Islam

Is This Tolerance?

The debate over the Ground Zero mosque

|

Is questioning the presence of a mosque at Ground Zero really a sign of bigotry?

Or is it just common sense?

This week, the prospects of an Islamic center's rising on the boundary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were all but assured when a New York City commission unanimously voted to allow the demolition of the building that now sits on the site.

Which, technically speaking, is the right thing to do.

After all, if we were to apply a skewed moral litmus test to First Amendment protections, we'd be no better than folks who support the Fairness Doctrine or oppose the Citizens United campaign finance decision.

And if we backed the use of zoning laws to compel others to act in accordance with our own value systems, hey, we'd be as tyrannical as the average environmentalist on the average city council.

But since when does deference to the Constitution prohibit a person from pointing out the obvious and worrisome symbolism of this project?

If we concede that a mosque at ground zero is a sign of our tolerance—and it is—surely debating the problems with its setting lets the world know we have the cognitive ability not to be a bunch of saps.

Bigot!

It is, you see, ugly and un-American to question the motivations of those opening an Islamic center a stone's throw from ground zero—a project that will cost $100 million—but not ugly of organizers to pick a spot that's a stone's throw from ground zero.

Those who have spoken out against the project—Sarah Palin, Rick Lazio, Newt Gingrich, and the Anti-Defamation League, among many others—have been accused of political grandstanding and, naturally, of peddling a form of unquenchable "bigotry."

Let's concede that grandstanding is a permanent feature of political interaction. (Though there have been fewer distasteful forms of grandstanding than the preening and imperious lecturing we see from those who decide what is and isn't tolerance.) But opposing the ideology of religious institutions—any religion—does not constitute bigotry.

Furthermore, Daisy Khan, a partner in the Cordoba project, conceded in an interview with National Public Radio that Islam "has been hijacked by the extremists, and this center is going to create that counter-momentum, which will amplify the voices of the moderate Muslims."

That would be a productive—if unprecedented—undertaking. We need more secularized Muslims. And, of course, reasonable Americans do not conflate the moderate with the radical. Yet even Khan states that the religion has been "hijacked." So surely, it is to be expected that some would be skeptical of the group's intentions.

There is, you see, some evidence to back the concern.

Though the Cordoba Initiative is under no obligation to do so, if its purpose is to battle extremism within Islam and build cooperation with other faiths, why not divulge the funders of the project? Why not unconditionally condemn Islamist terrorism?

Neither has happened.

Then again, even if we were boundlessly tolerant, there is an inescapable fact: This 13-story community center is going to be built two blocks from the worst modern atrocity committed in the name of Islam.

Such a project is not just in poor taste; for many Americans, it confirms their concerns about Islam's provocative nature.

How that helps interfaith dialogue remains a mystery.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: On Drug Policy, Mexico's President Has a Bigger Vocabulary Than Ours

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.

  1. Bravo.

  2. There is a very fine line between tolerance and stupidity in this case. In our efforts to accommodate everyone and prove over and over again that we are NOT bigots we provide those whose entire dogma is based on our destruction a stronger and stronger foothold on our society every day. As we stretch further and further to accommodate those who would destroy us, bit by bit we loose the war.
    Our society is based on acceptance and freedome of religion, but Islam is not. Even though not all muslims are terrorists, all terroritsts are muslims.

    http://www.pointlomaelectric.net

    1. I’m trying to conceive how letting a religious organization build a mosque — even near Ground Zero — somehow constitutes “losing the war.”

      Also, your statement that “all terrorists are Muslims” ignores, among other groups, (a) conservative Christian “terrorists” within the US, like Eric Rudolph or the KKK, and (b) the history of Zionist terrorism leading up to the founding of Israel.

      1. Eric Rudolph happened 15 years ago now. And the KKK has more FBI informants than real members.

        1. If we didn’t have the world’s greatest military, an immense nuclear arsenal, flying robot killing machines, et al, and there was something politically we wanted or if we had a grievance against some other nation we were too weak to vitiate conventionally, there would be American terrorists, too.

          It’s really easy to not employ terrorism when you can employ B-52’s instead.

          1. “if we had a grievance against some other nation we were too weak to vitiate conventionally, there would be American terrorists, too.”

            Oh really? I think of lots of countries that have terrible militaries and have lots of grievances against the world. I think most of Africa has some real no shit historical grievances against pretty much all of Europe. Yet, they don’t seem to engage in any terrorism.

            You are just fucking retarded on this issue. Like Chad level retarded.

            1. Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Chad (the country), Sudan, Nigeria, Tanzania, and some others I’m sure I’m forgetting would like a word.

              1. Is that list exclusively former French colonies or did you add some others in the mix?

                1. Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania are not formerly French.

            2. And most of those African countries had terrorist organizations in them that attacked Europeans until the colonial era ended.

              Or currently have organizations in them that launch attacks that meet the definition of terrorism against their own governments.

              There are terrorists in the former Zaire, John. We just don’t read about them because they aren’t important to us.

              1. African countries are hell holes!

          2. Roam if you want to! Roam around the world!

            1. Thank you for not doing Love Shack.

          3. Unless one takes an objective view and sees dropping bombs on people from B52s as state terrorism.

            1. Who exactly is dropping bombs on people from B-52s? (as long as we’re being objective)

              Isn’t war declared for that kind of thing?

              1. When was the last time we declared war?

                1. When was the last time anyone declared war?

          4. If the government of this America you describe was funding any of these American terrorist orginizations while imposing a theocracy or any other form of dictatorship on its own citizens, they should expect to be crushed by the first relatively free country that finds the time. This America, by funding rather than destroying these homegrown outfits would have the blood of its own citizens on its hands.

          5. And it’s really easy not to target civilians when

            1. No really, can’t.

          6. I trust you. You will steal, threaten, lie, defraud and otherwise terrorize. However, I myself, (from a country with a very weak military) do not, and I suspect many other American’s live principled.

            Thanks for pointing out where you stand.

          7. Ya and if we were born in Germany in 1920’s we would all be Nazi’s. Your point?

          8. My Gawd, you sound like a freaking moron. Are you really Tony?

            The vast majority of countries don’t have bombers with a global reach, but damn few sponser terrorism.

            You are a typical left wing loon.

      2. I keep forgetting, “Teh Jooz” is always the right answer.

        1. I’m not blaming “the Jooz.” I’m just saying that “terrorism” is in the eye of the beholder (“one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter”). When the Jews didn’t have a country but wanted to provoke action to get one, they resorted to terrorism. Now, the situation is reversed, and the Palestinians use terrorism.

          Also, as noted by Fluffy, “terrorism” is a useful tactic when one doesn’t want to or can’t engage with an adversary’s overwhelming military superiority.

          I still think that it makes no sense to claim that “all terrorists are Muslims.”

          1. “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter”

            Smells like teen moral relativism.

            1. HEAR HEAR!! (Fucking relativists and moral equivalency…. yeah, Goerge Washington WAS Yasir Arafat… pardon me while I choke on my own vomit…)

              1. George Washington did have slaves though. Both men were products of their time and place, however Washington did more objective good than Arafat could have even dreamed. The liberalization of Western culture did help that a bit, not to mention the uniquely American (to some extent) trait of distrusting authority figures. I don’t agree as much with the relativists since both the situations are obviously different. Now, if the Native Americans were still a significant percentage of the population and saw that their land was being stolen by Aristocrats from across the sea, we might have a similar situation here. Oh wait…we did sans insidious loopy religious indoctrination.

          2. This…

            I’m just saying that “terrorism” is in the eye of the beholder (“one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter”).

            …draws on the worst bullshit moral and cultural relativism ever postulated (for the purpose of supporting revolutionary dickbags of all stripes) and ignores the irrefutable fact that terrorism (specifically, that which targets non-combatants purposely and maliciously) is objectively evil.

            I do not object to the rest of your argument, but that statement flat-out sucks.

            1. I agree with you that terrorism that targets non-combatants purposely and maliciously is objectively evil. But it’s also a fact that your view of a particular act of terrorism will depend on your political view of what the terrorist was attempting to accomplish.

              In any event, I don’t want to get into a debate about the definition of “terrorism” or “terrorist,” and I certainly don’t want to defend terrorism as a tactic. My original post simply responded to an assertion that “all terrorists are Muslims,” which is “objectively” false.

              1. The Zionists never picked up the habit of targeting civilians and had the reputation of getting rid of the ones in their ranks who did. Even when they blew up the King David Hotel, they were targeting British Officers and missed.

                Pretty much tosses your argument, as others have noted.

                1. I don’t think that you understand my argument. Are you telling me that the Zionists pre-1948 weren’t terrorists? I think that you’re wrong, and if they weren’t terrorists then I’m not sure what to call them, but in any event that leads into a discussion of the definition of “terrorism,” which wasn’t my argument.

                  My argument was simply that not “all terrorists are Muslims.” Do you disagree?

                  1. I do not think pre-1948 Zionists were terrorists and I do not think all terrorists are Muslim. The SDS was not Muslim, neither was/is Shining Path, just in case you need some examples.

                    1. Thanks for the answer. If you don’t think that pre-1948 Zionists were terrorists, how would you label them? Soldiers? Patriots? (I’m not being sarcastic; I’m really wondering.)

                2. Bullshit!

                  1. That reply was to suki’s puppeteer not the rugger guy.

              2. First off Jonny, you said:

                “But it’s also a fact that your view of a particular act of terrorism will depend on your political view of what the terrorist was attempting to accomplish.”

                Screw you. I would never applaud any group crashing a jetliner into towers full of civilians………regardless of my politics. Interesting to note that by your words you would.

                Secondly, here is the definition of terrorism: I don’t support it.

                terrorism:

                the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

                wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

                1. You’re too strict in parsing my words, and too quick to say “screw you” to someone you don’t know. Maybe I should have said that “many people will view a particular act of terrorism through their own political prism.” You okay with that?

                2. Interesting definition. How would this apply to some of our great country’s actions? Bombing of Dresden? Firebombing of Tokyo? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They all seemed to involve the calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain political goals. For instance, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was designed to avoid a long protracted conventional war in the Japanese isles and bring a quick end to World War II. So your definition seems to label the United States as a terrorist organization. If this is acceptable, so be it. If not, change your definition.

                  1. “So your definition seems to label the United States as a terrorist organization. If this is acceptable, so be it. If not, change your definition.”

                    Your don’t seem to grasp a basic point which is that its irrelevant what the United States has done. What is relevant is that Islam and its adherents are our enemies. They could be morally better or worse than us. Who the fuck cares. But they are our enemies because their interests are in opposition to ours. GET IT.

              3. Jonny Scrum-Half puts the ball in straight. Or seems to be trying to.

            2. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” has always struck me as far more of an attack on “freedom fighters” than a defense of terrorists.

          3. ‘Terrorism’ is different from ‘asymettrical warfare’ or ‘guerilla tactics’ both of which are methods of engaging with a militarily superior enemy without (necessarily) abusing or targeting civilians and non-military targets.

            Terrorism entails the creation, maintenance, and escalation of a state of terror among enemy civilian populations and general political institutions, in order to force an alteration of government policy. Asymettric warfare, however, seeks to use non-traditional means of diminishing the enemy’s will or ability to fight: creating or spreading tales of ‘atrocity’ to sap support at home and abroad, supplanting government-provided services with one’s own to win over the populace, or even enlisting civilian non-violent protest to frustrate attempts at imposing order.

            I think the moral difference between the two is fairly clear, even if both may be justified or unjustifiable in varying situations.

            1. This is true.

              I think that part of the problem is that when the differences in power between adversaries are large enough, one side can establish “zones of safety” where life is normal, while imposing war, war-like conditions, or intolerable oppression on the other side.

              And that under those conditions terrorism is a natural psychological response.

              John wanted to talk in the other thread about the predictable emotional responses of people to given acts.

              Well, if the United States was being militarily occupied, and pretty much every square inch of the US was transformed into a shithole where you could be the victim of violence at any moment, and there was no place you could go or be where there wasn’t a pretty good chance that an occupier’s bomb would fall on you at any time –

              And if your occupier could go home when his tour was over, or even for the weekend, and sit in nice cafes and have a cup of coffee or an ice cream, I think I might want to demonstrate to him that I had no safe zone then he wouldn’t have one, either. And that he couldn’t kick my guts out six days a week and then go home and be happy and go to Chuck E Fucking Cheese. If my home is a war zone, so’s yours.

              I would do my best to remind myself that deliberate attacks on civilian targets are immoral, illegal and war crimes. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the people on my side said, “Fuck that shit, the ‘rules’ of war have been set up to say it’s OK for us to die, but not for the powerful. So fuck those rules.”

              1. You know, I have to agree with this logic. I got no love for a terrorist, or for saying that the Muslims in question are freedom fighters. But I will say, given similar conditions of occupation, I can see these actions as a resonable result. Taking the fight to your home, etc.

                Having said that, the Muslim’s have been waging war since inception to kill all of those that are non-Muslims, or if you are a Muslim, they would just take your shit. Remember, they fought so many wars in the name of Allah, but left the battles treasuring their plunder the most. They have plundered otherwise peaceful peoples for a 1000 years, in the same manner as the Vikings.

                And to name the fucking project Cordoba after the sack of Cordoba Spain. Then to destroy the Christian Chuch and put a mosque on the same grounds. To name the project Cordoba and still get this building on American soil shows how stupid they think we Americans are.

                Perhaps we are that stupid, and perhaps we will fail. 8 years of fiscally imploding Bush spending only to have a Socialist Democrat piss on our consitution. It’s like, vote for bad or worse.

                1. Did they name it after the sacking of Cordoba, or did they name it after a city which at one time may have been the most populous in the known world and was a cultural center and capital of that region of the caliphate?

                  You assume it’s the former, but why? And isn’t the latter at least as likely, especially if they claim to be a force for understanding between East and West? Since Cordoba became the best Middle Ages example of that, I’m going to lean in that direction.

                  1. Perhaps that is the reason they named the project Cordoba. I guess I am ass for assuming they want to build a massive Mosque near the site of 9/11 in a similar manner as in 768 AD in Cordoba Spain.

                    Cordoba become an example of understanding in the Middle Ages. Are you nuts? Turmoil continued in Spain for 700 or so more years. I guess the Spanish Inquisition was due to the Christian’s love for their very welcome and kind hearted Muslim compatriots.

                    1. Cordoba was a massive cultural center. You can deny it all you like, but the generally accepted fact remains that it was, among other things, the city that contained the world’s largest library (by far).

                  2. “did they name it after a city which at one time may have been the most populous in the known world and was a cultural center and capital of that region of the caliphate?”

                    No they named it after the one that got away. You see Muslims consider every land they occupy to be theirs for eternity. Why do you think they hate Israel so much. Cordoba represents their dream of occupying Europe.

                    As for what they want. They want world domination. They always have. And they fucking lie. Everything they say is a lie. They are expert liars. This is one thing that the west has not learned. The Muslims are pure liars.

                    1. Why do you think they [Muslims] hate Israel so much.

                      There’s a rather huge amount of indifference toward Israel in large parts of the Muslim world. So “they” don’t necessarily hate Israel so much. Lots do. But lots simply don’t give a damn.

                      You like to accuse entire classes of people of institutional lying. There’s a word for that.

              2. Well, if the United States was being militarily occupied

                Is Iran militarily occupied?
                Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Egypt?

                Since those four countries are the source of radical islamic ideology and the terrorists that seek to impose that ideology and none of those countries is occupied then what the fuck is your point?

            2. How about we just apply the usual non-aggression principle and agree that no tactic which deliberately attacks civilians (who after all have not initiated force) is never justifiable. So, under our working definition, terrorism is never justifiable. No matter whether it’s used by “freedom fighters” or governments.

              1. Yes, the collectivism is strong on this thread, as usual whenever this subject is brought up.

      3. Of course, it’s not a mosque. And it’s not at Ground Zero. It’s a community center with a swimming pool and a cooking school at the site of a former Burlinton Coat Factory.

        1. THEY TOOK OUR COATS!!

        2. I understand te building took collateral damge as a result of WTC pane attacks. To say that it “not at ground zero” is bit deceiving.

      4. Eric Rudolph and the Klan? You see anybody putting up monuments to either?

        Well then…

        1. I don’t know if you’re kidding. If you’re not, you might want to Google Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Civil War general and KKK guy who has a lot of monuments and statues in his honor throughout the South.

          1. Property rights aside Jonny Scrum Half.

            You really believe that it is in good taste, good form, beneficial to promoting tolerance, etc to put up a monument victory monument to Islam, next to a site of slaughter done in the name of Islam?

            That these people aren’t instigating and goading………….oh hang on, that is exactly what you are doing.

            Got it.

            1. Fuck no it’s not in good taste. In fact, it’s probably just as horrible as you fucks think it is. But what the hell are you going to do about it? Are you going to grab you guns and go violate the rights of Americans/Legal Immigrants to get your way like a bunch of screaming babies? Are you going to use the force of government to impose your will on people, essentially being no better than the left, nor the Islamic regimes that may or may not be funding this shit.

              Shit happens. Anything you do to stop this other than protesting and screaming like babies on the internet is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Suck it up fucks, it’s going to get built. I’m not happy about it, and I don’t think anyone should be unless the operation is as benevolent as it it purported to be. For all the reverence to the constitution thrown around on here, there seems to plenty of intellectually lazy people on here who throw it out to suit this “crisis”.

              Do you think New Yorkers are going to not watch this place like beady-eyed hawks 24-7? Do you think all the scared old ladies living down the street aren’t going to call the police about noise disturbances coming from the “Community” center 3 times a day? They can build it, but their privacy will be violated on an hourly basis. Hell, for all the money we dump into the worthless FBI and CIA, maybe they could keep tabs on it. And in the end, if it turns out this is just another Mosque (there are thousands in the United States, 6 near the Pentagon) you’re all going to look like the moral lightweights you’ve let yourselves become.

              1. I don’t know anyone going “OMG they’ll be forming their nefarious plans in this mosque, becoming Jihad Central!”

                The issue is the *symbolism*, from which those who applauded 911 will draw encouragment for their cause.

                1. Wait…because a sufi guy who pretty much disagrees with all Wahhabist interpretations of the concept of “jihad” wants to build a mosque, Wahhabists and their allies will draw encouragement from this structure?

                  Seems odd.

                2. You’ve apparently never spoken to a Neo-Con.

      5. Good point most terrorists are religious terrorists.

        1. See my comment above. By some web definition, most terrorists are government employees.

      6. Zionist terrorists? Sorry,you lose….

        1. Not that wikipedia is the paragon of truthiness, but maybe you should utilize the internet and learn a thing or two.

      7. And the tamil tigers, and the IRA, and those Basque separatists, etc etc etc

    2. There are Islamic prayer centers at West Point, numerous Air Force bases, Quantico Marine Corps Base and the Pentagon.

      Here’s a news flash for you: Terrorists were responsible for 9-11 shit-for-brains not muslims. Hitler was christian, does that mean Nazism and Christianity are the same thing?

      Anyway, this is just more proof that Reason is for conservative fake libertarians. There’s a fine line between being culturally conservative while claiming to be for liberty and being a hypocritical fuckhead.

      1. You may not have noticed, then, that there are a ton of people arguing against the “conservative fake libertarians”. Were you just looking for an excuse to lump the Reason commentariat into a convenient, preconceived bucket?

  3. That is a great article.

  4. Boundless tolerance for unlimited corporate electioneering in the name of free speech, measured skepticism about property rights and freedom of religion when it comes to this? Please.

    Let them build it and see which side responds with more tolerance. Luckily, should the bumpkins and the demagogues who are crying foul provoke anyone to act out, they won’t be able to find the community center, since it’s not at the WTC site. Manhattanites are more receptive to the mosque than people polled elsewhere, probably because they understand the geography of Manhattan better than the Sarah Palins of the world.

    1. Let them build it and see which side responds with more tolerance.

      ProTip: It won’t be the Cordoba Initiative.

    2. Let them build one in the ground zero hole. Build it at least as big as the Jewish Temple at Mecca.

    3. If Americans are so stupid they elect the next President because Pepsi paid a billion dollars to run a Superbowl ad endorsing him then we deserve the government we get.

      For the record: I am for the property rights of everybody, even if I disagree with them 100%.

    4. Funny how the “bumbkins” are at fault for the geography, but not those who actually named it the GZM. But I suppose idiots start out with their target and only decide on the reasons later. You might want to think a little more thoroughly if you want to actually make sense.

    5. OOOOOOh, good point, Tony!! Let’s make it a “tolerance fight”!! Yeah, that will show the world how great we are – go on and insult us however you want – we won’t do ANYTHING!! YEah
      ! Great idea… fucktard

  5. It’s just a theist clubhouse, not anything the government needs to involve itself in.

    1. The already are heavily involved: zoning, historic building counsel, etc. Public financing is just around the corner.

      1. Ah yes, I remember using libertarian political philosophy defending historic building preservation subsidies and micromanaging zoning laws.

        In Bizarro world.

  6. Spectacular comment thread about the Connecticut shooting at the NY Daily News.

    Mad man NYC 2 C…
    12:55 PM
    Aug 4, 2010

    Racism at the Job in CT.. Say it aint so.. Pls these racist scum bags might have gotten what they deserve. But I don’t think I can do it myself.. I rather beat the liven sh*t out of them. Then again I would be in jail too. If this story is true. God Bless Omar Thornton

    1. This is clearly a farce. There are no black people in CT.

      1. Sadly, it was another tragic case of WASP on WASP violence.

        When will our nation’s elite ever learn? When will the preppies put down their arms and take up their golf clubs?

        I blame the tea party.

      2. Ever been to Hartford?

    2. If there really was all sorts of racism at the beer distributorship, then the gunman was too stupid to live and I wish he had killed himself before he shot anyone else.

      He didn’t even try to sue? Try to stick the place up for a settlement? What a moron.

      “I could sue, but I have a better idea. I’ll steal some beer on camera! That’ll show ’em!”

      Too. Stupid. To. Live.

    3. God Bless Omar Thornton

      What workplace is complete without a simmering cauldron of rage that will kill fellow employees so he can be a hero to internet fuckwits?

      1. hjo4
        1:34 PM
        Aug 4, 2010

        [I guess being a crybaby is only delegated to one race.] Yes and you Caucasians have been crying about Black people as YOU have benefited from the FREE LABOR provided in building this Great Nation, to using Black taxpayers dollars to create programs that EXCLUDED them and uplifted Caucasian Americans (The NEW DEAL ) did just that, and Welfare which used those same taxpayer dollars EXCLUDED Black women but accepted “immigrant” White women who husbands abandoned their families. Those policies place American Blacks GENERATION behind in wealth and all that brings to their Caucasian counterparts. Now here your idiotic @$$ comes talking about Blacks being crybabies we have every reason not only to cry but to be suicide bombers in America. You folks are lucky and don’t know it.

        This just keeps on giving.

        1. The new deal uplifted caucasians? Well, it was likely racist, but I’m not sure it really helped any major group in the long run.

          1. Oh, but you are wrong. We were helped in the long run – big time.

      2. There are workplaces without them?

  7. But since when does deference to the Constitution prohibit a person from pointing out the obvious and worrisome symbolism of this project?

    It doesn’t.

    But the political grandstanders – every last motherfucking one of them – who want to talk about the “sensitivity” of the project are doing so to support the use of the armed power of the state to prevent the exercise of religion and the exercise of basic property rights.

    Period.

    Every one of the New Yorkers who showed up at community meetings to speak out against this project was hoping to use the the armed power of the state to prevent the exercise of religion and the exercise of basic property rights. Every last one.

    Period.

    Once that is settled and conceded by all parties, we can move on to a general discussion of whether or not the construction of the mosque is somehow “insensitive”. I probably won’t show up to that discussion, because I honestly don’t give a shit. Maybe it is insensitive. Fuck you and your fucking feelings, in that case.

    I would just point out that our government has stated, over and over, that the war on terror is not a war on Islam. So I guess you’re stipulating now that this statement was a lie?

    I would also point out that the armed forces of several Muslim countries are our daily allies in the so-called war on terror. Are we just tricking them? Are they puppets or dupes? Or are they our real allies? If they’re our real allies, are you saying that it’s “common sense” for us to tell our allies that they and their shitty religion aren’t welcome in lower Manhattan? Is that the common sense we’re talking about here?

    1. Fluffy is attempting to use the armed power of the state to prevent the fucking fuckers from exercising their first amendment right to express their opinions.

      Period.

      1. No he isn’t, moron. Try reading again.

        1. What are you missing, moron? I said, “Period.” That makes me right, just like Fluffy.

          Period.

          See, I did it again.

      2. What? Do you lack fundamental reading skills?

        1. Every one of the New Yorkers who showed up at community meetings to speak out against this project was hoping to use the the armed power of the state to prevent the exercise of religion and the exercise of basic property rights. Every last one.

          Period.

          Oh, I see what you really mean. You are really just asking for cake. Period. Cause I said so.

          Placing words in the mouths of those with whom you disagree is pure…. Fluffy.

          Fluffy hates all law and wants everyone to die when they are very young. Period. Oh, and he wants cake. They all want cake.

          1. Cake being the moral equivalent of government handouts. I wonder if the mosque will get government handouts. I also wonder where the millions of dollars for this mosque originated. I would also wonder if this mosque will allow full access for security purposes. Excuse me if I don’t like the idea of an ‘education center’ which could also be called a madrassah, is built in the midst of Manhattan. The big questions are-why here, why now? I would suggest to you that like a triumphal arch, this building which would be in the New York skyline would signal the famous “Muslim street” via Al Jazeera and other outlets, that we have imploded and Islam has won. What a wonderful recruiting tool here and abroad.

            1. Does the government surveil Sunday School?

      3. Methinks the man was making a point.

        I don’t agree with Fluffy’s proposition – i.e., that every single person who is calling for the Muslims to consider the wishes of those around them is actually calling for the use of government force to prevent it. Regardless of the added “period,” simply stating that does not make it so.

        As for me, I don’t really care whether they build it there or not. It’s yet another issue for people to get there panties in a wad about, which will turn out to be nothing.

        I’m more concerned about the narcissistic pathological liar currently occupying the White House and his band of merry progressives in Congress who are daily taking massive, steaming, heaping shit on the U.S. Constitution.

        1. Get us back to the topic of Barry bashing, because it’s fun, easy, and we are all full of vigor on the topic.

          Our President sucks. GWB sucked. When do we get an Andrew Jackson type president?

          1. Oh, you mean one that will forcibly displace a bunch of people from their homeland and march them to Oklahoma?

          2. Yes. And the one that abolished the Bank of the United States. He, unlike our contemporaries, had the guts to see through the greedy bankers that were controlling the economy. But then we get the FED. Way better!

    2. Are the Poles telling the Catholics that they and their shitty religion are not welcome in southern Poland when they asked the Carmelites to go pray somewhere else besides Auschwitz?

      It is illegal to proselytizer any religion but Islam in many Islamic countries. Are they telling us to fuck off? Or are we big enough to understand it is their country and they can do what they want. Indeed, Muslims in Michigan took over a public street and got people arrested for proselytizing at their festival.

      The Japanese are our allies. But they don’t come over and piss on the Arizona Memorial either. Us asking them not to do that is not insulting any more than Muslims asking American women to cover their heads in their country.

      For you to say that us saying don’t build this here is a screw you to every Muslim is just ridiculous and stupid on your part. You are so red team blue team stick to the rednecks on these issues, you can’t even think straight.

      1. The Japanese are our allies. But they don’t come over and piss on the Arizona Memorial either.

        I’m told that there are always a lot of Japanese tourists pointing and laughing at the memorial of their great triumph. Remember the lengths that Japanese textbooks go to show that they were the victims.

      2. John how far should the radius extend around the WTC site before mosques are allowed?

        If you’d be okay with a church at this site then you should be okay with a mosque. This is America, right?

        1. Since Christians didn’t perpetrate 9-11, I don’t think a church or a Buddhist temple for that matter is really much of an issue. How far? I don’t know more than two blocks.

          1. How respectful of the first amendment you are, singling out one religion and making up a different set of rights for them. Is that the way to promote American values and religious tolerance? Only bigots should feel provoked by this. To me, it is not a poke in anyone’s eye, it’s a recognition that 9/11 was not perpetrated by Islam, but rather by religious fanatics who happened to be Muslim. The people building this center should not have to be held accountable for them, just as all Christians are not held accountable for the likes of Fred Phelps.

            1. Muslims probably would be better off staying away form the old WTC site just like KKK members ought probably not go to Harlem or Nazis ought to probably avoid Jewish neighborhoods. It is not about 1st Amendment Rights. It is about taste and decorum.

              And for the 100th time you fucking moron, I don’t think the government should stop them from building it.

              1. I should hope not. I tire of so often being one of a few libertarian/conservative voices when we’re talking about things other than fiscal policy. It’s almost as if to be libertarian is to believe that you personally should be as free as possible, fuck everyone else. Always such contention on issues such as immigration and freedom of religions other than Christianity. But I digress.

                I think the message the center sends is a positive one. I’m an atheist and frankly couldn’t give a shit if every church and mosque and synagogue burned to the ground, but I’ll be damned I’ll admit that giving in to the sensitivities of bigots is the way to promote taste and decorum. To my mind having a mosque near the site is a perfect symbol of American values.

                But then again, to some, American values means being scared shitless of brown people all the time.

              2. Nazis are famous for targeting Jewish communities, like Skokie, ILL. Still not a good idea.

            2. Muslims probably would be better off staying away form the old WTC site just like KKK members ought probably not go to Harlem or Nazis ought to probably avoid Jewish neighborhoods. It is not about 1st Amendment Rights. It is about taste and decorum.

              And for the 100th time you fucking moron, I don’t think the government should stop them from building it.

              1. You’re comparing Islam, a religion with a very diverse selection of adherents numbering about 1 billion across the world, to the KKK and the Nazis, a small terrorist group and a political party both formed for getting rid of racial impurity.

                If it was known this Mosque was being built by a terrorist organization like Hamas, maybe you would have an apt comparison there, but as it stands, you do not.

                Nobody needs to call you a bigot, John. You make it self-evident with your own words.

              2. And you just made a direct comparison between Muslims (all of them) and extremist groups such as the KKK and Nazis. You might have a point if Al Qaeda wanted to build a mosque near the WTC.

              3. just like KKK members ought probably not go to Harlem

                If the KKK marched through Harlem, I’d be there in kevlar selling popcorn.

                But it would still be their right to do so.

            3. it’s a recognition that 9/11 was not perpetrated by Islam, but rather by religious fanatics who happened to be Muslim.

              Damn straight.

              Also

              The holocaust wasn’t perpetrated by NAZIs – but rather by psychopaths that happened to be German.

              The holodomor wasn’t perpetrated by communists – but rahter by bureaucrats that happened to be Russian.

              The inquisition wasn’t perpetrated by catholics – but rather by sexual deviants that happened to be Spanish.

          2. Do you want to make a general rule that no place of worship for a certain religion can be within two blocks of any site of an atrocity committed by members of that religion?

            It’s gonna be hard for all the Jewish settlers to build synagogues in Gaza and the West Bank if that’s the case.

            1. It might be. But that is their problem and their country not ours.

              1. It will also be hard to build churches in downtown Atlanta. How about in Oklahoma City? It turns out there are Christians who have committed atrocities as well. 🙂

            2. It’s gonna be hard for all the Jewish settlers to build synagogues in Gaza and the West Bank if that’s the case.

              Apparently you aren’t too good with geography, either. Gaza has been Judenrein since Israel turned it over to the people of the religion of peace. There will never be a synagogue there as long as the worshipers of the pedophile priest control it. Or did you mean that since the Mohamadean had made their territory Judenrein they should also get a special area outside of this from whence the Jew could be purged?

            3. Tulpa, where were your protests when Obama declared that Jews are forbidden to buy land and build on it in half of Jerusalem. Is Obama’s policy ok in your book because he’s on the blue team or because it targets Jews?

            4. And it’d be impossible for Palis to put a mosque ANYWHERE. And we’d have to demolish the Dome of the Rock.

          3. Would a YMCA be banned? The hijackers were all males.

            1. It is now referred to as merely, The “Y” – jackhole!

            2. I dunno…Is being male an ideology? Can my balls become ovaries because I read a good book on feminism. Is religion genetically determined like gender? What sort of surgeon performs a religion change operation?

              I’ll say it again
              IDEOLOGY IS IMPORTANT!!!

          4. In a couple of the previous threads, you went out of your way to apologize when you realized that it was two blocks away, and said that you would no longer be opposed.

            What changed, John-boy?

        2. It wasn’t planes guided by rampant Presbyterians that crashed into the Twin Towers. Get a clue.

          1. It wasn’t planes guided by this particular congregation, either, you fuckwit.

      3. The Japanese are our allies. But they don’t come over and piss on the Arizona Memorial either. Us asking them not to do that is not insulting any more than Muslims asking American women to cover their heads in their country.

        We were at war with Japan.

        It is the official policy of our government that we are not at war with Islam.

        Now you are telling me we ARE at war with Islam.

        I guess Bush lied again. And Obama too.

        Are the Poles telling the Catholics that they and their shitty religion are not welcome in southern Poland when they asked the Carmelites to go pray somewhere else besides Auschwitz?

        Yeah, actually, they were. I thought that was a pretty shitty thing to do, myself. But if the Catholics conceded to their request, I guess that means the Catholic Church decided they agree. If the Catholic Church had said, “No, Catholics died here too, and we want to pray for all souls,” and a political and legal campaign had been launched to fuck with them, yeah, I pretty much would have seen that as a big Fuck You to all Catholics.

        For you to say that us saying don’t build this here is a screw you to every Muslim is just ridiculous and stupid on your part.

        You are saying that even though we SAY that 9/11 was the work of extremists and terrorists, what we really MEAN is that it was the work of ALL Islam, and that means that people can’t practice the religion of Islam near the site of the attack. So yeah, that’s a Screw You to every Muslim. You just think that the Muslims who aren’t terrorists should be ashamed of their religion and should hide it from the Holy Site of 9/11ness.

        1. Go to Germany sometime. The US bombed the entire country. We leveled every city and killed millions. Were we justified? Probably. But in all the times I was in Germany I never ran around waiving the American flag in front of people. And I sure as hell wouldn’t have done it in the 1950s. And I wouldn’t do it in Vietnam today. Why? Am I ashamed of the country? No. I am just not an asshole who feels the need to needle an old wound.

          1. All of that would only be relevant if we are at war with Islam.

            Is the war on terror a war with Islam, John? Yes or no?

            Yes.

            No.

            Pick one.

            1. Maybe you missed this? But I don’t work for the Bush or Obama Administrations. Our war is not with “terror” whatever the hell that is. Our war is with a particular strand of militant Islam. That is just reality.

              1. Guess what, John! That particular strand of militant Islam is NOT the entity building this center.

                1. Wanna bet? If the money comes from the Saudi royal family then it IS Wahabist which mirrors the beliefs of the majority of the 9/11 terrorists.

                  1. Totally agree. John is being much more reasonable than the other posters. All of the men that were on the planes were in fact, Muslims. We are not talking about 20 extremists here. The militant Muslims are in Pakistan, India, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, probably Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, UAE, on and on.

                    To say we are not at war with Islam is a little idealistic and quite a bit out of touch with reality. Yes, there are plenty of Muslims that are peaceful. But there are also gobbles and gobbles of those that are militant. They want to kill you for being American. Your belief system is different and lower than theirs. And yes, oil will fund this project, coming from wealthy Muslims that fund militant terrorists. These are reasonable assumptions.

                    I am very glad that they are pursuing this project, though, as it will engage and perhaps enrage many otherwise clueless American-Idol watching US citizens.

                    1. The militant Muslims are in UAE

                      ORLY? I may be headed there for my 12th time not too far in the future. If you could kindly point out who and where, I’d be happy to do some on-the-ground research for ya. Haven’t been able to find any yet.

                    2. Have fun over there, wish I had the scrilla. I have no problem with UAE as a country, it’s pretty much a tiny USA in the Mid East. However, since terrorists were able to learn to fly over here before flying the big jets into our buildings, I think it is a reasonable assumption that UAE has plenty of Islamic Militants both because it is an economic center for the region and because of its neighboring states.

                    3. I don’t pay for my trips there.

                      Why don’t you make with the names and locations and I’ll try to find some crazy militants for ya.

                      You do know where the terrrrrrrrrr’ists learned to fly, right? That’s right: Florida.

                  2. Interesting. Officially the Saudis are American allies. So are we condoning terrorism?

        2. Now you are telling me we ARE at war with Islam.

          Yup. Bush, Obama, and a whole lot of people lie about it because the idea scares the shit out of them.

          But this stupid war would end a lot faster if we’d just admit it and get on with it.

          Perhaps the fragments of Islam that survive will learn to adopt the seperation of church and state that Christianity was forced to accept. If not, oh well…

      4. Are you suggesting we model our legal approach to religion on the policies of Saudi Arabia and other backwards theocracies?

        Yes, we respect their sovereignty with regard to religious matters, largely because we don’t want them to stop selling oil to us. But I hope we do so with the belief that our way, the way of religious freedom, is better than theirs.

      5. It is illegal to proselytizer any religion but Islam in many Islamic countries. Are they telling us to fuck off?

        Oh, and to spread it around:

        Yeah, they are telling us to fuck off.

        The Saudi state spits in the face of its allies. It spits in the face of freedom, too.

        Basically ALL of the theocratic rules they have in Saudi Arabia [you know, the ones that justify hating Iran, but somehow don’t justify hating Saudi Arabia too] are garbage.

        I have no problem admitting that I consider the Saudis allies of convenience and if we could drop them, I’d advocate dropping them in a heartbeat.

        Is that your position about the governments of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen, John?

        Because if you’re willing to tell them all to fuck off, and ADMIT that you are happy to insult the religion of our allies and tell them they are unwelcome dogs, then we’ll have one less thing to argue about.

        1. No. Dumb ass I am willing to say that it is their business how they run their country, just like it is our business how we run ours. Whether there is a mosque in south Manhattan or a church in Ryiad has nothing to do with our relationships as countries.

      6. It is illegal to proselytizer any religion but Islam in many Islamic countries. Are they telling us to fuck off?

        Yes, they are. They are a bunch of intolerant, religious bigots. Fuck them. We are better than them

    3. “Every one of the New Yorkers who showed up at community meetings to speak out against this project was hoping to use the the armed power of the state to prevent the exercise of religion and the exercise of basic property rights. Every last one.”

      That is the law. Like or not the zoning laws give in New York the right to object to shit. They are doing nothing but exercising their rights under the law. Sure, you don’t like the law. But blame the law not them. Is it your position that they should have no right to seek redress under the law as written?

      1. Let’s say that action A is absolutely, unmistakably immoral, and that law B makes it perfectly legal. Is it then wrong to criticize people who do A? After all, they’re just seeking their rights under B.

        For the record, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest if these people have their mosque, but their decision to build it was either a) a fuck you to New York or b) naive. What did they think would happen?

        1. That is a good question. I don’t know that this is unquestionably immoral. Do zoning laws really rise to the level of immorality? Take the red team blue team shit out of it. What if they had stopped the building of the center to protect some historic building? I guarantee you Fluffy’s panties wouldn’t be in a wad over that. That is because that happens all the time. This is only remarkable because the people doing so make easy opportunity for people like Bloomburg and Fluffy to get their PC street creed.

          Again, it is just a debate. Some people think this is a good idea, some don’t. I think they should be able to build it. But I also think it is in very bad taste and am not surprised that people object to it. And I don’t think they are all objecting to it out of racism.

          1. Do zoning laws really rise to the level of immorality?

            To a lot of us on Team L, yes. I don’t get terribly exercised over it.

          2. What if they had stopped the building of the center to protect some historic building? I guarantee you Fluffy’s panties wouldn’t be in a wad over that.

            Fuck you, they would too.

            Every last specious and bullshit zoning, environmental and land use argument that was offered against the building of the Cape Wind project inspired me to white-hot rage. Both because of the laws themselves, and the disingenuous way they were being applied. [Which makes it pretty much a carbon copy of this story.]

            Come on! You and I have argued about public nuisance torts in the common law.

            I fucking post over and over and over about how every dollar earned in real estate in this country is tainted by rent seeking.

            I’m not getting my PC street cred or anything else.

            1. Fair enough. But just stop calling the people who object to this racist. This is wrong because the government has no right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property. that is true. And I can’t argue with you. It is a free country. They can build a giant sign that says “all the little Eichmans got what they deserved” if they want to.

              But the people who go apeshit over it are not all just racists. And they are no different than the old ladies in tennis shoes that keep you from tearing down some old house. No better no worse.

          3. And I don’t think they are all objecting to it out of racism.

            It’s not racism but it is religious prejudice. They are taking action against people of a certain religion solely because of what other people of that religion did. It’s practically the definition of religious bigotry.

            1. Well yeah, when crazy people do shit in your name, it tends to cause problems. The double standard on here is incredible. The atheists on this board have no problem associating Christians with the worst elements of the religion. But let someone say it is a bad idea to build a mosque near a site where 2800 people were killed by radical Islamist and now the atheists are shocked by the bigorty.

              Spare me.

              1. Please point me to a thread where the atheist regulars advocated stopping a church from being built.

                1. Please point me to a thread where the atheist regulars advocated stopping a church from being built.

                  If Timothy McVeigh had said that he blew up the Murrah building in the name of Christianity, I would be totally opposed to a Christian church being built a couple of blocks away.

                  Now you do.

              2. “The atheists on this board have no problem associating Christians with the worst elements of the religion. But let someone say it is a bad idea to build a mosque near a site where 2800 people were killed by radical Islamist and now the atheists are shocked by the bigorty.”

                Neither is bigotry.

            2. “It’s not racism but it is religious prejudice. They are taking action against people of a certain religion solely because of what other people of that religion did. It’s practically the definition of religious bigotry.”

              Whether you want to call it religious bigotry or religious prejudice, you are just using intellectually intimidating words like prejudice and bigotry to demand that people act as moral agnostics as soon as someone says “God tells me to believe this.”

              Even if 90% of the world population were Muslim, in fact *especially* if this were the case, I would make sure to point out all the twisted things about Islam any chance I got. It is not wrong to object to a bad ideology ever. Islam is just that. It is a bad Ideology. Most believers are just too good natured to act consistently with its worst parts. That doesn’t mean that the religion gets a pass. It is in spite of the religion that they are good.

              1. Isn’t that true of every major world religion?

                1. Yes. I would even include minor ones to whatever extent they direct you to read books which command you to stone people or rule over others in the name of a God or Gods. From what I’ve read, there is always at least some of this in any religion. The more evil commandments each has, the more energy one should put into challenging people’s beliefs and pointing out the bad things that come out of them. In the case of Islam, there are many such commandments and one of the many bad things that have come out of obeying them was 9-11.

        2. You don’t seem to be aware that polls indicate a majority of Manhattanites support building the mosque. Not a very effective “fuck you” if that was their intention.

            1. Bless you!

              1. What did you think would happen?

            2. My admittedly unscientific poll of myself says I don’t care what you think. Plus or minus 3%.

          1. Not necessarily. Maybe the people of Manhattan just like being told to fuck off. They did elect both Guiliani and Boomburg mayor afertall.

            1. Those kinky fuckers.

      2. But blame the law not them.

        No, I’ll blame them.

        The SCOTUS decision authored by O’Connor defending zoning laws justified those laws only by reference to public health.

        There was nothing in the decision saying it’s OK to disingenuously exploit zoning laws to attempt to suppress land uses that “offend” you.

        Therefore, under the law, attempting to use zoning laws in this way is a corrupt abuse of the legal process. I can “blame them” for it every bit as much as I could “blame” someone sitting on a zoning board who misused the law to get kickbacks, or to punish someone he didn’t personally like.

        1. What does historical landmark preservation have to do with public health? That’s the type of zoning law they were trying to use to stop the community center.

      3. I live in Texas where zoning is pretty fast and loose. But even in Texas when a megachurch planned an expansion that would have negatively impacted local homeowners, their permits were denied. Likewise thousands of proposed Walmart sites have been denied permits based on nothing more than an “I don’t like Walmart” attitude. So how come the survivors and families of 9/11 cannot lodge a complaint that due to the actions of that day that a mosque within proximity is both insensitive and offensive? How come suddenly citizens have no rights anymore?

        1. So two wrongs make a right, now?

  8. I can’t wait for the day when religion is outmoded. There won’t be any arguements about this kind of stuff, because there won’t be this kind of stuff.

    1. Yep. Once religion is gone, people will stop dividing into groups and fighting. You’ve cracked the case, Sherlock!

      1. Oh wow you’re so clever!

        1. I’m sorry. From now on I’ll only make my point in a droll and serious manner. Perhaps you would prefer: “Atheistic societies have shown a tendency towards fragmentation and internal conflict in a manner that greatly parallels theistic societies, suggesting that religion is not a cause of conflict but rather a convenient means of drawing lines for conflict that will inevitably occur with or without religion.”

          1. Non-mystical disagreements can be settled with reason and science. Nature can be the final arbiter. It may be true that there are more and more things to disagree about, but at least you learn something each time. Religious disputes cannot be settled in any means but violence since each party has no redress to the other’s final arbiter, because that entity is make believe.

            1. HA Ha! That’s a good one!

              …what? you seriously believe that?

              1. Yes. Where am I wrong?

                1. Biology.

                  Group fragmentation and tribalism are evolved characteristics of all primate societies.

                  There is simply no way to eliminate those dynamics from humananity.

                  1. The practice of shitting in public for all to see is also an evolved characteristic of all primates societies. Some humans still do this, all humans used to. There is simply no way to eliminate from humanity, the tendancy to shit in the dirt while grunting at passers by.

            2. bwahahahahahahaha!

              history provfes otherwise.

              as do otters on south park

              1. History proves that, as people accumulate knowledge, people choose to eliminate force to whatever degree possible. The fact that violent death becomes ever less common as decades pass and as trade and technology advance, suggests that reason(rather than force) is the best means for conflict resolution and that Ms. Garrison getting her vag pounded by Dichard Dawkins would be the best thing to happen to the human race.

    2. Our answer to the great question is the only logical one.

      1. Science Damn You!!!

    3. because there won’t be this kind of stuff.

      Of course there will be. The stupid French-Chinese think they have a right to Hawaii!

      1. I mean battles, physical or not, over religion. Considering that religion is irrational, it really shouldn’t be debated over like this.

        Also I can not stand when pundits, looking at you Beck, talk about God as if he is a fact of life.

        1. Don’t be naive. Without religion we’ll find plenty of other irrational things to fight over. In fact, we already do.

          1. It will be one less thing to fight over

            1. Because Communists, 19th century Anarchists, those guys (athiests, you know), they didn’t kill each other over irrational things.

          2. Fighting over irrational convictions is not so hopeless as fighting over faith in things which can’t be proven or disproven.

        2. For most people on earth

          God as if he is a fact of life.

          Denying that makes you ignorant.

          1. What does the faith of most people on earth in a God have to do with his disdain for God-as-fact on Beck?

    4. My Science is greater than your Science

    5. My Science is greater than your Science

    6. Science Damn You!

      1. Science H. Logic that guy’s a dick!

  9. Hey Harsanyi, you forgot to disclose your tax information and condemn slavery in your post. How else can I know what your true intentions are. And don’t just say you’re for peace and bridging the racial divide, because apparently that isn’t good enough.

    Hey neo-cons, no one gives a fuck whether you think this is a good spot for a community center or not. People are not being insensitive by building a monument of their faith, especially one that reaches out to others. Even if they were being insensitive, there is no law against it. Using zoning laws to push people away you don’t agree with is way worse. Yes, you have a right to your opinion, but again no one cares. So take your little bigoted circle jerk elsewhere, this one is ours.

    I’m so sick of this non-issue being treated like important, world-changing news. If you don’t like the place, don’t go.

    1. Go set yourself on fire. The adults are talking. Seriously, you hit the neocon bigot daily double.

      1. Both neocons and bigots figure heavily in this story, so that’s quite appropriate.

        1. No where outside your head Tulpa.

    2. Define neocon. Please show your work.

      1. You don’t have to show work for a definition. You’re thinking of a proof.

        1. The + Gobbler = idiot

      2. “Neo con” refers to all those bigoted, racist, corporate, sexist, tea-bagging white people that disagree with Mr Pimple… he told me so

        1. My favorite is when something like “you *bigot* redneck hillbilly trailor-trash! Go fuck your sister!!!” is uttered with no intended(or detected) irony.

    3. I’ll give him this much: I agree with his last sentiment – i.e., “I’m so sick of this non-issue being treated like important, world-changing news.”

    4. mr simple,

      Right on. Don’t be discouraged by our neocon cheering section.

    5. Dear liberal,
      How come every time you are losing a debate you resort to middle school bathroom humor? Is it that you have run out of ideas, or out of intelligence, or perhaps, both? Have a nice day and remember, Missouri voted 71% to 29% against Obamacare and Virginia is implementing immigration policies identical to Arizona. Try not to choke on your tongue.

  10. Just saw this on FARK. Policeman tasers and runs over teen on bicycle he is chasing, then plants a gun on the dead body.

    1. I have an idea: let’s give all policemen a mostly non-lethal electro-torture device. Nothing could possibly go wrong, right?

    2. Shit, man, don’t do this. I am angry enough.

    3. Wait, he was chasing a bicycle in a car? I don’t think that chase would last very long.

    4. The Headline: “Death of teen on bike shows risks of expanded use of Tasers”

      Really? Because I think the story shows risks of asshole cops running over a kid on a bike. Don’t blame the Taser, blame the asshole who used it.

      1. it does seem a bit misleading; perhaps “risks of vehicular homicide” was too pointed?

        1. Unfortunately, the comments on that story are just full of cracker stupid — nearly as upsetting as the story itself. Now if it had been a dog instead of a black kid…

  11. Though the Cordoba Initiative is under no obligation to do so, if its purpose is to battle extremism within Islam and build cooperation with other faiths, why not divulge the funders of the project?

    Let’s re-work this:

    Though the Cordoba Initiative Reason Foundation is under no obligation to do so, if its purpose is to battle extremism within Islam and build cooperation with other faiths promote libertarian ideas in responsible ways and offer an alternative to militia nutjobs, why not divulge the funders of the project their entire donor list?

    Also, this little piece of victimhood pisses me off:

    It is, you see, ugly and un-American to question the motivations of those opening an Islamic center a stone’s throw from ground zero?a project that will cost $100 million?but not ugly of organizers to pick a spot that’s a stone’s throw from ground zero.

    It’s ugly to go after people who have done you no harm and want to spend their own goddamn money to build something on private property simply because you have some sort of “guilt by association” complex about their religion despite their repeated explanations that they don’t have jack-shit to do with terrorism. It isn’t ugly to build a community center and place to pray on private property with private money.

    Fucking libetarianism 101 is what it is.

    1. Bullshit. People are perfectly free to ask the Reason foundation where they get their money. And when they won’t say, people are also perfectly free to make their own conclusions about that. And indeed, people who don’t like Reason would make bad conclusion.

      That is called open debate.

      1. Judging by Reason’s opposition to the DISCLOSE Act, I doubt Reason would look too kindly on forcing people to disclose all of their donors.

        1. “Judging by Reason’s opposition to the DISCLOSE Act, I doubt Reason would look too kindly on forcing people to disclose all of their donors.”

          No one is being forced to do anything. But, if you don’t do it, you can’t then whine when people assume the worst about your donors. Why is that concept so hard to understand?

          1. John, your argument reminds me a lot of the people who defend warrantless wiretappings and the like by saying, “if you don’t have anything to hide, why should you care?” And I would hope that everyone here can see how ridiculous that argument is.

            Sure, people can assume the worst about your donors all they want to. But you know what happens when you assume…

        2. I’ve decided…

          This is my favorite blog, and you’re all a bunch of fucking imbeciles.

          In reply to Mo – There is a huge difference between the GOVERNMENT forcing someone to disclose something, and the PEOPLE demanding something be disclosed.

          I would guess that REASON (since it is being referred to as a thinking entity) would oppose the GOVERNMENT forcing disclosure, but would be indifferent to individuals asking for disclosure.

          GOVERNMENT and INDIVIDUALS are different things Mo.

      2. And if Reason says no, they’re not going to disclose their donors, are you going to try to prevent them from building a libertarian community center?

        This isn’t a case of opponents innocently asking for information about donors — it’s a case of give us the information or we’ll use zoning laws to keep you from using your property.

        1. “And if Reason says no, they’re not going to disclose their donors, are you going to try to prevent them from building a libertarian community center?”

          If they will not disclose their donors, I am not going to blame people for thinking that their community center is not what they claim it is. The Saudis spend billions of dollars funding radical Mosques all over the world. When a Muslim organization refuses to say where it is getting its funding, it is not unreasonable to think that it is getting its funding from some pretty unsavory sources. That is just the realty. If it were some far left organization, would it be unreasonable to think that George Soros was funding it? No it wouldn’t. Same thing here.

          You can scream they don’t have to all you want. And they don’t have to. But why wouldn’t they? And you can’t act shocked when people assume the worst about their funding sources.

          1. This isn’t a case of people just “thinking”, it’s a case of people trying to use the law to stop a property owner using their property. If you don’t advocate USING THE LAW to stop Reason from building their libertarianism center, then you are treating Muslim groups different from Reason.

    2. It is, you see, ugly and un-American to question the motivations of those opening an Islamic center a stone’s throw from ground zero?a project that will cost $100 million?but not ugly of organizers to pick a spot that’s a stone’s throw from ground zero.

      it’s not ugly unless you’re a retard who thinks all muslims are equivalent.

    3. The odd thing about this is, while I (sort of) understand the reasoning behind banning donations to terrorist organizations, I really don’t get what the problem with accepting donations from terrorist organizations is.

      I mean, if Hezbollah wants to spend money building community centers instead of RPGs, why would we want to stop them?

      1. Because money comes with strings. In these cases the funders get to place radical Imams in the mosque to recruit for radical Islam.

        1. If you’re worried about recruiting for radical Islam, then any location in the country with a high Muslim population is going to be just as effective. Should we force disclosure of funding for every mosque in America, too?

          1. I’m not against the mosque, I’m answering your question.

            But by deflecting the answer to your own question you’ve shown you don’t believe it was relevant. This is an implicit admission that your question was not honest but only designed to distract from the matter at hand.

            Yes, we should be worried about mosques funded by radicals no matter where they are.

            No, we shouldn’t force funding disclosure, unless we do for all places of worship.

    4. How do we know they don’t have ties to terroist organizations. The Imam does have ties to the Egyptian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood wich is part of a Palestinian Liberation group along with Hezbollah, Hamas, and AQ. While the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement is mostly limited to humanitarian aid to Gaza it is also associated with a Syrian and Jordanian chapter which are responsible for violence in their respective countries. The fact is we don’t know what the Cordoba Institute’s actual ties are. We can neither take them at face value or the opposition at face value.

    5. Damn straight, sir.

      1. that was directed at thoreau

  12. To be clear, I’m well aware that Reason and the form of libertarianism it promotes is 180 degrees opposite the militia nutjobs. That’s my point. It’s bullshit to go after some peaceful, tolerant Muslims who are trying to do their own thing on private property.

  13. This topic bores me.

    1. So it’s not just me.

    2. This is even dumber than last week’s stupidity. I can’t even remember what that was, but I think Jesse Jackson was involved.

      Oh yeah, it was Shirley Sherrod. Could we have that stupid story back instead of this one?

  14. Weigel pays his dues. Got to prove your leftard bona fides if you want to work for Slate.

    I’ve never been much for the Weigel pile on, but this is some powerful stupid.

    1. He loves me to spread hot sauce on his butthole first.

    2. I guess I’m going to have to go back on my “I don’t get the Weigel hate”. He’s showing himself to be everything his detractors said he was. The Journolist shit didn’t help, that’s for sure.

      1. I have to agree. I thought his critics were going overboard, but they were far closer to the mark than I was about the smarmy, sweaty, sebaceous gland.

          1. I’m free! I have thrown off the shackles of reason and logic. Gave upon my true face and despair!

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    3. What did I call him once? A smarmy little lardmeister, I think. There’s nothing to which he won’t stoop in his quest to make himself even more punchable.

      1. Warty|3.3.10 @ 1:09PM|#

        Maybe not now. But he is still a smarmy little lardmeister in dire need of a boot in the ass.

        1. Ah, nothing like an insult that’s been aged to perfection.

    4. You’re just jealous of Weigel’s success at landing his dream job at the WaPo Slate.

      1. Curses!

      2. And his large circle of friends.

        1. And his dancing skillz.

    5. Weigel makes up a imaginary racist political ad. Then attacks team red with the imaginary racist political ad he made up. He really has gone full retard.

      1. I’ve got issues with this. There’s no doubt that the Democrats are pulling out all the stops to tar the GOP as a bunch of racists, which is complete nonsense. I bet that there are as many racist Democrats as there are racist Republicans, to the extent that out-and-out racists still exist in the U.S.

        For Dave to jump in with this imaginary racism seems a little contrived and forced to me. We all know which side of this stupid debate has a deck full of race cards.

        1. It wasn’t the Republicans who brought ethics charges against Rangel and Waters. And how is that with all of the corruption in Congress, the only two people Pelosi can find to prosecute are black? And this at a time when the Democrats are losing white votes by like 20 points.

          If there is any racism going on it is on the part of the Democrats. Send up a couple of black sacrificial lambs to show white people they still care.

          1. Deeper than that, John. Go deeper. Persecute the two black criminals so that they can call anyone who approves to be racists. This is a masterstroke. The debate is now race rather than two elected con artist Democrats.

        2. “I bet that there are as many racist Democrats as there are racist Republicans”

          Not anymore.

  15. I agree there’s a difference between what one can legally do and what one should do, but I still fail to see the issue here. It’s two blocks away, which in an area as dense as Manhattan isn’t insubstantial. Plus, I’ve read there’s a fucking strip club right over there. Sounds to me like it’s not exactly hallowed ground.

    1. shhh! you’re confusing the slapheads.

      1. That’s rather insulting to Candian-Americans, isn’t it?

      2. I think it’s important to remember that the WTC and what happened there is important to a lot of people outside of New York. I was about to say that thousands of people from Arizona, Kentucky and Alabama volunteered to join the military because of what happened at the WTC, but, yeah, Canadians too.

        …people in the UK, people in Australia. Why shouldn’t bad taste offend them too?

        1. Yeah and that totally gives them a right to what buildings contain around the site.

          1. Read the piece, dude.

            The piece is exactly about why this isn’t about that.

            This piece didn’t say they don’t have a right to be distasteful.

            It just said it was distasteful.

    2. Actually, there are 3 strip clubs within the same radius. At least according to the Gothamist commentors. I rarely go that far downtown.

  16. Personally, I’m fine with them building a mosque near Ground Zero. I also think someone should open a titty bar right next door to it.

    1. Well that does tend to be the last stop for terrorists before they wage their final act of jihad.

  17. I am a super genius. No, I mean it. Because I have the greatest idea ever for advancing space exploration. Even better than the Lunar Sex Prize.

    We should offer to build a mosque on the Moon and/or Mars (or, really, any destination), provided that the Muslim community coughs up the necessary tens of billions to build the underlying infrastructure. They’ve got the money and the passion, after all.

    1. And is they hesitate to agree to cough up the funds, we’ll point out that the Catholics and Jews are interested if Islam is not. Credit Heinlein with this sort of blackmail, not me.

      1. “Lex Libertate”

        You need a white suit.

        1. Way ahead of you, buddy. I’m destroying my hair follicles as we speak.

          1. Don’t you need to be a tycoon of some sort? I suggest the monkey slave business.

            1. With chips in their heads and enhanced strength?

            2. How many you need?

              http://images.starpulse.com/Ph…..mvd001.jpg

  18. The Democratic angst comes, in part, because they know they’re facing a whiter, older electorate this year than they faced in 2008.

    Did I sleep through another holocaust?

    1. No, I’m whiter and older than I was during the last election.

    2. It’s also Mormoner, which is scary.

      1. Why do you think the TSA wants to be able to see your underwear with their airport scanners?

        1. So saggin’ must be patriotic then, no?

  19. This really boils down to Muslims killed people in America therefore all Muslims share a piece of this original sin.

    So the only thing left to decide is whether the aura of original sin follows a square law or a cube law so we can determine how far the Muslim center needs to be away from Ground Zero so that the residual sin is below some acceptable threshold for tolerance.

    1. Timothy McVeigh once said “Science is my religion.”
      So I hope no one is planning any kind of lab in downtown OKC.

  20. “Y. Leebertate, Super Genius”

    1. My God, Episiarch is right. With the now bald head and the white suit, brilliance just oozes out of me like rancid sweat. Not only will my plan get us the necessary funding to colonize the solar system, it will also meet President Obama’s policy demand that the space program have as a principal component outreach to the Islamic community.

      1. You have to found Luthercorp first.

        1. That’s in Metropolis, right? So I also need to found a new city. Oh, and I need a super-powered nemesis. Are you available?

          1. I am available, but you need a good nemesis, and I am evil. I’d say ask NutraSweet or Warty, but they are also evil–at least, evil-smelling–and don’t fit the bill. Pick some random hot actress, as if you were the CW.

            1. Is anyone here actually good? Maybe The Art-P.O.G., but his only super power would be friendliness. Not a good nemesis.

              1. Art could qualify as good, but he’s not annoying like Superman. I know: Tulpa. Sanctimonious and annoying.

                1. Is Tulpa good, though?

                  1. Tulpa is certainly good at nagging, so he’s at least as good as a Jewish mother-in-law.

                2. Tulpa is exactly who I was thinking of. Quick, let’s get out of here before he disapproves of us.

                  1. Are you going to have a picture of Mohammed on your villain costume?

              2. That’s right. A super-villain is only as good as his arch-enemy. If Luthor were only opposed, say, by Aqua Man, his genius would be commensurately reduced. Probably to the ability to deoxygenate water or something trivial like that.

                1. I’d go with anonbot.

                  1. Whoa, good idea.

                  1. I vote this. Vanne Man, with the power to make you wish you could kill dead authors all over again.

                    1. I can feel the super-ire building in me now.

                  2. He can’t. He’s at home working on his latest John Cheever book.

      2. Episiarch is right.

        I guess–in a thousand monkeys bashing on a thousand typewriters for a thousand years sort of way–someone was bound to finally say it.

        “It was the best of times, it was the blerst of times?!? You stupid monkey!”

        1. “He’s like a young me!”

        2. I see you’re familiar with the Simianspeare Project.

  21. So now they need an american contractor with american plumbers, carpenters, and electricians to build the darned thing. Whoops, we spilled the cement in the wrong hole. Again. I swear the drawings showed the toilet flush line connected to the drinking fountain. The black wire goes the white one, right?

    1. Bet you that building will be more wired for sound than the U.S. embassy in Russia.

      1. That’ll be the only thing that works right.

        IF it ever gets built, and prayer times comes, the muslims will notice those tiny little etchings of muhammad on every floor tile.

    2. Yeah, they totally have that problem because there are no American plumbers, carpenters and electricians who are Muslim. Cause like we all know, there aren’t any Muslim Americans at all. That’s why there were no Muslims working in the TwinTowers when the plains hit.

      Oh, wait, all those things are wrong.

  22. it’s not ugly unless you’re a retard who thinks all muslims are equivalent.

    It’s incredibly ugly if you know who the particular Muslims involved are, and what their Initiative/Foundation’s mission is. But knowing those things requires more than reading their (and Bloomberg’s) press releases, including a slight familiarity with Muslim idiom, and Islam’s conception of its own history and trajectory.

    I know everything outside the Times is a paranoid conspiracy theory to the Free Minds? here, so there’s no point talking about that stuff, but really, even the ratbaggin’-est teafuckin’ Palin-tard isn’t overstating the shittiness of this thing, on the level of signification.

    1. elaborate, please. rick lazio is the only one i’ve heard banging about concerning sinister intent and all that, but…rick lazio.

      1. or are you referring to this:

        http://gotmedieval.blogspot.co…..story.html

  23. This is the dumbest article I’ve ever read on this site. Amounts to “Yes, we have no actual reasoned, principled ground to stand on with which to oppose this, and yes it would contradict everything we claim we stand for, but but but, can’t they just understand we really just don’t like this, isnt that enough for them to be wrong for doing this?” Fuck you whoever wrote this whiney bitch of an article and you’re flimsy, unprincipled backbone.

    1. It’s Harsanyi, man. Get used to it.

  24. Plus, I’ve read there’s a fucking strip club right over there. Sounds to me like it’s not exactly hallowed ground.

    It’s also literally surrounded by money changers.

  25. “Then again, even if we were boundlessly tolerant, there is an inescapable fact: This 13-story community center is going to be built two blocks from the worst modern atrocity committed in the name of Islam.”

    It’s hard to imagine someone putting up a Klan museum near MLK’s grave and people not getting upset about it.

    What could be more tasteless than putting up a Nazi museum near a former death camp? Not all Germans approved of what the Nazis did, but that would hardly make such a thing any less distasteful.

    You know what’s harder to understand than people getting up set about this? The idea that the people who are doing this didn’t intend to be provocative.

    There are Muslim extremists who advocate using our liberal tendencies against us. It’s one thing to insist on a right to be provocative; quite another to be provocative and then feign surprise when people are provoked.

    1. They’re Muslim moderates, actually. Are you seriously saying they’re the equivalent of the KKK and Nazis?

      1. I’m saying bad taste is pretty much universal.

        Don’t go on the Jerry Springer show and pretend to be shocked that everybody’s talking about your personal life on national television.

        …and, no, that isn’t equating Jerry Springer with the Nazis either.

        But bad taste is still bad taste.

        1. people are retarded bigots, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re right…about anything.

          how this can be construed as provocative is beyond me.

          1. Well tastefulness can be subjective. …but then there’s common sense.

            If some bible thumpin’ Baptist minister wants to build a new church right next to an AIDS clinic or Planned Parenthood center, I don’t see why the government should get involved.

            It’s not like they’re Fred Phelps or anything…

            Still, it’d be pretty silly to act all surprised when the AIDS patients and Planned Parenthood people show up at the planning commission hearings and say they’re against it, wouldn’t it?

            WTC is a national icon.

            I went to old Mayan site outside of Merida, and right in the middle of the Pyramid plaza, the Spanish had built a church back in the 16th century to demonstrate their authority over the Mayans and their ways.

            You want to talk about putting religious centers in various contexts, we can go back through some of the most excited debates in history. Whether you’re talking about Hindu shrines replacing Muslim mosques in India (or visa vesrsa), and let’s not even talk about the Dome of the Rock.

            Religious places of worship and where they’re placed provokes huge reactions in people. Americans still argue about putting up manger scenes in front of City Hall…

            It is unreasonable for people to expect to build something like this in a place that’s essentially sacred to so many Americans and not expect a lot of them to get upset about it.

            It’s even more unreasonable to expect me to believe that they weren’t being deliberately provocative–if they didn’t know, they should have known.

            WTC is essentially sacred ground to a lot of Americans. There’s no reason to be surprised that they think of it that way.

            1. Still, it’d be pretty silly to act all surprised when the AIDS patients and Planned Parenthood people show up at the planning commission hearings and say they’re against it, wouldn’t it?

              Oh, I’m not surprised that people did this. There’s a lot of political profit to be made on the Team Red side of the ledger.

              However, in the example you give, I would certainly criticize the AIDS/Planned Parenthood people as petty fools for trying to use zoning laws to stop a church from being constructed. They would be just as unreasonable as the people objecting to this mosque.

            2. Ken, what happened to you? You’ve gone over to expressing sympathy for the haters. I thought you were way to smart and tolerant for that.

              1. Hell, I almost converted to Islam!

                My view may be too nuanced for some people to follow, but I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed to build there…

                I’m saying a)they shouldn’t be surprised at the reaction and b)the reaction is so unsurprising, it’s reasonable to assume they did it to be provocative.

                I guess it’s a nuanced view like my feelings about the cartoons denigrating The Prophet too–the death threats are indefensible, but don’t print provocative cartoons in a newspaper and then feign surprise when people find them provocative.

                Really, I can support Muslims demonstrating against a newspaper for disparaging The Prophet–I still think the newspaper should be legally free to print whatever it wants.

                Again, I’m not willing to say that the government shouldn’t let them build a mosque there or a monument to the hijackers–if that’s what someone wanted to build…

                But don’t do something like that and expect people not to get upset about it–that’s absurd.

                Free speech is like that too–just because Nazis had the right to march in a parade past the homes of holocaust survivors in Skokie Illinois, doesn’t mean they weren’t a bunch of jackholes for doing it!

                Is what these people are doing as bad as that? Of course not. But the same principle applies.

                We all have a right to act like jackasses–but if you act like a jackass, don’t be surprised if people react to you like a jackass. …and in this case, it’s really hard to imagine that these people didn’t think they’d get a reaction like this.

                Does it justify refusing a permit? Of course not. Does it justify violent threats? Of course not. If they did it to be provocative and now they’re feigning surprise at the reaction, does that make them a bunch of jackholes?

                The answer is yes.

                1. Very well said +100.

                2. Exactly, they either intended to be provocative or the backers of this thing are too naive to live.

                3. Ken, all that rests on the speculation that they’ve intentionally done this to be pricks. NO ONE has made with even one iota of evidence that this is true. There’s lots of selective references to the Koran and some half-assed “knowledge” of Islam and Muslims, but no actual evidence.

                  1. “Ken, all that rests on the speculation that they’ve intentionally done this to be pricks.”

                    Only if you ignored what I said…

                    If they go ahead with building this thing despite all the opposition they’re getting right freakin’ now, will it then be safe enough to assume they don’t give a crap about the opposition or will that still be speculation on my part?

                    1. So because a bunch of people have one of the following two major objections to this (1. TOO SOOOOON!!!!! and all hurty-like 2. I’m a-scar’d of Mooslims!!!! [and don’t try to tell me there isn’t a big element of that among a bunch of the anti folks]), they should cave to pressure? Especially in spite of the large amount of public SUPPORT they have gotten from politicians and actual Manhattan residents alike?

                    2. To answer your question, it’s not as simple as that. The mere fact that they’re going ahead with it doesn’t mean “they don’t give a crap”. It may, in fact, mean that they weighed the pros and cons given the protesting and decided that the support outweighed the anti crap. We won’t know until they make a statement, if ever, and even THEN we won’t know for certain.

    2. But what if we buried a white guy near MLK? Is that offensive because MLK was killed by a white guy? Unless you think all Muslims = extremist terrorists, your examples are irrelevant. They’re not setting up a shrine to the hijackers.

      1. They’re not setting up a shrine to the hijackers.

        Maybe, maybe not, but inferring that does not equate to racism.

      2. “White” may be analogous to “Saudi Arabian”, but Islam is a faith or ideology.

        “White” is not an ideology or religion and islam isn’t a genetically inherited physical attribute.

    3. Also, the Klan didn’t kill MLK, that was the Illuminati.

    4. Actually, a better analogy would be building a German cultural center two blocks from the Holocaust Museum. A few people would probably get upset but most of us would just roll our eyes…

    5. There are Muslim extremists who advocate using our liberal tendencies against us.

      Yes, there are. There is no evidence that the people behind this project are extremists, though, so this is just a red herring on your part.

      1. If you take everything that people say at face value then you are a fool.

        1. Not as much of a fool as someone who fabricates bad intentions with no evidence for them.

          At least I have the statements of the mosque builders to back my position up. You have nothing to back yours up.

          And of course, if you suspect these people are lying or concealing information, then you can look for evidence to back that up. If they were building a fortress with anti-aircraft batteries on the roof, then I would say the burden of proof is on them that they wouldn’t misuse it. But since it’s a community center, the burden of proof is on you.

    6. You know what’s harder to understand than people getting up set about this? The idea that the people who are doing this didn’t intend to be provocative.

      It’s transparently provocative on just about every possible level.

      Everybody understands that “Cordoba Initiative” is shorthand for “initiative to conquer the infidels”. Well, everybody who isn’t ignorant, obtuse, a coward, or any combination of such.

      1. This looks like a good place to re-post this:

        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.

        1. Thanks for giving us the dhimmi interpretation once again.

          1. Douchestain: it’s at least as valid an interpretation as yours. You allow your biases to acknowledge only one interpretation.

            1. Your interpretation is a joke to anyone who knows anything about Feisal Abdul Rauf and his background. Keep shoveling that bullcrap though.

              1. You mean the sufi? Yeah, sufis are crazy jihadis.

                1. Also, what the fuck does Rauf and his background have to do with the fact that Cordoba (on its fucking Wiki page, no less) was a cultural center?

        2. Plausible deniability?

    7. ” It’s one thing to insist on a right to be provocative; quite another to be provocative and then feign surprise when people are provoked.”

      That’s silly. That’s as stupid as saying there will be strong opposition should someone try to get more conservative voices on PBS.

      1. I don’t follow.

        The right to free speech and assembly and petition, all that stuff, it’s all perfectly libertarian.

        If you want to hold a banner across the street from a mosque that says, “The Prophet Mohammad was a dirty no good child molester!” on a Friday night, you should have the right to do that…

        It won’t justify the actions of anyone who threatens or harms you, but don’t be surprised if it makes the Muslims who go there mad. For goodness’ sake, Fred Phelps lives on that stuff. Don’t picket a fallen soldier’s funeral and expect people not to get mad! …expect me to sympathize with you?! You knew it was gonna make people mad! That’s why you did it!

        We’re all responsible for what we do, and that includes people who run religious institutions too. Freedom doesn’t mean being free from the consequences of what we do. It just means being free to do it in the first place…

        I’m the first person to defend the right to do things that make other people mad–some people around here seem to think complaining about what other people do is wrong…

        Really, I’m not getting it. Again, the plans were approved! That’s not enough–nobody should be mad about it?

        Why? Why shouldn’t people care about stuff? Because you don’t?

        If that’s your reason, that’ not a good enough reason.

    8. ^^^ This is the crux of the issue.
      It is unbelievably insensitive to suggest building a mosque near GZ. I’m not saying it is illegal, or should be stopped by government force, I’m saying it’s a ideological slap in the face. The terrorist’s belief in Islam was the motivation for the act. Not because they were male, or some other coincidental shared attribute, but because Allah, via the Koran, told them to.

      Under libertarian ideology the land owners are free to put up whatever they want.

      Under libertarian ideology others have the right to speak their mind about it, and even passionately oppose the land owners plans, as long as the government stays out of it.

      1. And I think some of that criticism may even be merited!

        The fact is that thousands of Americans volunteered for military service specifically because of what some people did in the name of Islam around the way. …and anybody who was out there saying that Muslims are insensitive to American mores and hence impossible to assimilate?

        Well, the people who are building this mosque just handed those jokers a boatload worth of ammunition.

        They’re being insensitive. Being insensitive should be legally okay, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t insensitive.

  26. And what about the Muslims who died on 9/11? What about Muslim Americans who feel just as victimized by 9/11 as we all do? Is the WTC a Christian-only club? Fuck.

    1. Other than the hijackers, did any Muslims die in the WTC? The expected number of deaths of non-hijacker Muslims would be only 18 going by population figures.

      1. The Islamic Circle of North America has an incomplete list of innocent Muslims who died on 9/11, totally about 60, including police and firefighters.

  27. You know what’s harder to understand than people getting up set about this? The idea that the people who are doing this didn’t intend to be provocative.

    It’s no different than some jerk who repeatedly pokes someone in the chest for the purpose of playing victim when they get punched in the face.

    Of course it is provocative.

    1. First, what’s wrong with giving someone the benefit of the doubt? Unless of course you are mind reader in which case, I say prove it. And second, if I want to be “provocative” with my own property while violating no laws, well, you’re just going to have to grow a pair and learn to live with it like a big boy.

      1. First, what’s wrong with giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

        The fact that this planet is populated by liars who use an honest person’s virtue as a weapon against them.

        1. A weapon? Please explain how this community center is potentially harmful, as your calling it a weapon implies.

          1. I said that dishonest people use an honest person’s honesty as a weapon.

            As far as the community center being harmful, I never said that.
            I said it is the equivalent of repeatedly poking someone in the chest for the purpose of playing victim when they punch you in the face.

            The center is an invitation for violence because of its location.

            Was the location chosen with that in mind? I don’t know.
            They say it was not. But just because they say so doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth.

            1. Right, except for the fact that poking you in the chest is a physical attack, and opening a mosque isn’t.

              Your post is an invitation to violence, too. Because of its stupidity. Maybe one of us who doesn’t like stupidity will decide you have to be exterminated. But that will be OK, because you will have “provoked” us.

              1. You are unable to understand that choosing that location for the center could be provocative to some people, and that the location could have been chosen with that in mind – and I’m the stupid one?

                When you don’t understand something it is not the other person who is stupid, it is you who is stupid.

                1. Then maybe “some people” need to grow the fuck up and mind their own business. Just like giving in to radical Islam is letting them profit by terrorism, giving in to bigots is letting them profit by bigotry.

                  1. Then maybe “some people” need to grow the fuck up and mind their own business.

                    You seem to be taking this awfully personally. Was one of the hijackers a relative of yours?

                    1. No, I just find bigots very provocative.

                    2. No, I just find bigots very provocative.

                      I have yet to find an argument with a lefty loon that does not end with them accusing me of bigotry.
                      No matter what the subject is.
                      You’re all pathetic.

                    3. I have yet to find an argument with a lefty loon that does not end with them accusing me of bigotry.

                      If it smells bad everywhere you go, that probably doesn’t mean that everyone else in the world has a body odor problem.

                    4. I never gave my own opinion on the matter, yet I am being accused of bigotry for recognizing that some people could see it as provocative.

                      Are you saying that bigotry is the one and only possible reason in the world why someone would take offense to followers of the same faith as the hijackers erecting what could be perceived as a monument right next to what the hijackers destroyed?

                      If it smells bad everywhere you go, that probably doesn’t mean that everyone else in the world has a body odor problem.

                      It doesn’t smell bad everywhere I go. Only the places that are heavily populated by liberals like you.

                    5. And the charge of ‘reflexively smearing everyone Muslim is bigotry’ is fatuous. Using someone else’s example of McVeigh and people [not] getting about an Christian church going up in OKC near the Murrah site…

                      Wholly apart from the fact that most of the victims were at least nominally christian in OKC, there was not a sizeable minority of Christians elsewhere openly appluading the bombing.

                2. If someone is provoked by this , that it THEIR problem. For being idiotic.

            2. The center is an invitation for violence because of its location.

              Congratulations, you’ve just advanced the same argument that segregationists used to keep black people from being allowed to move to white neighborhoods.

              1. Congratulations

                Ah yes, the inevitable accusation of racism that happens whenever someone uses logic to kick an emotional leftist’s arrogant little behind in an argument.

                1. You have a very fulfilling fantasy life.

                2. “whenever someone uses logic to kick an emotional leftist’s arrogant little behind in an argument”

                  And just when did this happen? I see no evidence of it. And why would a “leftist” be on a libertarian site arguing property rights anyway?

                3. How is his argument any more emotional than “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!! Da Moooslims are provoking me!!!!!”?

    2. I’m not provoked. Most Manhattanites aren’t provoked.

      Perhaps those who feel provoked should look in the mirror and figure out why they feel that way, and question whether the problem is with them rather than the one who they find provocative.

      1. And you speak for most Manhattanites? That’s news.

        1. Polls of Manhattanites on this question speak for most Manhattanites.

          1. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_….._poll.html

            http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news…..02569.html

            Found those pretty quick. Found others that tell you to ignore them because they include people from NYC as opposed to just Manhattanites. Wondered why you were using that term–spin.

    3. Also, did the Cordoba Initiative issue press releases and go on CNN talking about building a mosque two blocks from the WTC site? No, it’s the opponents who have driven the media frenzy on this. Kind of a bad provocation strategy if you don’t make sure those you want to provoke know about it.

  28. They have every legal right to build there. But it shows arrogance and insensitivity on their part. Kind of like a Nazi community center next to a Jewish synagogue. I’m totally appalled by the whole thing, but again, in American, people have rights. Unlike the countries in the middle east. Kind of ironic. They can come here and “legally” offend people, but over there we would probably be killed doing the same,

    1. As has been said many times upthread, moderate Muslims are not “kind of like” Nazis.

      1. I’m not one that would stop them from building there because it’s their right. I just think it’s a bad idea. I realize it may just be an innocent group of people wanting a community center, but it is being perceived badly by some as “flaunting themselves”, near the World Trade Center. And though I don’t equate them with nazi’s I used the term on purpose because that’s the way it is being perceived. I do understand what I’m saying. I was born in Germany and there are still people to this day that consider all germans nazis. Stupid, I know, but people get these ideas ingrained in them and it takes a long time to change that.

        1. “I was born in Germany and there are still people to this day that consider all germans nazis. Stupid, I know, but people get these ideas ingrained in them and it takes a long time to change that.”

          So you agree that it is stupid and ignorant of these people who oppose the mosque because it would be associating all Muslims with Muslim extremists?

          1. I don’t think anyone is being stupid or ignorant. It’s a sensitive issue and my opinion is that it is just too soon. Ten years from now it might be a great idea, but right now there appear to be a lot of people that still haven’t recovered from the terror attack and something like that fuels the flames. Even if it is just a community center built by innocent people. They have the right to build there, but there are going to be a lot of people upset about that and they have to understand that.

            1. The reason these people are upset though is because they think that the Muslims wanting to build this community center are somehow related to the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11.

              Until they get some factual evidence showing a link to extremist Islam these people are stupid and ignorant and bigoted.

          2. Yeah, my head almost exploded as I read the part you quoted. In fifth grade I was the only white kid on my little league team (my neighborhood had transitioned from Polish Catholic to Mexican Catholic, though I myself was neither). One day some of my teammates asked me what nationality I was and when I replied German they started calling me a Nazi. It didn’t make me go home and cry or anything like that (and they weren’t really trying to be mean; we were just at that age where you first learn about World War II) but it was a good lesson to learn: you can’t paint everybody with the extremist brush. And what’s good for the Germans is good for the Muslims.

      2. If the leadership behind this Muslim center supports Hamas as I’ve heard they do, then you are applying a very braod definition of “moderate Muslim”.

        1. And if the leadership behind this center is sufi like I’VE heard, you’re pissing yourself over absolutely nothing at all.

  29. One more comment. Why is it the “end of the world” if someone here makes a statement that sounds bigoted? Yet over in the muslim world a woman is possibly about to be stoned for having extramarital sex and they think that’s ok! I mean, really, talk about tolerance. I guess I mean hypocrisy. I am not a bigot, but am also not stupid, which means I think we have the right to ask reasonable questions when necessary. Getting tired of political correctness. We’re getting too thin skinned in this country. Can’t say what you really want to say anymore.

    1. Who is stopping you?

      1. This site is all about getting stoned. Oh, wait. That’s not what you’re talking about, is it?

      2. Really no one, now that I think about it. However I have noticed that the left wing wants you to say things a certain way (political correctness) and the right wing would like you to just not say certain things at all. (censorship & regulations). I consider this infringement on free speech.

        1. You consider it an infringement on free speech if the left wing “wants you to say certain things” and the right wing “would like you to just not say certain things”? Under that standard, isn’t your message an infringement on the free speech of both left and right wingers?

    2. Yet over in the muslim world a woman is possibly about to be stoned for having extramarital sex and they think that’s ok!

      I don’t think that’s OK, and I’d wager most people here don’t think that’s OK. If by “they” you mean the population of those countries, then you’re right, but we shouldn’t emulate “their” primitive attitudes.

      I am not a bigot, but am also not stupid, which means I think we have the right to ask reasonable questions when necessary.

      Nowadays, bigots often cloak their bigotry in the disguise of “asking questions” or “expressing concerns” or some similar euphemism, so that they can respond to any criticism by playing the “just asking questions” even if those questions are plainly intended as statements.

      So forgive me for drawing conclusions about people who probably don’t even know who the pastor is at every local Christian church or Jewish synagogue suddenly becoming all curious about the details of a mosque being built 1000 miles away.

    3. “Yet over in the muslim world a woman is possibly about to be stoned for having extramarital sex and they think that’s ok! I mean, really, talk about tolerance.”

      They are being tolerant; they say they may only end up hanging her.

  30. Kind of like a Nazi community center next to a Jewish synagogue. I’m

    Comparing Muslims to Nazis is what makes u look like an idiot.

    1. I hate Illinois muslims

    2. well the way I see it, nazi’s killed innocent people and muslims killed innocent people. Many of the nazis were innocent people that were forced under threat of death and torture to be nazis. So all nazis were not evil. All muslims are not evil. But a lot of them still want us dead, so if that makes me an idiot to compare them, so be it.

      1. The US Army has also killed innocent people. However, none of the three groups are at all equivalent.

      2. Here’s the confusion. Your analogy looks like this:

        Muslim Extremists:Muslims::Evil Nazis:Nazis

        For most of the rest of us, the analogy would look like this:
        Muslim Extremists:Muslims::Nazis:Germans

        It’s a subtle but important distinction.

        1. You are ignoring the very relevant element of time passed.

          The correct analogy is more like:

          SS Nazi is to 1946 German as 9-11 hijacker is to Muslims in general today[with a large minority of millions who applauded them.]

  31. Why is it so hard to believe that there are bound to be at least some Muslims around (considering how many there are in the world) who would sincerely like to try and bridge the gap and not to be hated and feared quite so much?

    And as others have repeatedly pointed out, this is NOT being built on ground zero but two blocks away.

    People seem to have just let their emotions totally destroy their ability to think rationally.

    1. They can build this across the street from my house and it would be fine with me. I just think putting it near the world trade center is a bad idea right now. Maybe not in ten years. I’m just observing what people are saying and the emotions are still too raw. It’s correct that people are reacting with emotions and not reason. That just the way people are.

      1. “It’s correct that people are reacting with emotions and not reason.”

        I disagree 1000%. I mean, that is the entire point of this website. Nothing magical happened on 9/11. It was an enormous, horrific tragedy. But there is NOTHING sacred or magical about that particular location.

        (oops, sorry for the repeat post below.)

      2. What then, if in 10 years some whimpering douche complains that they’re being provoked by The Muslim Horde and that it’s “just too soon!!”?

  32. What gets me in this issue is that the same people claiming that building a fucking community center two blocks from WTC is a provocative act on the part of Islam, also refuse to acknowledge that the United States propping up murderous dictators in the Muslim world, stationing troops in Muslim countries, invading two Muslim countries, and supporting another country that occupies Muslim territory and routinely kills people and demolishes buildings in part of the territory (all while refusing to allow building materials into that part), and settles its own population in the other part of that territory, is NOT provocative. You want to talk about being provocative about your choice of location? Look at the location of US military bases in the Middle East. That’s pretty damned provocative.

    ie, the same people who tar those who say that US meddling in the Muslim world contributed to 9/11 as “Blaming America” want to blame moderate American Muslims for the actions of those who would do violence against their community center, because they were “provocative”.

    1. and supporting another country that occupies Muslim territory and routinely kills people and demolishes buildings in part of the territory (all while refusing to allow building materials into that part), and settles its own population in the other part of that territory, is NOT provocative.

      There were Jews living in that ‘Muslim Territory’ before Islam existed. Simple fact.

      And if they don’t like those military bases, then attack them and try to remove them–a valid military tactic.

      We who tar Muslims who will not denounce terrorism, who attempt to insinuate sharia law into our country, who understand that this little skirmish is nothing more than the latest fight in the war that started when Muhammed came out of the desert to spread Islam by the sword, understand that what YOU mean by ‘moderate Muslim’ and what Muslims mean by ‘moderate Muslim’ are two completely different things.

  33. “It’s correct that people are reacting with emotions and not reason.”

    I disagree 1000%. I mean, that is the entire point of this website. Nothing magical happened on 9/11. It was an enormous, horrific tragedy. But there is NOTHING sacred or magical about that particular location.

    1. I am a duplicate post, feel free to disregard me. Thanks!

  34. The aspect of this that is kind of disturbing to me is that Islam has a logn history of building mosques on the sites of destroyed churches and temples of other religions. Islam literally wiped whole religious sects out, destroying every one of their shrines and artifacts in the process of expansion. Then replaced them with Islamic shrines.

    I don’t know that’s the message this group wants to send, but it certainly touching that nerve. Remember that the Al Aqsa mosque is built on top of the site of two Jewish temples and a Christian church.

    1. are you familiar with what the great mosque of corodoba is called today?

      1. The worst thing here is how so many libertarians abandon their philosophy to protect things like this(of course, we should all be used to this by now).

        Sure there are no governmental reasons to oppose this. There are no valid legal reasons to apply the force of the state to oppose this. Indded, the might of the state comes down on the side of not opposing this. The might of the state is being wielded effectively against those who understand that liberty is not a function of the state, but rather a function of our inborn nature.

        Sometimes something is wrong that is not legally wrong.

        This mosque/community center is one of those things. It is obviously meant to be provocative–there are two other mosques within ten blocks of this one.

        It is that provocation that is being argued here. Not the legality of the site.

        And the ‘tolerance’ in this–consider that there is no prohibition on intolerance to a particular religion enshrined in the First Amendment that everyone loves to use in this argument–at least none that applies to individuals. Government has limitations in this–but the people don’t.

        1. Another mind reader…

          And nobody said you have to like. You just can’t stop it. Bitch about it all you like. It only makes YOU look silly.

        2. Provocation to do what?

          I see that word being thrown around left and right by the anti-build faction, but other than “poopy” above, no one has actually fleshed out who or what is being provoked.

          Government has limitations in this–but the people don’t.

          Yes, they do. I cannot compel them to stop spouting bigoted nonsense, but I can criticize them for doing so. Harsanyi is saying I shouldn’t do that, and that is where he is (as usual) wrong.

          1. The provocation is simple. They are saying ‘you cannot stop this’, ‘on September 11th, while you are intoning the namnes of your infidel dead around a hole in the ground, we will worship in the mosque that we took from you and praise the martyrs who STILL bring this nation to it’s kness’.

            Don’t any of you know any Muslims?

            They want to rub the fact that they can use our laws against us in our faces.

            1. I know two Mulsims (from Bahrain) and they are two of the nicest people I have ever met in my life.

            2. I know quite literally dozens of Emiritis. They want nothing of the sort.

      2. Proving Christians didn’t BURN DOWN their mosque, and build a church on top of the site. They preserved the structure and used it as a church.
        Big difference.

        1. Not really.

          1. In defense of the Cat?licos, you could argue they were just reclaiming the church from the Muslims (who themselves built the Mosque out of a Visigothic church). Just playing devil’s advocate.

            Anyway, what I find more interesting is that I’ve actually been to the mosque at C?rdoba and I had no idea it was actually a church now. Guess it’s not good for tourist bucks to let that cat out of the bag.

          2. so what happened to the previous owners? did they just not happen to be home at the time?

            more to the point, what “message” are they sending? that the community center will be taken over and turned into a church?

          3. Actually, it’s not a clever a comparison as dhex thinks. The mosque was built on top of a Christian church Muslims tore down. Although they reported bought it first.

            And when it was turned back into a church, the mosque wasn’t obliterated, they built the cathedral inside of it.

          4. Yes really … destroying the opposing religion’s building and the building on top of it is far more aggressive.

            A) You physically destroy the evidence the building even existed.
            B) You prevent it’s followers from rebuilding on the same site.

            It’s a big fucking aggro “In your face! We won!” act of humiliating and dominating the defeated.

            Saying there’s no difference between that and converting the building to a new purpose, is like saying that there’s no difference between punching your enemy in the face, and cutting their nose and eyes off and pissing on their face.

            1. Yeah, just like the Turks tore down the Hagia Sophia.

              Oh, what?

        2. So if the Cordoba Initiative preserved the building on the current site and used it as a mosque, that would be OK, but building a new building wouldn’t?

          Also, the most famous example of Muslims building a mosque on top of another religion’s holy site — the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem. The Temple was burned down by pagans nearly 600 years before Islam existed.

          1. I’m aware of that. But it is still, you know, preventing Jews from ever rebuilding their Temple on the original site.

            It’s such a flashpoint because of that. Just like, the mosque plans at ground zero.

            It just makes it look like Muslims are in some way asserting their “victory” by moving a mosque in at the site of the attacks. Declaring that “this is now Muslim land!” or something.

            I don’t know that’s what the group intends, but given Islam’s history, it’s fucking touchy.

            1. This community center does not prevent anything from being built on our supposedly sacred ground of the WTC site.

              As for the Dome of the Rock, the Temple had been laying in ruins for 600 years before Muslims took over Palestine. It’s not like there was a rush to prevent the Jews from rebuilding it.

      3. Nice try. How did the mosque of Cordoba get there? By the peaceful spread of islam through the Middle East, North Africa to Spain?

        Wiki:”The building was begun in approximately AD 600 as the Christian Visigothic church of St. Vincent. After the Islamic conquest of the Visigothic kingdom the Emir Abd ar-Rahman I bought the church, and he and his descendants reworked it over two centuries to refashion it as a mosque, starting in 784.”

        Spanish wiki says it was expropriated, but I?m sure the invaders bought it fair & square from the infidels, and bigoted christians performed yet another outrage of the reconquista.

  35. Sure, Islam has been hijacked by extremists. So has Christianity. And Judaism. And in some parts of the world, Hinduism and Buddhism.

    But if you don’t defend the First Amendment, you’ll be praying to every God you can think of to save your ass from the ugliest extremism of them all: Government Extremism.

    1. In the end, you are right. Anyone who can pay a fair price for the land should be able to build on that site, so long as they obey the law.

      But Harsanyi is also right to question their motives.

      Then again, even if we were boundlessly tolerant, there is an inescapable fact: This 13-story community center is going to be built two blocks from the worst modern atrocity committed in the name of Islam. Such a project is not just in poor taste; for many Americans, it confirms their concerns about Islam’s provocative nature.

      Here’s a bit of wisdom about people that I’ve picked up in my 15 years of being on teh fabulous Intarnetz: when someone has to insist, repeatedly and stridently, that they’re X, dammit, it nearly always means that they’re not really X, dammit.

      Online dating, for example. You get a guy who keeps stamping his feet and swearing up and down that he’s a nice guy, it’s the women who are all bitches and have all the problems, guess what: Nice guys. They don’t have to advertise. Because we already know that they’re nice. You know just from the way they do things. They don’t need PR.

      Every time some Muslim advocate gets in front of a camera and swears up and down that Islam’s a religion of peace and that most Muslims are peaceful people who’d scarcely harm a fly, I wonder why that has to be stated and restated and endlessly promoted.

      This mosque is an act of passive aggression. If they put a big neon sign on the outside of this monstrosity that said, “Here’s a Big Middle Finger to the Zionist-Loving Infidel Scum of America,” it could not be more obvious. And for the usual spokesmullahs to get in front of the camera and mumble the usual ad slogans about “moderate blah blah peaceful blah blah harmony ‘n’ hugs ‘n’ brotherly luurrvve blah blah” clinches it, at least for me.

      A group that’s truly reasonable and peace-loving doesn’t need to advertise. You just know. Because they act like reasonable, peace-loving people. And they build their shrines far the fuck away from those to whom they’re not welcome, because the point of the peaceful is to build a shrine, not rub somebody’s nose in their not-so-latent hatreds.

      Sure. The Muslims can legally go right ahead and build their mosque. And I don’t have to like it, not one bit.

      1. So if the moderate imams DON’T come out and say they’re moderate and peaceful, they get shit for not doing it, and if they DO come out and say it, they get shit for doing it too much?

        Holy fuck, can you get a better definition of a no-win?

        1. Moderate and peaceful people would, by definition, have the empathy and respect for their neighbors to realize that this is a damned lousy place to build a mosque.

          I never said they had to come out and say anything. In fact, I’d prefer that they didn’t. Like everybody else, their actions speak pretty plainly.

          1. Right…had they come out and said nothing other than “we’re building this”, you’d be wetting your pants just the same.

  36. This is clearly a case of muslim insensitivity.
    The reason for the hole in the ground here is because of adherents to a religion who carried out an attack in the name of a religion which dictates this manner of action. A religion which by all assertions of those educated in it permits, condones and advocates for the actions we saw on September 11th 2001. To this day, these same muslims insist the U.S. was responsible for these attacks. It was our fault.
    This mosque is a symbol which is intended to be the grave marker of what this religion’s practitioners saw as a symbol they needed to strike at. This is a moment of weakness which cannot be allowed to stand.

    1. You will find plenty of adequate rebuttal to your points in the thread above. I’m too sick of typing to argue this any more.

  37. The Muslims behind this mosque project are either horribly insensitive or spiritually complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I suspect it’s a little bit of both.

  38. The Muslims behind this mosque project are either horribly insensitive or spiritually complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I suspect it’s a little bit of both.

  39. The Muslims behind this mosque project are either horribly insensitive or spiritually complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I suspect it’s a little bit of both.

    1. Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam. Americans better wake up before it is “to late” and the laws are changed to benefit Islam and to suppress other religions in America as they are now being suppressed in Europe and the world as we speak!

      Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam:
      http://www.bookwormroom.com/20…..out-islam/

      ………….and:
      http://www.dhimmitude.org/

  40. The Muslims behind this mosque project are either horribly insensitive or spiritually complicit in the 9/11 attacks. I suspect it’s a little bit of both.

  41. absolutely, we tolerate RATIONAL ideas in this country, but building an “in your face”, mosque for the benefit of religious monsters does not seem rational.
    AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION UNIONS……RISE UP TO THE CHALLENGE.

  42. Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam. Americans better wake up before it is “to late” and the laws are changed to benefit Islam and to suppress other religions in America as they are now being suppressed in Europe and the world as we speak!

    Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam:
    http://www.bookwormroom.com/20…..out-islam/

    ………….and:
    http://www.dhimmitude.org/

  43. By all means, build a mosque next to the WTC, even better build it with a minaret higher than the WTC. It will piss of the kaffirs, so I consider it a good thing.

  44. Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam. Americans better wake up before it is “to late” and the laws are changed to benefit Islam and to suppress other religions in America as they are now being suppressed in Europe and the world as we speak!

    Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam:
    http://www.bookwormroom.com/20…..out-islam/

  45. Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam. Americans better wake up before it is “to late” and the laws are changed to benefit Islam and to suppress other religions in America as they are now being suppressed in Europe and the world as we speak!

    Three things that NOT enough people know about Islam:
    http://www.bookwormroom.com/20…..out-islam/

    ………….and:
    http://www.dhimmitude.org/

  46. Not so strangely, the first article to get this right appears in Reason.

    Should we legally prevent them from building a mosque? Probably not.

    Is it in very questionable taste and judgment, if not bad faith, for them to build a mosque there? Yeah. There’s a lot of talk about sensitivity. Where is the sensitivity of those building the mosque?

    Imagine members of a militia organization purchasing the site of the Oklahoma City bombing, and building a memorial commemorating armed resistance against tyranny. I approve of militias, I approve of armed resistance against tyranny, but I wouldn’t approve of this, and neither would anyone else, particularly those bending over backwards to be non judgmental about the mosque.

    But some good may come of this. I hope New Yorkers, and visitors to New York, keep up a continual peaceful protest outside the mosque condemning Islamic totalitarianism.

    1. it may be insensitive . . . but property owners do not have an obligation to be sensitive. they have an obligation to comply with the law, which the developers seem to be doing.

      perhaps this mosque can help with the protests you refer to.

      1. “…property owners do not have an obligation to be sensitive…”

        True, but a little sensitivity to your neighbors goes a long way to maintaining a congenial relationship.

        For example, I just bought a house in Reno, NV on about 1.5 acres. I plan to build a workshop to house my hobbies, probably about 1,000 square feet. Before I build, I plan to ask my neighbors where they would prefer I build it on my property. I want to give them the opportunity to guide my decision so I don’t block their view, or annoy them in some way. It just strikes me as the thing to do.

      2. ### perhaps this mosque can help with the protests you refer to.

        That would be the best outcome – that the mosque members lead a continuing vigil outside their mosque condemning the attacks, and Islamic totalitarianism in general.

        But if they moved there unprepared to do that, they are at best thoughtless clods who will have earned hoots and jeers from passersby as long as the building stands.

    2. Maybe someone can sell t-shirts outside of the mosque with pictures of Mohammed on them

  47. Evidently, the guy behind this is a fucking Sufi. If that’s really true, then this is the most ridiculous bout of pants-wetting I’ve ever seen.

  48. Honestly, how did this guy get a job writing for Reason? His posts reflect poorly on the entire organization.

    Unless Reason wants posts that pander to the conservative quasi-Republican. Why? Stand your ground Reason. Have some principles!

    1. i agree! this is not libertarian at all. i hope this great libertarian mag is not taken over by social conservatives.

  49. to me, there is a simple answer to this question: presumably, the mosque will be built in accordance with all laws (including zoning) and it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on religion.

    for a libertarian, the answer should be simple.

    another point is that the protestors made the action by the HISTORICAL PRESERVATION committee the locus of the protests. this committee has one role: to determine the aesthetic and historical value of the existing improvements. it does not decide whether it should be a muslim or christain building, or whether it is too close to ground zero.

    in summary, this is a free country, which means that this organization is free to build its house of worship (in accordance with the law), and that all the political nitwits out there can bitch and moan to their heart’s content.

    ps, who care who the funders are. this is not a normal requirement for a nonprofit to build a development; to impose it here would be discriminating based on religion.

    1. Many others have already made it clear, but I’ll try one more time, with added swearing, to try it make it obvious enough for those who have their heads buried so far up their knee-jerk libertarian asses that they are suffering from oxygen deprivation:

      YES the land owners have the right to build their fucking shrine to their pedophile priest. The vast majority of those who have made posts that argue against the building of the mosque are in agreement with this. It’s not a legal issue, we all get it, so let that strawman lay.

      YES, those who are opposed to the building of the mosque have every reason to exercise their 1st amendment right to complain about it. That’s not unlibertarian, asshole.

      MAYBE those who are funding the mosque construction are moderate muslims who are reaching out in peace. Maybe they fall more on the fundamental side and want to build a shrine to their murderous martyrs and jab a finger in the collective eye of this country at the same time. At best, it can be said they are well-intentioned but supremely lacking in tact and sensitivity, and that is the heart of the argument. It’s just not the right thing to do. At least not anytime soon.

      You can’t separate the actions of the 9/11 terrorists from their Islamic beliefs. Those beliefs were their motivation. A mosque is a monument to those beliefs.

      Either way, it does not reflect well on them, or Islam in general, to build a mosque so close to GZ

      1. Perhaps you should stand at the site with a sign reading “you worship a pedophile priest.” That would increase good feelings all around.

  50. Harrassee, there is no question that the Imam should be able to build the mosque. That was not the point of the article.

    The points of the article are:
    1. SHOULD the mosque be built?
    2. Is it reasonable to expect Americans to see the building of a mosque at ground zero as a generous gesture on the part of Muslims, or is it more reasonable to see this as a big “Fuck You”?

    As to the funders, I think knowing would go a long way to answering question number 2.

  51. Of course, opponents of the mosque could take a page out of the Muslim playbook and what Muslims do when they are offended by something.

    Credibly call for the bloody murder of the offending parties.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? Besides, like the woman behind the “Draw Mohammed Day”, they are just begging for it. Right?

  52. The real issue is a cultural context most people are unaware of here. In Islam it is customary to build a mosque on the sight of a great battle.

  53. As long as locals think a mosque is ok, it’s ok with me. BUT, seems to me that a commercial building that pays taxes would be a better use of that particular piece of land. They use the same city services as commercial neighbors so they should pay for the same services.

  54. I’m going to say it once more (and for the last goddamn fucking time on this issue):

    (Inhales)

    WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS TO GET PISSED OFF ABOUT. FUCK THIS BULLSHIT. FUCK THEIR MOSQUE. FUCK YOU LAZY ASSHOLES WHO WANT SOME GROUP OF ASSHOLES WITH GUNS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. FUCK THE ENTIRE GODDAMN MIDDLE EAST(AND THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER)AND ALL THE MONEY WE THROW AT THEM. FUCK.

  55. Building this is like the neo-Nazis putting up a 15-story statue of Hitler pissing over the next-door Jewish camp in Poland. Bad taste all around.

    1. That all depends.

      If Oliver Stone built the statue it would be an artistic statement to be defended.

      If Mel Gibson built the statue it would be considered an indefensible monument to bigotry.

  56. Do I as a secular humanist have to publicly denounce every evil atheism has done in order to build a center for empirical study? Do I as a journalist have to decry Randolph Hearst’s despicable yellow journalism before I publish a piece? Do I as a novelist have to decry the fascist tendencies of Evelyn Waugh?

    There is no such thing as collective guilt or responsibility. No, we are not bigoted to ask if this center is in good taste. But to imply either should be a precondition for some kind of societal approval is collectivist nonsense.

    1. The accusation of bigotry is meant to change the conversation from the topic to you.

      Now you are on the defensive, and you must prove that you are innocent of the charges of bigotry before the conversation may continue.

      However the only way for you to prove your innocence is to agree with the other side.

      Any questioning of the choosing of the location of this center must be rooted in bigotry, and the only way one can prove they are not a bigot is to embrace the location of this center as a symbol of tolerance.

      1. That is a willful oversimplification of the discussions that have happened over the past few days over multiple threads. Trying to play victim is cowardly.

        1. Please allow me to correct your post.

          That is an willful accurate oversimplification of the discussions that have happened over the past few days over multiple threads. Trying to play victim Playing the bigotry card is cowardly.

          1. Hurrr durrr!

            1. Is that 19 in your handle your age or your IQ?

              1. Wow. Intertubez burn!

                1. Its his penis size…….IN CENTIMETERS!

                  HAHAHAHA

                  TAKE THAT, PERSON I DISAGREE WITH

        2. I see, so now he is playing victim and the only way to prove he is not playing victim is to agree that he engaged in willful oversimplification.

          I think he nailed your childish little game of presenting false choices in order to get your way.

          Grow up.

          1. Whee! I presented no such choice.

  57. I thought this was a Libertarian site.

    The arguments contained in this article are not only counter to the basic tenets of Libertarianism (sure, you covered your ass, but really?), they’re poorly conceived as well.

    Come on Reason. You can do much better than this.

    1. This is one of about 4 articles and blog posts about this subject.

  58. I look forward to that crisp September day, as the people visit the WTC site to remember, while the call to prayer reverberates across what is still a huge hole in the ground, from the mosque at Cordoba House. Allahu Akbar, it will say, God is great. And the people can all gaze over, toward the mosque, and reflect on how that very phrase once was followed by huge explosions, fires and chunks of human flesh raining down on people’s heads.

    It can be legal, and still be wrong–isn’t that how all you liberaltarians feel about illegal immigration? How about drug prohibition, that’s legal–and wrong.

    But this….

    1. You know that this will be a place that will do the traditional broadcast of the call to prayer? Or are you just assuming it to be so?

      1. Rhetoric, Timon. Though, I suspect that if you dhimmis get your way it will eventually broadcast the adnan.

  59. You can’t hold an entire group of people responsible for what a bunch of extremists who probably would have willingly murdered most of the people attending the mosque (or whatever it’s going to be called) did. There were Muslim victims of 9/11 also, let’s try not to make their lives any more miserable. Bigotry should not be accommodated.

  60. I have a question for all you Liberal Muslim loving cock suckers.

    Not EVERY noose was used to kill a black man yet seems every time black people find a noose they loose their shit. You fucks support them and are convinced that a noose EVERY noose represents lynching.

    P.S. go to YouTube and look up the BBC program Undercover Mosque then see what peace loving Muslims really think.

    1. Holy red herring! I love herring!

  61. The mosque site is not at Ground Zero, it is 2 blocks from it. In fact, you can’t even see Ground Zero from it. What a waste of news space.

  62. The only place that deserves the moniker “Ground Zero” is my lap.

  63. it’s ridiculous. I’m curious as to why people support it and fight for it. What can their motivation be? Or the message they want to send?

    1. I don’t know and neither do you. Based on that, there’s nothing to do.

      Not that it matters.

  64. NY candidate for Gov. is running ads promising to seize the land using Eminent Domain and build a “war memorial” there instead.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLLrd79aOqI

    So how many of you so-called Libertarian fucks support this effort?

    1. Why would ANY libertarian support that?

  65. Why is it that tolerance always only seems to be required in one direction? Wouldn’t the moderation of moderate Muslims be demonstrated in sensitivity to the feelings of very many Americans that the building of such a Mosque will be trumpeted as a moral victory for the people who cheered the 9/11 attacks? If moderate Muslims can’t see that than who is really being intolerant? And if bridge building was the objective, perhaps an ecumenical project might have been a better idea. And why on earth name it Cordoba: the symbol of militant Muslim’s imperialist triumphalism? Obviously they should have the freedom to buy any property that an owner will sell to them and use it as they please. But to try and paint those who criticize it with intolerance-baiting is intellectually creepy and dishonest.

    1. This looks like a good place to re-post this:

      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.

  66. I think a lot of the debate about this issue misses the point. This is a local issue. The mosque site isn’t on federal land or connected to the world trade property in any way. Anything Sarah Palin says about whether the mosque should be built is irrelevant. Local officials were in charge of accepting or denying the permits for demolition, and local citizens are in charge of lobbying or protesting against that decision. It almost seems that sometimes people forget that New York City is a real place that has real residents who lived through the physical disaster of 911 in addition to the psychological one that has affected the rest of the country. They would like to be able to have a little control over what goes on in their back yard. If anyone doesn’t like it, how it’s working, then either be glad you don’t live in lower Manhattan, or organize and protest against this decision as a local resident.

  67. the funny part is that the mosque is being built with the money our military bribes paid for and the hash and opium drug war bonanza.

    moral relativism requires an absolute, and moral absolutism requires an uncle looie.

  68. I think the point that is consistently missed here is that this mosque and community center is supposed to reach out the the rest of us infidels.

    So when someone is trying to establish a working dialog with me I tend to gravitate to the one offering me tea and perhaps some lightly sweetened snack.

    I also tend to shun the person holding a weapon or attempting the use force, threats, intimidation, and or guilt to illicit my cooperation.

    So if you are trying to build a bridge to reach people and 70% of those people all tell you that you are being hurtful, offensive, insensitive and down right rude, do you then tell them they are all wrong and they must see your point of view or something is wrong with them?

    Call me a bigot, hell I am already a racist because I want low taxes. I am uneducated because I do not want government health care. I am nothing more than a mindless robot fit for nothing but to be used by the republican party because I doubt the current administrations ability to manage a burger joint let alone an entire nation.

    I do not care for the pejorative dejur it means nothing to me anymore. This Mosque is being moved forward by the exact same mindset that lead people to fly jets into buildings. It may be a somewhat toned down version but it is the “my way or else” attitude that rings clear through all of the words.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.