Patterico's Pontifications

8/22/2010

Forgive Me for Not Caring About What They Think

Filed under: General — Jack Dunphy @ 11:36 pm



[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

“New York mosque controversy worries Muslims overseas.”

So reads the headline to a story running in Monday’s Los Angeles Times. And the story that accompanies it is, as one would expect, every bit as fatuous as the headline. It is yet another in a long series of attempts by our sophisticated betters in the national media to shame those of us who would prefer not to see a mosque rise in what would have been the shadow of the World Trade Center towers. That those towers were reduced to rubble nine years ago, and that nearly 3,000 Americans met unspeakably cruel deaths that day at the hands of terrorists who committed their barbarism in the name of Islam, well, these are unpleasant memories that live on only in the minds of people so backward and unenlightened that they refuse to allow any figurative thumbs to be jammed into their eyes.

It’s growing ever more tiresome to hear defenders of the Ground Zero Mosque lecture us on blessings of the First Amendment. Yes, they have the right to build it there, and few would argue otherwise. But just as a man has the right to tell his wife that her new hairstyle makes her look like a Pekingese, that her cooking is unfit for man or beast, and that, yes, those pants do indeed make her look fat, the prudent husband keeps such opinions to himself in the interest of harmonious domestic relations. One might also have the right to burn an American flag outside the local VFW post, but one must accept the risk of being labeled a boor for doing so. (And being labeled a boor is probably the best thing that would happen to anyone so unwise as to exercise his rights in such a fashion.)

Americans are the last people on earth who need to demonstrate their tolerance for diversity of religious thought. It’s a shame that the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is causing such worry among Muslims overseas, but until there’s a synagogue in Mecca, I’m not going to lose any sleep about it.

–Jack Dunphy

87 Responses to “Forgive Me for Not Caring About What They Think”

  1. Infidel!

    Imam Fievel Abdul Riff Rauf (fb8750)

  2. Without knowing all of the details, I am heartened to see that some Muslims, such as the Muslim group from Canada, also see it as a provocation that they oppose. But we know how well that will be covered by the likes of the LAT.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  3. Just as we — our European brethren scolded us — had to prove our “post-racial” bonafides by electing a black president (number of black heads of state throughout Europe, throughout all of history? still ZERO) now we have to prove our non-discriminatory nature towards Islam as well. And Jack is absolutely correct . . . there will NEVER be a synagogue in Mecca.

    Icy Texan (11d02b)

  4. I like the answer, “I’ll worry about whether they should build another mosque in NYC after there is a synagogue in Mecca (or even if they first agree to rebuild the Orthodox Church that was there and destroyed)”. Reframes the discussion to bring back reason.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. “Americans are the last people on earth who need to demonstrate their tolerance for diversity of religious thought. It’s a shame that the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is causing such worry among Muslims overseas, but until there’s a synagogue in Mecca, I’m not going to lose any sleep about it.”

    The is no tolerance in Islam, and until there is, I will never respect the religion.

    tyree (cf6f25)

  6. I just love the story of the Islamic Research Institute in Egypt that declared that the GZM is a bad idea… and its a zionist plot.

    Yes, really. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/islamic-research-academy-there-should.html

    Its amazing how insidious them joooooos are, even managing to take over a mosque!

    (and for those new here, that last part is a joke)

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  7. More proof that our liberal overlords and media are out of touch with America.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  8. They’ll find someone greedy enough and with no spine to build this terrorist’s memorial. Probably one of Obama’s unions. If I lived close enough I’d throw a pound of bacon on the site every time I passed it. That’ll keep the terrorist leader imam busy.

    PatriotRider (17f47b)

  9. I saw where HoDean was saying that Teh One is out of touch with the American public, but it turns out he was referring to the uber-progressive Left, not the American public.

    JD (b7da2f)

  10. Patriot

    mmm, i go the other way. i suspect obama will say to the unions, “do me a favor and quietly deep six this project, at least until 2012.”

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  11. I find it really hypocritical for Muslims to parade at Ground Zero carrying signs demanding “the freedom of religion”, as if Americans are religiously intolerant. If Americans were religiously intolerant, there would not have been one American mosque standing on 9-12-2001, instead, having been reduced to the same ashy rubble as the World Trade Center buildings.

    Perhaps I have a convoluted view point, but if you are going to preach religious tolerance, doesn’t it make sense to do so in nations that are religiously IN-tolerant? You know, nations like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, IRAN where any faith other than Islam is persecuted or at least not treated with the same equality? Why would you preach to a people who are already tolerant?

    The fact that the state-run media has to even place the adjective “moderate” in front of Muslim should tell you all you need to know. If “moderate” was the norm in Islam, the adjectivce would not be necessary. But it is not the norm, and few lemmings are willing to spend the time reading, and learning, about a religion that is definately at war with us, even though we are not at war with them.

    The excuse will be given “But those were the radicals who misunderstood their own religion” when talking about the terrorists. Really? Then, if they were just the confused, why are the bulk of Muslims, who live in Shariah controlled nations, on their side?

    I am all for tolerance. So when are we going to see some from those nations that continue to fund terrorist groups?

    I understand we taxpayers are paying Imam Rauf to travel across Islamic land “building bridges”. Maybe he could save us a few coins and start building bridges by denouncing the Falls Church, Virginia mosque that has contributed so much to jihad by preaching to two of the 9-11 hijackers, the Times Square bomber and Nidal Hassan, who shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he reloaded in his target rich environment to murder 13 fellow Ameicans.

    Are we turning into a nation full of “useful idiots”? Yeah, it would seem so as we allow ourselves to have demands of tolerance placed on us while none is given.

    retire05 (688aa3)

  12. Headlines we need to see:

    “Afghan stoning controversy worries elopers overseas.”

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  13. I am heartened to see that some Muslims, such as the Muslim group from Canada, also see it as a provocation that they oppose.

    Since a number of Muslim groups have tried mightily to limit free speech in Canada, don’t be too heartened.

    And if I were a Muslim overseas, I’d be mightily worried, but not for the reasons given in this article. By needlessly inflaming the passions of those who will always remember the horrors of 9/11, they’re only perpetuating the idea that Islam is wholly incompatible with the ideals of our country.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  14. As days go by it is becoming more and more evident that for some reason the WH simply does not want the poisonous ground zero mosque controversy to die out — as all logic and practicality would normally dictate they should want to happen. After the first few days of the controversy which was openly and unnecessarily generated by the president’s remarks, and after the first few days of national polarity (including among Dems) clearly being captured in opinion polls, it seemed that muting it to get it off the front pages and the airwaves would be Axelrod’s top priority in an important election year. Yet the fire keeps getting fed oxygen in the NYT and elsewhere, and it must be with the administration’s blessing and ongoing encouragement to the journolist types. Why?

    Is it to prevent BO’s foreign campaign contributions from drying out as he increasingly loses the approval of his own countrymen? Is it a misguided attempt to justify his “peace prize”? Is it somehow related to the Iran nuclear situation and Israel’s possible military reaction? Something else? IMO, sumthin’s going on here that has little to do with building a new community center in lower Manhattan.

    elissa (b4cd08)

  15. The funny part is that the Saudis are too smart to get themselves involved in such an inflammatory project. I could see Chavez or Ahmadinejad volunteering but with Chavez’ oil fields grinding to a stop and A-jad spending all his money on centrifuges that will stop spinning suddenly one of these days, the money may not be so easy to promote.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  16. AW- It’s all about money. These terrorists seem to have an endless supply of it and the unions and this administration seen to have an insatiatable desire for it. Just wait for the time when the two are equal and it will be built.

    PatriotRider (17f47b)

  17. BTW AW, I don’t think this president is smart enough to figure that out. He cares nothing about the future.

    PatriotRider (17f47b)

  18. We have become a nation of Chamberlains. If we just ignore the alligator, it will eat us last.
    Don’t ask any important questions. Don’t pull the curtain back to see if there really is a wizard behind it. Just continue to believe.

    Believe that Imam Rauf, with his strong connections to not only the Muslim Brotherhood, and to Kadafi (sp?) as well, has only good intentions. Don’t ask how a man who was waiting tables just 8 short years ago managed to buy a $1 million home in 2005 and paid $4.3 million in cash for the Burlington Coat Factory building in July, 2009. Don’t ask how that same former waiter managed to by a commercial building for tens of millions of dollars a couple of years ago. I am sure we all know waiters who managed to become multi-millionaires in just a couple of short years.

    More and more it seems we have become a nation of “useful idiots”, no more than lemmings to believe any lie that we are fed as we jump off the cliff.

    retire05 (688aa3)

  19. Our nobility as a nation has been (is) our downfall.

    Our enemies laugh at us as we willingly fight an asymmetric war that uses our rules against us.

    And I blame the Left for not only pushing this but celebrating it.

    This is why, while some of the Left are naive imbeciles, many are simply enemies of this Country.

    They know better but find it useful in their desire to “cut us down to size.”

    Like Manchurian Obama — hey we are no more exceptional than Albania don’t ya know.

    HeavenSent (e230a5)

  20. I think the whole thing is a scam to get someone to buy the building from them and bail them out of a failed investment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  21. “Forgive Me for Not Caring About What They Think”

    You’d care if it was some jerk lying to you that “Islam will see this a victory.”

    “nearly 3,000 Americans met unspeakably cruel deaths that day at the hands of terrorists who committed their barbarism in the name of Islam”

    Did anyone ever figure out how many of the dead were foreigners?

    geoff (ae4d0b)

  22. geoff, you mean jerks like other muslims?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. Oops, bad link.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  24. I find it interesting that the parallels in history are not listened to more carefully. The Roman’s saw Christianity as a problem and persecuted them for centuries until ti our numbered and destroyed the Roman way of life. One must assume clearly that to attempt to deny the fact that Americans can also be muslim and then to also segregate them off through the idea that as long as any country in the world treats Christians badly then the constitution doesn’t apply to their religion is a huge mistake.

    As a New Yorker and and American if radicals are going to meet I would rather know where they are then underground. To not live under our own agreed rules, but to apply them on a case by case basis is a very dangerous precedent and an American Rubicon.

    muffler (54df94)

  25. muffler, man that strawman died a horrible death at your hands. What a victory.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. “geoff, you mean jerks like other muslims?”

    Taqiyya

    geoff (3ac9fb)

  27. It is important that Americans support the moderate muslims who oppose building the mosque at Ground Zero, and not the extremists who demand it be built there.

    This is how this issue should be framed. Why won’t the liberal establishment support the moderate muslims we have all hoped to see emerge?

    DaMav (6ab8ce)

  28. I have HAD it with this meme that a given entity has a “right” to build a religious structure wherever they may want. It’s a lie.

    Kelo saw to this.

    Economic needs trump all. Municipalities are more and more rejecting use of lands by non-profits. The property tax base is eroding quite fast in many places.

    Ed from SFV (54e760)

  29. geoff, I think we know who is practicing taqiyya in this.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. SPQR – It appears to be one of those drive-by imbeciles.

    JD (3dc31c)

  31. Columnist Paul Greenberg really nailed it imo (sorry for the length):

    The continuing foofaraw over construction of a mosque near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan illustrates, among a number of things, the crucial difference between the letter and spirit of the law.

    As was observed long ago, the letter of the law killeth, while its spirit lets live. It’s no simple task to follow even the simplest principle in the American scheme of things, including the separation of church and state. Or in this case, the separation of mosque and state.

    Just because we have a right to do something under the law, like build a mosque in close proximity to what has become hallowed ground in our shared history, doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Blindly following the letter of the law may produce only an on-going provocation and its surest result, on-going resentment. And so defeat an essential purpose of law: to let us all of us live in peace and with mutual respect…

    …A large cross once towered over Treblinka, marking the convent of Carmelite nuns nearby. There was nothing wrong with the cross itself. But to have a symbol of another faith so dominate a scene where so many Jews were gassed in one of the great crimes of that or any other century … it would not have been right. There should be no need to explain why; even to attempt to do so somehow demeans the memory of the dead. As none other than John Paul II, that blessed man, understood. His decision to move the convent did not go down well with the nuns who had served there so long, but the pope understood not just the letter but the spirit of the law, and that the law of love of our fellow man is above all others….

    Only the literal-minded could view this controversy as just a matter of what the First Amendment says on paper and nothing more, including the historical context in which the rights it guarantees would be exercised. And the effect that exercising them would have on others. That kind of tone-deafness might qualify those who exhibit it as sharp lawyers, but not as serious thinkers.

    Lest we forget, even black-letter law comes surrounded by white space in which there is plenty of room for commentary, nuance and reflection. Space in which reasonable men may differ over whether it is responsible to exercise a legally unquestionable, but ethically debatable, right.

    All those dimensions were missing from Professor/President Barack Obama’s cut-and-dried law-school lecture on the subject delivered at a dinner marking the beginning of Ramadan — followed by a clarification that didn’t much clarify. Where does the president come down on this issue? Who knows? As best one can tell, he favors building the mosque but not necessarily.

    Seldom has President Cool’s distance from the feelings of his fellow Americans been so clear as in this legal brief and later addendum on what he treated as purely a question of law rather than one that touches Americans to the quick. The most impressive quality of this president is the unfeeling distance he manages to put between himself and We the People. He doesn’t so much lead us as lecture us from some abstract plane where emotional reality never intrudes.

    The letter of the law is no substitute for the understanding spirit that softens and raises it to the level of ethics and morality, a law above the law. John Adams said it: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Without an inner light, and an inner sense of restraint, the law becomes just a playing field for a Hobbesian war of all against all, a confused struggle in which all are so intent on exercising their own rights they forget the rights, and feelings, of others.

    The Constitution of the United States rightly protects the free exercise of religion. But like any other right, it comes with an unspoken responsibility: to exercise that most effective form of restraint, self-restraint. Call it manners, as John Fletcher Moulton did in his famous address, “Law and Manners.” And manners maketh not only the man but the nation. Without manners, that self-enforcing law, a society cannot hope to remain both free and orderly. In such a society, there is a responsibility to be more than legal. There is a responsibility to be generous, kind, considerate, self-denying — to be right in more than a limited legal sense, to practice and invite reciprocity. That way lies peace. As in Salaam Aleikem — peace unto you. And to all of us.

    Dagwood (7ef17d)

  32. meanwhile Roger Ebert and Cracked go full metal idiot on the GZM.

    http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/going-full-metal-idiot-on-gzm.html

    i particularly like the part where he claims that Palin is using Hitler-like tactics.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (b1db52)

  33. “Just because we have a right to do something under the law, like build a mosque in close proximity to what has become hallowed ground…”

    Except…there is no such right. If the Planning Commission says you can’t build a church on land you own, because it MIGHT cause a traffic problem, or because someone says it will spoil the view…then you can’t build the church. Happens all the time in America.

    So, get over the “right” thing. It doesn’t exist, either in law, or in practice.

    End of story.

    Dave Surls (1bfb2f)

  34. An appeals court recently determined that some people had the “right” under the First Amendment to shout insults at funerals for soldiers. How many of our liberal friends will defend that First Amendment right? The issue is not the First Amendment. The mass of Muslims in other countries are not “impressed” by our defense of First Amendment rights; we all saw the celebrations of millions when the news hit that the United States was attacked on 9-11.

    Patrick Villella (23c1be)

  35. Everytime I think about this mosque flap, I flashback to the broadcasts on 9/11 with Muslims worldwide dancing in the streets, whooping it up, hootin’ and hollering hip-hip-hooraying with those whistles and yells…the Great Satan has met his comeuppance. Remember?

    It may have only been a sliver of Muslims that flew the planes, but there were a gajillion in the happy hordes that day.

    I don’t give a happy hoot what they think, either. This triumphalist mosque is wrong. Pure. And. Simple.

    marybel (7920a4)

  36. Dave

    Your point is very similar to mine. I pointed out how the Fed. Gov. could use the Historic Sites Act to prevent the building of this mosque.

    http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-federal-government-could-prevent.html

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  37. “Except…there is no such right. If the Planning Commission says you can’t build a church on land you own, because it MIGHT cause a traffic problem, or because someone says it will spoil the view…then you can’t build the church.”

    There’s federal law that appears to give religious groups more ability to sue than others against local authorities: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

    “geoff, I think we know who is practicing taqiyya in this.”

    That’s the great thing about Taqiyya — it allows anyone to just ignore whatever evidence they wany.

    geoff (14df54)

  38. “Your point is very similar to mine. I pointed out how the Fed. Gov. could use the Historic Sites Act to prevent the building of this mosque.”

    Making ground zero a historic landmark sounds like a bad idea: the whole point is to develop the area, not preserve it. Also there’s this bit:

    ” Provided, That no such property which is owned by any religious or educational institution, or which is owned or administered for the benefit of the public shall be so acquired without the consent of the owner”

    geoff (14df54)

  39. “…but until there’s a synagogue in Mecca, I’m not going to lose any sleep about it.”

    Are you kidding me? Non-Muslims can’t even ENTER the city of Mecca, much less build a temple there. And, it’s been that way for centuries, and Muslims are content to keep it that way.

    You don’t hear of too many Muslims boycotting the Hajj just because “unclean” “idolaters” (aka infidels) are banned from so much as setting foot in Mecca.

    So…screw the Muslims and what they think.

    Dave Surls (1bfb2f)

  40. geoff

    First, you didn’t read the whole post. it appears they are not the OWNER of all of it. Thus the ownership exception doesn’t fully apply. And indeed, i would wonder if they actually owned all of it.

    As for the importance of development, i don’t read the act as requiring it to be preserved exactly as is. it just makes it a federal responsibility to determine what messages are sent, there. They could create an office building or just a general, secular community center, with a historical marker reminding people that debris from the WTC fell there, maybe even displaying it.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  41. Save your breath, Aaron. That one has no use for good-faithed discussion.

    JD (3dc31c)

  42. Dave

    wait is that you in this first pic?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244494/view-mosque-protests-katrina-trinko

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  43. Ed

    > Kelo saw to this.

    You know, that’s a brilliant idea. have some developer come in and say, “look if you give me that land, i will fill it with office buildings and increase your tax base 10 fold.” then under Kelo, the city can condemn the land and take it from everyone. end of story.

    i would love to hear the liberals on the SC explain why we can’t do that.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  44. == Remember?== comment by marybel

    Yes, the majority of Americans DO remember that day quite vividly, especially the jubilant reactions of many in the Muslim world. This is exactly the reason the polls are as they are on the GZ mosque issue. I’ll bet the LSM are kicking themselves now for ever showing that foreign footage back in 2001. They were much more successful in censoring and deep-sixing the shots and sounds of poor 9-11 victims jumping to their deaths from the top of the towers. But we won’t ever forget that either.

    elissa (b4cd08)

  45. “Thus the ownership exception doesn’t fully apply. ”

    So the feds could only take the part they don’t own? That doesn’t make sense.

    “As for the importance of development, i don’t read the act as requiring it to be preserved exactly as is.”

    I don’t read it as thinking that ground zero should remain a hole in the ground. However, it does talk about preservation, restoration,and maintenance. All of which are not what anyone wants in ground zero. What’s going on there is development.

    “i would love to hear the liberals on the SC explain why we can’t do that.”

    Other than just note that it is a pretext?

    geoff (0275b8)

  46. Is Park51 a religious group, or an investment group? Aaron, it will eventually tire of running around with the goalposts.

    JD (3dc31c)

  47. I’m sure geoff will explain why the Greek Orthodox church destroyed at Ground Zero isn’t getting any support from NY/NJ officials while the mosque is.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  48. “I’m sure geoff will explain why the Greek Orthodox church destroyed at Ground Zero isn’t getting any support from NY/NJ officials while the mosque is.”

    I think that’s under the port authority — and park51 isn’t.

    geoff (ae4d0b)

  49. geoff, another failed spin attempt by you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  50. Geoffry

    > So the feds could only take the part they don’t own? That doesn’t make sense

    It makes perfect sense in the context of the act. The act gives federal jurisdiction over historic properties. Often these historic properties are owned by religious institutions. Like the church my sister got married in was something like 140 years old and was apparently the first structure in the area besides people’s homes. Without an ownership exception, the Federal Government could sieze that land.

    In this particular situation it says that if they haven’t bothered to make it theirs, then they can’t exercise that dominion over it. Which also makes sense. Right now they are leasing it. there is nothing that says that the owners HAVE TO renew their lease. If they wanted to have the land forever and ever, they should have bought it.

    Anyway, whether that makes sense to you or not, that is the law. It says owner, not tenant.

    > However, it does talk about

    Talks about, but doesn’t require.

    > Other than just note that it is a pretext

    Who’s to say it is? What is the evidence? Are they going to accuse Bloomberg of doing that, after being so vehement in support?

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  51. Are you kidding me? Non-Muslims can’t even ENTER the city of Mecca, much less build a temple there

    Dave, I think that was the point, that Muslims have no place to tell others about religious freedom.

    One thing I’ve heard pointed out is if things move forward, are the police and fire unions in NYC just going to smile and watch union tradesmen build it? Are union contractors going to want to build it? Will the Saudis bus illegal immigrants directly from the SW to NYC? If no one will build it, no one will ever come.

    P.J. for MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  52. There is something that all these would-be world conquerers forget. Americans are peaceful people, slow to anger and slower to act on that anger. In spite of what the left blathers, it took us 13 years before we finally dealt with Saddam.

    I’m currently reading (for the fourth or fifth time) the best book on movie making I’ve found. It is about the making of Casablanca. It points out that, in 1942, one of the Epstein twins, who wrote most of the movie, couldn’t get into the US military because he was considered a “premature anti-Nazi.” We really were very neutral until Pearl Harbor.

    Once Pearl Harbor happened, we turned into the most ruthless killing machine the world has ever known. The B 29s killed more Japanese in each raid than the atomic bomb killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. We seriously considered the use of poison gas in the invasion of the Home Islands (The Japanese had stocks of poison gas on hand). We destroyed Germany, bombing Dresden in 1945 in spite of its treasures.

    One option seriously considered in 1945 was to starve Japan with B 29s and submarines and essentially wipe out the Japanese people instead of an invasion. It happened that the Imperial Japanese Army had the same plan. The atomic bomb saved the Japanese.

    When the war ended in August 1945, we reverted to peaceful Americans. The Cold War was reluctantly fought and Korea and Viet Nam were both very controversial.

    But let the Muslim terrorists miscalculate and set off a nuclear device in an American city, and I think there are a lot of them who would like to do so, they will find out what the Japanese and the Germans found out in 1942-45. Don’t arouse the ire and fury of this democracy.

    I don’t think they know and I hope they never find out. Free people, and we are still free, are capable of extreme measures when seriously threatened; far more extreme than those who have learned to live as servants.

    The mosque story is low comedy.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  53. I wonder how a new Branch Davidian compound next to ATF Headquarters ( or next to Janet Reno’s house ) would be received.

    j curtis (64f417)

  54. Left-wingers are perfectly willing to accuse the United States of being a filthy, immoral, imperialist superpower with ts jackboots on the throats of innocent third-world peoples across the globe.

    Well, what the hell’s the POINT of being a filthy, immoral, imperialist superpower if we can’t hurt the feelings of those virtuous Others every now and then? C’mon, just a bit? Otherwise I’ll have to cut up my Tyrant Express card.

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  55. There is something that all these would-be world conquerers forget. Americans are peaceful people, slow to anger and slower to act on that anger.

    “We’re Americans! We’re a simple, generous people … but if you piss us off, we’ll bomb your cities!
    — Robin Williams

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  56. “geoff, another failed spin attempt by you.”

    What’s the spin? The greek orthodox church has problems with the port authority. And the port authority — who is redeveloping ground zero — does not reach the park51 project. They’re in discussions with the church over whats to be done underneath the original structure as the area gets rebuilt. Are you familiar with what the church / port authority dispute is about, and what their negotiations have been?

    “Talks about, but doesn’t require.”

    It gives the secretary discretion. But to do what? Not development.

    “Who’s to say it is? What is the evidence?”

    Right now none. It hasn’t happened.

    geoff (14df54)

  57. Yes, geoff. I was familiar with the Greek Orthodox church project. And I was familiar with it before you had to google it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. geoff

    > It gives the secretary discretion. But to do what? Not development.

    Look, stop trying to read the law. you are clearly too slow to do it. by your logic the FG can’t build monuments.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  59. “Look, stop trying to read the law. you are clearly too slow to do it. by your logic the FG can’t build monuments.”

    Sure they can. But you get that when I say we want ground zero to have “development,” I mean we want it to be a vibrant commercial development, not a monument or a museum.

    “Yes, geoff. I was familiar with the Greek Orthodox church project. And I was familiar with it before you had to google it.”

    Ok so you know what the port authority is doing there, that this has nothing to do with it being a church, and its part of the reason why the development of ground zero is going so slow.

    geoff (14df54)

  60. Geoff

    > But you get that when I say we want ground zero to have “development,” I mean we want it to be a vibrant commercial development, not a monument or a museum.

    The two are not inconsistent, and more importantly, the law doesn’t prevent it. but i bet alot less commerce will be done there if it is an islamic center. As opposed to making it the property of bank of america.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  61. “The two are not inconsistent, and more importantly, the law doesn’t prevent it”

    It’s really beyond me how you can read the Historic Sites Act to give the secretary of the interior the power to run a vibrant commercial development.

    geoff (14df54)

  62. To quote Nancy Pelosi:
    “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

    AD - RtR/OS! (1f83e6)

  63. goeff

    Easy, they place a monument in one corner, and then otherwise let nature take its course. oh but federal land, so they can’t rent it out to religious groups. first amendment and all that, sorry.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  64. “Easy, they place a monument in one corner, and then otherwise let nature take its course.”

    They couldn’t have taken the land if they intended a vibrant commercial development to take its course — the act says they have the power to buy land only for the purpose of the act. It’s not a huge grant of power to the secretary.

    geoff (4ef30d)

  65. geoff

    yes, they can. again, your claims have no basis in the actual statute.

    All the statute does is quite properly makes these kinds of things a federal issue. which makes sense. we are ALL effected on 9-11. every single one of us. We should all have a say in how those who died are memorialized.

    But i find it amazing that the left suddenly discovers federalism. heh.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  66. Linked: Way to go Jack!

    GM Roper (5f13e9)

  67. “your claims have no basis in the actual statute.”

    Here’s what it says:

    “For the purpose of sections 1 to 7 of this Act, acquire in the name of the United States by gift, purchase, or otherwise any property, personal or real, or any interest or estate therein, title to any real property to be satisfactory to the Secretary: Provided, That no such property which is owned by any religious or educational institution, or which is owned or administered for the benefit of the public shall be so acquired without the consent of the owner:”

    Vibrant commercial development is not within the “the purpose of sections 1 to 7 of this Act.”

    geoff (017d51)

  68. geoff

    keep reading. eventually you will find the elastic language. *rolls eyes*

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  69. geoff, haven’t you heard (or talked to Pete Stark)?
    The Congress (government) can do any damn thing they please!

    AD - RtR/OS! (1f83e6)

  70. goeff

    i mean do you know what an “elastic clause” looks like? here’s a hint. there is a really big one in our constitution.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  71. Your turn to quote the statute.

    geoff (bcafcf)

  72. Progressives get very defensive when their “living Constitution” is used against them.

    AD - RtR/OS! (1f83e6)

  73. “The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.”

    Oh, yeah, that law is a BIG help.

    “Plaintiff, Faith Temple Church (Faith Temple), brought an action to enjoin the defendant, Town of Brighton (the Town), from condemning its property through eminent domain. Faith Temple Church, 405 F. Supp. 2d 250 at 251. Faith Temple was a church that had outgrown its needs at its original location. Id. In order to accommodate its larger congregation, it negotiated and eventually purchased a 66-acre parcel of land in January 2004. Id. In its Comprehensive Plan for 2000, the Town had included a recommendation that this parcel be acquired. Id. The purpose of the acquisition was to expand an adjacent town-owned park. Id. After the church purchased the land, the Town initiated condemnation proceedings in the spring of 2004. Id. at 251-52.”

    “RLUIPA’s application to eminent domain was at issue in this case because Faith Temple argued that the recommendation in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan was essentially a “zoning law.” Id. at 256. Further, if the recommendation was a zoning law, then Faith Temple argued that condemnation was “the application of a zoning law” and was a violation of RLUIPA. Id.”

    “The Court held that RLUIPA was inapplicable to this case. The judge found that the connection between zoning and eminent domain in this case was “too attenuated to constitute the application of a zoning law.” Id. Therefore, summary judgment was granted in favor of the Town, denying injunctive relief. Id. at 258.”–wiki

    Not only do you have NO right to build whatever you want on your own property, but local government’s can, and have, seized church owned property for such vital purposes as building a city park.

    Once again…there is no right to build any thing you please on your own property, whether you’re a church or not. If governments want to stop you, they can and do…and completely trivial reasons in many cases.

    “Your point is very similar to mine. I pointed out how the Fed. Gov. could use the Historic Sites Act to prevent the building of this mosque.”

    I don’t care for that idea too much, Aaron, on account of that really would be a 1A violation. The government breaks the law enough as it is.

    This is a local issue and the Feds ought to keep their official noses out of it.

    Dave Surls (a7de8b)

  74. geoff

    If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would find the words immediately. Seriously, its that easy, if you have a clue.

    But you don’t.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  75. .
    .
    .
    This for “concerned muslims”:

    |==============================|
    |…… Picture of me bending over……… |
    |…. exposing my naked, hairy butt…. |
    |==============================|

    .
    .
    .
    Now, please osculate.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)

  76. I flashback to the broadcasts on 9/11 with Muslims worldwide dancing in the streets,

    It wasn’t just worldwide – we had a few local celebrations ourselves, with thousands running into the streets of Dearborn, MI, in order to celebrate the great victory. Funny, we never hear about that little event anymore.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  77. “Funny, we never hear about that little event anymore.”

    I wasn’t able to watch TV for about a couple of weeks after 9/11. This is the first time I’ve heard about this. If I didn’t already know you weren’t a crank, I’d actually have a hard time buying it. I would google for some info, but I don’t need the stress. I don’t want a bridge between people like me and people like that, unless we’re sending tanks over it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  78. Dustin

    oh yeah, it was real. I remember turning on Fox news and there were children cheering in palestine. i thought, “maybe now people will see how poisoned these kids are.” I am frankly amazed you didn’t know, but they stopped showing that pretty quickly.

    Cnn would have pissed you off, too. They were in a 24 hour cycle of “why they hate us”–thinly veiled anti-americanism.

    i was in law school at the time. We had Ethernet at each desk. One guy who was hooked up told us about the first plane, and then a few minutes later about the second plane. This was before class began, and the teach cancelled it. we just sat in different rooms watching it all unfold. It was pretty fucked up, honestly. One psychotic teacher actually tried to have class like usual. What a weird man. I heard nothing he said.

    I remember going home and wanting to watch something else. I flipped over to mtv I think it was and there was this video for a song, “Alive” by P.O.D. They were playing it like constantly, as sort of their anti-dote. And it was weirdly… right.

    A few days later a few liberal idiots were lecturing us that gee America has done bad things. You would have enjoyed watching me back then. I didn’t know this but I was on local TV. I said something like, “You don’t ask what the Jews did to deserve the holocaust. You don’t ask what black people did to deserve the KKK.”

    And I remember Cnn was all blame America all the time. Fox went the other way. they were the first to wear flag pins. They were like, “we are in America and it means a damn.” They even had their own music video of Lee Greenwood’s song, mistakenly called “Proud to be an American” (its actually called “God bless the USA”) interspersed with images from 9-11.

    And if you never saw Bush at ground zero, you should. It was his finest moment. It wasn’t articulate, but it was awesome. It was on 9/14, and it was amazing. He gave a speech before congress on 9/20 or 9/21, but this was spontaneous and heartfelt. I can still hear those firefighters shouting, “we can’t hear you!” and Bush shouting back, “I hear you!”

    Someone said they don’t like ground zero as a term. Fair enough. I always liked Ground Hero better.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  79. Dustin

    ah, yeah, here you go, this is the good stuff. Bush on 9-14. The really good stuff starts at about the 1 minute mark, and maybe you had to watch it at the time, after you spent like three days stunned. But… wow.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiSwqaQ4VbA

    I’ll share one more story from back then. Now you might have seen me mention that I have learning disabilities. Well, my niece had even more than me, and she wasn’t doing so well in school. One day her mother/my sister is telling her she can do anything she sets her mind to, and she said to my sister, “I don’t believe that’s true.”

    So I was determined to come down. And we had a week long break in fall, so that was the time. I admit to being a little apprehensive about flying, but I was like, “no terrorist is keeping me from my niece.” She had no father figure, at the time, you see.

    So I get down there, and I help move a computer in her room. I knew it would help her a lot in accommodating her own disabilities. And when she and I had a moment alone I told her how I had very similar disabilities and look what I was accomplishing. “So I want you to believe you can do anything you set your mind to, okay?”

    And she said, “I believe that’s true.”

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  80. “It wasn’t just worldwide – we had a few local celebrations ourselves, with thousands running into the streets of Dearborn, MI, in order to celebrate the great victory. Funny, we never hear about that little event anymore.”

    And nobody got any video of it on youtube?

    geoff (017d51)

  81. If it is not on youtube, it did not happen. By geoff’s standards, since the congresscritters that claimed they were called the n-bomb multiple times during the healthcare debate (Lewis, Carson, etal) but there is no evidence to support same, and a crapload suggesting that it never happened …

    JD (3dc31c)

  82. ABC had the vid and broadcast it the day after 9/11, but promptly pulled it – here are your masters discussing this:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×3001976#3002016

    And now we have some enterprising Muslim students in Dearborn selling sweatshirts celebrating the WTC destruction:

    http://sudanforum.net/showthread.php?t=81729

    Jeffy, your own compatriots acknowledge this happened, so fuck off.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  83. That doesn’t mean anything, since I must have fingerprints and chalk outlines proving that thousands of Dearborn residents danced in the street that day. And I know things.

    Comment by El (“depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is”) Jeffy

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  84. If it is not on youtube, it did not happen

    Well, there goes the War for Independance, and the War to Save the Union/War of Northern Aggression.

    They aren’t on youtube, so they never happened!

    AD - RtR/OS! (4ab397)

  85. A lot of things that happen in the Muslim world worry me, not that anyone cares.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  86. Re comment 2: [I will not be publishing this comment because of the last sentence. — P]

    Comment by papertiger — 8/23/2010 @ 2:14 am

    Happens to many of my best 2 am rants.

    So you have the tech to shadow post ie; I can see my original but the rest of the world can’t?

    papertiger (7e1327)

  87. Several of these comments on this post are junk, You might want to delete them.

    Zachary Duperre (659a94)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4789 secs.