How is a partisan hack? He started off as a Republican and became an independent.

  • Eisenhower||

    Well technically he started off as a Democrat, then he became a Republican, and now he's an Independent. So he's a bipartisan hack ;)

  • Brett L||

    He's the sole member of the party which is solely interested in advancing Michael Bloomburg's political goals. See Charlie Crist for another example. Men who would never leave the party unless they were in danger of losing a primary.

  • ||

    My thoughts exactly. Bloomberg is a prick, he´s only right on this occassion for the wrong reason, being politically correct. Even a brocken clock is right twice a day.

  • RG||

    Atlantic Yards, 'nuf said.

  • ||

    This can't be re-quoted enough:
    "Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11,"

    Again
    "Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11,"

    And again in case you didn't get the first two times
    "Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11,"

    These people are acting like the only victims of 9/11 were white Christians.

  • ||

    These people are acting like the only victims of 9/11 were white Christians.

    How else would you frame it, if your goal was a religious/culture war?

  • Abdul||

    Is anyone naive enough to believe that the intent of the 9/11 hijackers was to only kill muslims? I think it's pretty clear that bin Laden and his crew view them as acceptable casualties in fucking over Jews, Christians, secular humanists, etc.

  • Zeb||

    Of course no one thinks that. Are you deliberately missing the point, or are you stupid.

  • ||

    I said jack shit about intent. I merely pointed out the fact that many of those murdered on 9/11 would have made use of the mosque near ground zero, if they, you know, hadn't been murdered.

  • UGH||

    Haven't you ignorant fucks paid attention to what happened in Iraq?

    To Al Qaeda, non-Sunni Muslims are APOSTATES. That makes them WORSE than infidels. To Al Qaeda, any Muslim that doesn't ride their bandwagon is a TRAITOR. Worse than a infidel.

    Al-Zarqawi and his crew did terrible, evil, nightmarish things to Muslims in Iraq. The Hurt Locker nailed this with its depiction of involuntary suicide bombing, child victims, and corpse booby traps.

  • ||

    Let's see, Bloomie backed Ratner's eminent domain rape in Brooklyn, can't stand the thought of citizens defending themselves with personal arms, but somehow came to a proper conclusion on the mosque? Just another pol picking and choosing his stances to suit himself.

  • Number 2||

    There is a real irony in Bloomberg talking about private property and government interference, when there exists a Landmarks Commission in New York which could, by majority vote, dictated to this private property owner exactly what it could and could not do with the building. That it chose not to do so in this particular case is no comfort.

  • ||

    Oh, I'm sure that commission has plenty of restrictions for these guys, just of a non-religion-based sort.

  • Abdul||

    I think John's criticizing the decision to build a mosque near the site of a Islamist motivated attack as a matter of taste. And to a certain extent, I can see how some might consider it gauche.

    But we really don't want to get carried away with how and when to tell people that their religious practices are "gauche." Pretty soon, it would lead to atheists calling Christians "Fucktard fundies" and stuff.

  • ||

    For the win. You don't come around here often enough Abdul.

  • Take Care of THIS!||

    I believe Christfags is the preferred nomenclature around here.

  • Mad Max||

    Then we get into arguments about whether Stalin was an atheist, and everyone gets irritable.

  • ||

    STALIN WAS A GOD FEARING MAN, YOU JERK!

  • Fluffy||

    SOMEBODY PARKED IN MY SPACE!

    IT'S TOO DAMN HUMID OUT!

    BRING BACK EIGHT TRACK TAPES!

    My irritation is more general.

  • Spartacus||

    Steve Chapman refudiated Palin's position on the mosque in a column last month.

    Goddammit, please stop. People keep repeating this and pretty son it will become a real word.

  • Spartacus||

    son=soon

    Fucking preview--how does it work?

  • waffles||

    I don't know, I will refudiate the theory that simple usage makes a word a word. Irregardless, sometimes you gotta tow the lion in order to take care of THIS.

  • Tman||

    I find it fascinating how folks like Sullum and Bloomberg are instantly accusing people who are against this travesty as irrational bigoted "dimwits" because they think this is a bad idea. It's exactly the same reaction the left has had to the Tea Party in general, wherein they use the race card or redneck "dimwit" card in order to marginalize opposition. It's such a pathetic and hollow argument against the reality of the situation.

    Seriously, they can't find ANYWHERE ELSE in New York to build this thing? And suddenly you are an irrational bigot because you think this is a bad idea?

    Never mind the mind-blowing hypocrisy of Bloomberg standing up for PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Barf.

  • Whatever||

    Why don't they just build the damn thing in Mecca? All the heathen Moslems go there anyway.

  • ||

    Possibly because the congregants in NYC are too far away.

  • Whatever||

    They don't have to be.

  • ||

    I bet you have a swarthy Muslim neighbor.

  • Whatever||

    Go back to Fudgepakistan.

  • ||

    Do they have peanut butter fudge there? If so, I'm on it!

  • Mo||

    Their current mosque in TriBeCa is already full and less than half a mile away. I'm not sure what good it does the downtown community to have the overflow for a downtown mosque up near Columbia.

    Also, NY is pretty full, there aren't many non-landmarked abandoned buildings that are (relatively) cheap and easy to buy. Why don't you blow a big wad of cash on a piece of property and donate it to them?

  • Tman||

    Why don't you blow a big wad of cash on a piece of property and donate it to them?

    Because I don't want to build a mosque. As John and other sensible people have said, I'm not denying or suggesting that they be denied the "right" to build it here, but simply stating that it is in bad taste. Stating this doesn't make me either irrational nor bigoted.

  • Pip||

    "but simply stating that it is in bad taste."

    Islam, the Lady Gaga of world religions.

  • Mike M.||

    I would have no objection at all to this mosque if the guy running it was truly a moderate Muslim who believes in peaceful co-existence, but he isn't. He is an aggressive political Islamist who won't reveal where his funding comes from, probably because most of it is coming from the Saudi Wahhabi princes. The original decision to name the thing "Cordoba" was a dead giveaway; it was a deliberate and unmistakable giant middle finger to all the infidels.

    I hope that the F.B.I. will be keeping a really close eye on this joint, otherwise it will be one of the main planning and staging areas for the next major terrorist attack against the city.

  • Lord Ballsac||

    Dude...you need to lay off of the 24 DVDs. It was a fun show, but it was retarded drivel only suitable to those who could recognize it did not reflect reality.

  • Mike M.||

    Did you have your head bowed towards Mecca and your tushy up in the air when you posted this?

  • Lord Ballsac||

    It might be late, but I want the record to reflect you are full of horseshit. I couldn't give two shits about Allah, let alone Buddha, Moses, or Jehovah. In fact, I'm all for people being blashphemous 24-7, especially about Muhammed. So did I have my head bowed towards Mecca? No, I was too busy assfucking your mom who had her head bowed toward my tv as we watched faces of death 9. Go fuck yourself.

  • WTF||

    if the guy running it was truly a moderate Muslim who believes in peaceful co-existence, but he isn't. He is an aggressive political Islamist

    I for one would like to see the supporting documentation for this statement.

  • Hannity||

    It exists! We will produce it!

    Someday, right after I give this fluffer to Newt Gingrich.

  • Mike M.||

    Faisal Abdul Rauf is not a guy who stands on the street chanting "death to America", so you're not likely to find much direct documentation in the form of writing or statements from him, but here is a brief backgrounder on the guy.

  • cynical||

    "The original decision to name the thing "Cordoba" was a dead giveaway; it was a deliberate and unmistakable giant middle finger to all the infidels."

    If we're talking about 'insensitivity', reminding us European-descended folk of the time the Muslims successfully subjugated our people is probably a major fail.

  • ||

    I'll repost this from elsewhere in the thread:

    There are alternate interpretations of everything. For example, calling it Cordoba House was probably intended as a reference to Cordoba being a well-preserved cultural capital of the Caliphate where the culture of the conquered was integrated and quite well-protected and stood as an early beacon of multiculturalism on a continent otherwise living in insular squalor at the time. It was a place where East and West merged quite completely, especially for the time.

  • waffles||

    NO! I have to choose the interpretation that suits my biases! I refudiate your reasonable response!

  • ||

    Ah! I see, and this was in Al-andalus, yes? The glorious Islamic state wrested from the hand of the infidel.

    Because, as all should know, the status of dhimmi is to be envied over the other status reserved for those who refuse submission to Allah. I speak, of course, of Death.

    What great fool takes the word of the vanquished foe who has been removed from the lands he conquered over that of those who worked for and eventually got rid of his vile caliphate?

    The 'East' and 'West', Timon, did not 'merge' voluntarily.

  • Holy Cow||

    Well, at least NYC, unlike Arizona, is allowed to respect personal property rights, according to the worlds leading libertarians....

  • Zeb||

    I am not sure what you are getting at here. The state of Arizona is not anyone's personal property. And Arizona's immigration law sure does not respect the personal property rights of people who want to hire or house undocumented immigrants.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Steve Chapman refudiated Palin's position on the mosque in a column last month"

    I think fuck yous are in order here.

    I seem to recall that "refudiate" appeared in a twitter message. Refudiate is just a typoed repudiate. One letter off.

    It was not spoken like corpsman was.

  • Mo||

    There are 6 keys in between the F and the P. One is typed with the right hand, the other with the left hand. It's pretty obvious that if was an intentional mess up.

    If she had written "reludiate" I may cut her some slack. Especially because she tried to defend refudiate by saying that Shakespeare made up words too.

  • Mo Foe||

    There are only five keys! You can't count to five, you must be an idiot!

  • Mo||

    But 5 is right next to 6, it's only one off.

  • Tim||

    Don't interrupt a good pile on.

  • Zeb||

    Get over it. Palin is a joke. Obama should be too. But guess what? Reagan mispronounced corpsman too on at least one occasion. It is easy to do when you are reading something.

  • ||

    Wake me up when Bloomberg stands up for my right to eat deep-fried goose liver on a stick.

  • NoVAHockey||

    http://www.restaurantaupieddecochon.ca/

    Might have to leave the country for that

  • tim_lebsack||

    True. I noticed that Bloomberg's speech was careful to use the term 'house of worship'. He doesn't want restaurants to have the same rights. Perhaps the city should have inspectors check houses of worship for potential terrorists ?

  • ||

    First Radley, now Jacob. Both of them and Mr. Sultan, not to mention Bloomberg, just don't get it. I expect it from Sultan and Bloomberg. This has nothing to do with irrationality and bigotry of Americans.
    Get this Jacob: Islam's creed is that every non-muslim is an infidel who must convert or the punishment is death and too many of them mean it.
    It is a movement that merits a violation of Godwin's Law. They most closely resemble Nazis: They are Fascist and they openly state their hatred of everything Jewish to the point of extermination. They are not tolerant. If it's only some "extremists" who give Islam a bad name, I have yet to see evidence of any activity by the billions of "moderate" Muslims to sideline the "few extremists".

  • The Gobbler||

    "They are not tolerant."

    I disagree. The woman on the cover of Time who had her nose and ears cut off could have gotten a lot worse.

  • ||

    Islam's creed is that every non-muslim is an infidel who must convert or the punishment is death and too many of them mean it.


    Which is why Moorish Spain was eradicated of 100% of its Christians and Jews and populated 100% by Muslims until the Inquisition.

  • ||

    Islamic creed towards infidels is death, conversion, or if you´re jew/christian pay tribute to muslims.
    Please correct me if I´m wrong.
    How could the Moors have expelled a population that was 100% Christian/jew, who would take their place? You conquer and subjucate the population.

  • ||

    The original contention was "conversion or death", which implies 100% eradication: either they cease to be Christian or Jew or they simply cease to be (or run away).

    Dhimma provides rights of residence in return for taxes. Dhimmi have fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslims. They are excluded from the specifically Muslim duties, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation.

    Dhimmi status was originally afforded to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), and later came to include Zoroastrians, Mandeans, Hindus and Buddhists. Eventually, the largest school of Islamic legal thought applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, Saudi Arabia.


    So they paid taxes and were treated better than non-religious types under a contract of sorts. For the Middle Ages, that was probably pretty fucking tolerant.

    While dhimmis had to pay jizya, it was essentially equivalent to Zakat, which is a Muslim obligation.

    So it's not as clear-cut horrific as you and the bedwetters portray it.

    Did dhimmis have to subject themselves to the laws of the conqueror? Yep. But they also were permitted their own legal and judicial systems as well.

  • ||

    Let´s assume it was tolerant by the standard of the middle ages. It is still islamic doctrine, where does that take us today? It is clearly stated in the koran and hadiths. Even if you ignored them, there is a historical record of Muhammad´s actions. Any attempt to interpret it in a modern light would be like squaring a circle.

  • ||

    Singing the praises of dhimma?

    gah

  • JEP||

    Go to predominantly Muslim country and you'll that the large majority are very hospitable, decent people.

  • ||

    They're almost creepily hospitable in some places, especially formerly Bedouin cultures. If you so much as glance at something in their house, they will try to give it to you and act insulted when you politely refuse.

  • ||

    If it's only some "extremists" who give Islam a bad name, I have yet to see evidence of any activity by the billions of "moderate" Muslims to sideline the "few extremists".

    If it's only some "extremists" who give Cops a bad name, I have yet to see evidence of any activity by the billions of "moderate" Cops to sideline the "few extremists".

  • Zeb||

    I have yet to see evidence of any activity by the billions of "moderate" Muslims to sideline the "few extremists".

    Then you are not looking very hard.

  • ||

    Islam's creed is that every non-muslim is a heathen who must convert or the punishment is death and too many of them mean it.
    Christianity's creed is that every non-christian is an infidel who must convert or the punishment is eternal damnation and too many of them mean it.

    You could say something similar about most religions and it would be true for some of its adherents. That does not negate the establishment clause of the first amendment.

  • ||

    Umm, yeah, but Christians generally don't take it upon themselves to send you to that eternal damnation.

  • Giordano Bruno sez hi||

    ...unless you happen to be a Jewish resident of Cordoba, circa 1500 AD.

  • ||

    To me it is all a matter of courtesy. If the mosque builders are so tone-deaf that they don't realize that building a mosque at ground zero is seen to be contemptuous then they are stupid. I don't think they are stupid so they must be overtly contemptous of the feeling of Americans.

    How do you think it will play in the court of public appeal when it turns out that some of the funding for this mosque came from Hamas, Hezbolah, et al?

  • ||

    They've had plenty time to become un-tone-deaf. Instead they dug in, counted on and promptly got the help of such PC multiculturalists like Bloomberg with his staged performance. He choked up, my ass. What an idiot.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe they just realize that the people that see it to be contemptuous are bigoted assholes who need to get a life and hence ignore that fact. Seems like the right attitude to take to me.

  • Federal Dog||

    Is anyone really confused about this project? They are looking to erect a trophy monument on a massacre site.

    The people who committed the slaughter, and those who are continuing their work, think in highly symbolic fashion: First they razed a prime symbol of freedom, and now they demand to build a victory marker on the site of the slaughter.

    There are millions of places to build a mosque. Having a place of worship has nothing to do with this imam's demand: They are establishing to the world that Americans not only go to the slaughter, but meekly cringe and grovel as the site is expressly marked as Islamist territory.

    And is anyone confused why they refuse to disclose where the millions necessary to build the trophy will come from?

    Fuck them. If their interest is really in building a place of worship, they will readily find one elsewhere.

  • ||

    Is anyone really confused about this project? They are looking to erect a trophy monument on a massacre site.


    No, the massacre site is not all that close, let alone right on where they want to build this. Even a cursory reading of the news articles would put lie to this continuing myth, so I can only conclude that you're either a copy-paste drone or a regurgitating troll.

  • Federal Dog||

    Two blocks is not close?

  • ||

    In Manhattan, no it's not.

    Hell, John-boy himself has said as much. There is no view from this place to the WTC site, based on what everyone familiar with the area has said.

  • ||

    Besides that, it's not ON the site. Not by even a little bit. To continue to say that it is is fucking stupid.

  • Federal Dog||

    Take a breath. I know the area. The only "fucking stupid" thing is anyone pretending that the proposed site is not at Ground Zero.

  • ||

    It's not. I don't know how much more plainly you can say it, unless you're expanding the definition of the "site" to suit your biases.

  • Federal Dog||

    You are ignorant. Go there and inform yourself.

  • ||

    Since you're the only person making this argument, I'm going to have myself a big boulder of salt with your assertion, thank you very much.

  • Federal Dog||

    Absent personal knowledge of the site, maybe you should actually read something about it then, if you are really that terribly confused about where it is located.

    It isn't that hard to figure out where it is -- if you try. You don't even need to go there.

  • Giordano Bruno sez hi||

    Should we close the strip clubs near The American Holy Land?

    Also, would 3 blocks away be acceptable?

    How about 4?

    5?

    Why not just cut to the chase and say "No mosques in Lower Manhattan"?

  • Really?||

    The World Trade Center was a prime symbol of freedom?

  • ||

    Well, if you were above the poverty line, yeah.

  • Tim||

    They have a right to build it, but really, if they were really interested in reconcialiation they wouldn't.

  • Zeb||

    Why the fuck should they be interested (personally) in reconciliation? They didn't knock down the WTC. They had nothing to do with it.

  • sunny_black||

    This has nothing to do with reconciliation. These cats have a total hard-on (to the extent they can have one) over the idea of putting up a mosque a couple of blocks away from the place where they killed a few thousand infidels. Symbols. They love it. That's not me making up stuff. That's real.

    How many of you actually think if you walk up to Muslims and ask them, 'hey, you don't hate America even though you live here, right?'

    how many of you think they'll say, 'uhh..to be honest, i do kind of hate America. i can't really stand you people. i mean, if i'm being perfectly honest here. i say all that 'religion of peace' stuff so you guys don't kick me out of the country, but basically i think westerners think about sex too much, where too much revealing clothing, and i do kind of hate you guys. everything about you people. you kinda suck...'

    is that the basis on which you determine that there's a difference between 'religion of peace' islam and radical islam? because you see muslims every now and then and they seem likable, hard-working folk trying to make it in the world, just like the rest of us...

  • ||

    These cats have a total hard-on (to the extent they can have one) over the idea of putting up a mosque a couple of blocks away from the place where they killed a few thousand infidels.


    "They" did? The congregation building this place killed some infidels?

  • ||

    It's the slightly shifted version of the Jews all killed Christ. Classical anti-semitism is out these days. Newer semites and anti-christs need be targetted. Second Law of the Conservation of Bigotry.

  • Zeb||

    You are right. Muslims are all the same. And all libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot.

  • JEP||

    Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the attitude amongst the commenters this morning. Maybe it's just the controversial issue that brings people out of the wood work.

    If the property is private and the funding is private, they have every right to build a mosque where they want to. I don't think it's in good taste, and I wish they would show a little more discretion, but I'll support their right to do it.

    Using the zoning laws and arguing that the large amount of public outcry is reason enough to keep them from building the mosque is in the same vein as Tony arguing that just because a majority decree things to be a certain way, that's they way they should be - it's just another form of tyranny of the majority despite individual rights.

    This should be a good opportunity to practice the "I'll support your right to do what you want to do even though I don't agree with it, because I want to keep doing what I want to do" doctrine of libertarian tolerance that everyone's been talking about.

  • JEP||

    Furthermore, bin laden was attacking western culture. Not Christians, Jews, Whitey, etc. Bin Laden considers moderate Muslims a result of western cultural influence so they are, in a sense, also bin laden's enemy.

  • Tim||

    It would be ironic if a Jihadist blew up this mosque.

  • ||

    You're right with the zoning law part and enlisting government.
    And they do have the right to build a mosque. And I have the right to criticize them.
    But you note that Jacob says "the positions of the mosque's opponents look "irrational" and "bigoted."

    I disagree, see my post above.

  • Really?||

    No, not irrational at all.

  • Brett L||

    And miss the opportunity to be an asshole? You know that libertarians are the people-who-hate-people party, right? Tolerance is for the people who disagree with me.

  • ||

    Here is an idea. Let's build a magnificent Crystal Cathedral in Baghdad before we pull the troops out. How do you think that would be perceived in Mecca?

  • ||

    Fantastic idea. Let's do it in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Malaysia too while we're at it. Let's see how tolerant they are.

  • ||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....n_Pakistan

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

  • ||

    Do you have a point with your links?

  • ||

    That churches HAVE been built in those countries.

    The fact that Pakistanis have religious strife is both beside the point and indicative more of the fact that they've ALWAYS had more religious strife.

  • ||

    There are Catholic churches in Baghdad as well, I have seen a few. So what? My point, though, was how well do you think it would go over if we built a glittering Crystal Cathedral in place of one of Saddam's palaces, say Al Faw palace? Do you think it might be seen as a bit of contempt on our part?

  • ||

    Considering how little support Saddam had among his people, I'm guessing they'd be a tad bewildered.

    To make it a true equivalence, though, you'd have to say it's a large community center with a smaller prayer/worship space inside whose mission is to bridge East and West.

  • ||

    Thanks Timon

    "On October 28, 2001 in Lahore, Pakistan, Islamic militants killed 15 Christians at a church, three weeks after U.S.-led War in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban.

    "On September 25, 2002, unidentified gunmen shot dead seven people at a Christian charity in Karachi's central business district."

    "On October 28, 2001 in Lahore, Pakistan, Islamic militants killed 15 Christians at a church, three weeks after U.S.-led War in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban.

    Of course, all our own fault. Why did we attack those nice tolerant Taliban.

    We are such bigots!

  • Giordano Bruno sez hi||

    How dare they! Let's go down to the local Mosque and give them a taste of their own medicine!

    WHO'S WITH ME???

  • Zeb||

    Because our aspirations should be to be just as shitty and bigoted as Saudi Arabia? We are supposed to be the country that is good on this stuff, remember?

  • ||

    How did Chapman "refudiate Palin's position last month."

    1) Palin's position is that she hopes Cordoba voluntarily builds the mosque someplace else to spare people's feelings.

    2) Chapman demonstrated quite effectively that the first amendment means that Cordoba can't legally be prevented from building a mosque there. (Assuming that the state action is really based on their religion, which is this case it obviously would be).

    How does (2) refute (1)?

  • sunny_black||

    I'm curious -- I love my reason brethren -- but I have to ask: how many of you have actually been in a room having conversations with young Muslim men? In an environment where you looked like them and they trusted you and they were being really honest about their feelings toward America (yeah, we love America....snicker, snicker), women (read: dogs), "religion of peace" (wink, wink), "radical" Islam (yeah, totally radical).

    You don't want to be thought of as a bigot, intolerant, etc. I get it. On the other hand, there's a Muslim mentality that I'm not sure some of you can appreciate.

  • ||

    I have.

  • Zeb||

    And I suppose you have done an extensive survey of Muslims and have an accurate and completely non-anecdotal picture of the mainstream of Islam in the US.

  • ||

    In looking at this issue, I keep drawing a comparison to my own views on hate crimes. I think trying to deduce what's in the mind of a person committing an act is nonsense and also irrelevant. The same should go for building this structure. The law is the law. Government shouldn't selectively try to twist some building codes to find a reason to deny construction on the basis of someone being offended. The right thing is to treat this as if it's a church of your own favorite religion. (In my case, they'd be building a bar)

    Like most people, I do think it's a dumb decision to build there. But, allegedly, it's a free country.

  • ||

    I wouldn't be quick to praise Michael Bloomberg as he believes in nothing. In this case, speaking on the rights on the mosque is a way to drape himself in issues of religious freedom and tolerance. However, quite recently when a law protecting religious services from being interfered with by concerts disrupted plans of his political ally, he simply altered the law to suit his needs. What happened to religious freedom? Well, if it doesn't interfere with his own agenda, he gives speeches. If it does, then he does what he wants.

    And that's the essence of Mike Bloomberg. He also gives speeches about the importance of human rights when his own police department makes a mockery of civil rights at every turn. It's not when Bloomberg gives speeches that you should be listening - it's when he's not saying anything that people should pay attention. Because when his own conduct or agencies fail to adhere to his own words, Bloomberg just falls silent.

  • ||

    "Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion?"

    No. Unless they are engaged in interstate commerce, in which case the government can do whatever it wants.

  • ||

    Wow, I was not aware that I could build the religious institution of my choice on any piece of property I own. Cool.

  • ||

    Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans.

    Some of our Muslim neighbors did. But others cheered the death and destruction and held block party celebrations that very night not 25 miles from Ground Zero. Let us not forget that as well.

    It's amusing to observe groups, like the ACLU, and individuals, like many self-described libertarians, who under normal circumstances have absolutely no use for religion or the religious spring into righteous indignation when one particular religion is under the gun. My guess is that if, say, the Mormons were trying to build a tabernacle at the site, the reaction would be quite different among the supporters of this mosque. Even if the Mormons were looking to build bridges between faiths.

  • ||

    My guess is that if, say, the Mormons were trying to build a tabernacle at the site, the reaction would be quite different among the supporters of this mosque. Even if the Mormons were looking to build bridges between faiths.


    Aside from that fact that it would scarcely make the news, your guess is just about as wrong as a guess can be.

  • Paul||

    Look! In the background! It's Friar Bellows!

  • Dan||

    Bloomberg and Foxman are both right. The owners have the right to build a mosque there, but are wrong for doing so.

  • ||

    Does that make you right or wrong for concluding that all parties are right or wrong? Christ.

  • ||

    But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

    ANOTHER mosque in lower Manhattan. ANOTHER. There are already two. But we all know that the ginormous Islamic community that lives in the financial district needs another one.

    I used to have occasion to be in lower Manhattan on Sundays. Apart from tourists, it's a ghost town. After eight PM, you can walk from City Hall down to Liberty Plaza without seeing anyone.

    Thinking about it, the 'ghost town' effect happens pretty much every night after a point--9-10ish. There really aren't a whole lot of people who live in the financial district.

    Where are all these Muslims that need all these mosques?

    And here's something that just came to me--is it possible that these people are all saying 'yes' to this thing because the repeated successful and thwarted terrorist attacks on NYC have got them scared that 'no' votes will get them blown up?

  • ||

    And here's something that just came to me--is it possible that these people are all saying 'yes' to this thing because the repeated successful and thwarted terrorist attacks on NYC have got them scared that 'no' votes will get them blown up?

    Seroquel works wonders, dude, try it.

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