A few conservative commentators have advocated using the power of eminent domain to take the land on which the “Ground Zero mosque” is scheduled to be built (see here and here). The idea seems to have originated with New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.
Legally, such a taking wouldn’t be as simple as Paladino seems to think. If New York state government tries to condemn the land in question, it will have to either admit that the true purpose is to prevent the construction of a Muslim facility, or concoct some other rationale to hide its motives. If the government is honest about its purposes, the proposed taking would almost certainly violate the owners’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, for reasons senior Conspirator Eugene Volokh outlines here.
If, on the other hand, the government tries to put together an alternative justification for the condemnation, it runs into a different problem. Even under the otherwise highly permissive Kelo decision, the Supreme Court has said that “pretextual” takings (condemnations where the officially stated purpose is just a pretext for some other agenda) are forbidden. What exactly counts as a “pretextual” taking after Kelo is a matter of great dispute, one that has divided lower courts (see this excellent article by Daniel Kelly for the details). Nonetheless, there is a good chance that a transparent effort to cloak an effort to suppress unpopular speech or religious observances in some construction project would be viewed with suspicion by courts.
The state government could reduce the risk of having the taking declared pretextual if it condemned the entire area around Ground Zero and turned it into some sort of memorial. This is essentially what the federal government has done with the area around the site where Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. In that event, it would be far more difficult to argue that the official justification for the condemnation of the Muslim property was a pure pretext for getting rid of a Muslim religious facility. After all, many other owners would have lost their land as well, most of them presumably non-Muslims.
However, the area around Ground Zero is extremely valuable and contains numerous businesses and other facilities, including some that have politically influential owners. Condemning it all would be extremely costly and would give rise to enormous political opposition. It is therefore highly unlikely that the state will choose to condemn the entire area merely to get rid of the “Ground Zero Mosque” (which is actually neither a mosque nor on Ground Zero). When and if Paladino becomes governor, I doubt that even he would find such a plan to be politically palatable.
Legal issues aside, condemnation of the “Ground Zero Mosque” is a terrible idea. One of the important benefits of property rights is that they allow unpopular minority groups to express their views and live by their own values in peace. I have previously emphasized this point here, and here.
I don’t think the sponsors of the “Ground Zero Mosque” are radical Islamists or supporters of terrorism; indeed, many of the real Islamists claim that the project is a “Zionist conspiracy.” But the Cordoba Initiative leaders do have some abhorrent views on terrorism and related issues. That, however, is not sufficient reason to deprive them of their property rights. If it were, the property rights of many unpopular groups would be put at risk. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg puts it, “The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right.”
There is some irony in the fact that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has eloquently defended the property rights of the “Ground Zero Mosque” owners even though he recently presided over gross abuses of property rights in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia University cases, among others. He strongly supported both of these extraordinarily dubious takings. Still, Bloomberg’s hypocrisy doesn’t make him any less right about the Ground Zero controversy.
UPDATE: From media accounts, it is hard to tell whether the planned Cordoba Islamic Cultural Center actually includes a mosque or not. Therefore, I may have been too quick to conclude that there is no actual mosque involved. Whether there is going to be a mosque or not perhaps depends on one’s definition of “mosque. ” As far as I can tell, the Center will have an area devoted to Muslim prayer, but that area may not amount to a full-blown mosque, just as a Christian prayer room isn’t necessarily a church. Be that as it may, none of the arguments in my post turns on the question of whether the Cultural Center will actually include a mosque or not.
UPDATE #2: The Cordoba Initiative website states that the planned facility will include “a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 [the planned community center] but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community.” So maybe there will be a mosque after all, though the Cordoba website isn’t very clear on the issue of exactly what that entails. In any event, as I emphasized above, the presence or absence of a mosque doesn’t make any difference with respect to the points I’m making.
Brian says:
If the scum behind GZM had some material connection with the Islamists we are fighting in Afghanistan, then the United States would have a legitimate and constitutional rationale for eminent domain, pursuant to the President’s and Congress’ war powers. We need not allow the enemy to plant their flag – or their mosque – at the site of their victory on our soil. I don’t believe that the mosque-backers have such a connection; I only mention this hypothetical to illustrate that the idea of eminent domain in this context is not fanciful or constitutionally illiterate.
I’m getting increasingly repulsed by lectures about the first amendment or even about property rights in this debate, because of the apparent sanctimonious assumption among the lecturers that the lecturees do not sufficiently understand or appreciate these principles. A constitution is a constitution of a nation, and can only retain moral and political validity if it is interpreted consistent with need of a nation to defend itself against military enemies. It is this larger context of our social compact that those who presume to instruct their fellow Americans either forget, or don’t understand themselves.
August 23, 2010, 11:38 pmIlya Somin says:
If the scum behind GZM had some material connection with the Islamists we are fighting in Afghanistan, then the United States would have a legitimate and constitutional rationale for eminent domain, pursuant to the President’s and Congress’ war powers. We need not allow the enemy to plant their flag — or their mosque — at the site of their victory on our soil. I don’t believe that the mosque-backers have such a connection; I only mention this hypothetical to illustrate that the idea of eminent domain in this context is not fanciful or constitutionally illiterate.
You yourself identify the problem with your argument: There is no proof of any such connection. If there were, eminent domain would be unnecessary. The government could simply arrest the people involved.
August 23, 2010, 11:46 pmOrin Kerr says:
Not really into the whole “Constitution” thing, Brian?
August 23, 2010, 11:46 pmrpt says:
I’ve been looking forward to Prof. Somin’s post on this subject. Nice to see some common sense.
Is Pamela Geller related to Uri?
August 24, 2010, 12:17 amAnton Sirius says:
“If the scum behind GZM…”
Fail.
Me, I’m getting increasingly impatient with self-proclaimed patriots who apparently don’t understand a single bleepin’ thing about what makes America great in the first place. Military enemies aren’t the only threat to a country, or a constitution.
August 24, 2010, 12:21 amAnton Sirius says:
Just curious – in the unlikely event Paladino actually becomes governor, wouldn’t his extremely public statements and opposition to Cordoba House render any attempt to use eminent domain pretty much DOA as a pretextual taking, no matter how wide a swath of Manhattan he tried to carve out?
August 24, 2010, 12:25 amRicardo says:
I believe there is already a law that allows the Treasury Department to freeze enemy assets held in U.S. financial institutions. Eminent domain is not relevant to this.
People opposed to the mosque prattle on about how the person behind the project is an Islamist, a Jihadist, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, or some other such thing without the slightest bit of evidence aside from John Birch Society-style innuendo. According to a recent New York Times article, six months ago, a hostile audience of conservative Muslims in Egypt were wondering aloud whether this imam was a U.S. government agent. He may well be a Zionist in the literal sense as he has publicly described himself as pro-Israel.
The mosque’s opponents cannot come up with a single good argument for government involvement. Yet despite this, many politicians have come out against the mosque in a bid for votes. They certainly do need a lecture on the First Amendment.
August 24, 2010, 12:30 amKamal says:
Ilya,
These sort of analysis basically boil down to “Yeah it’s their right, but common.. terrorists! Not that they are. I’m just sayin’ … the terrorist were Muslim.” and are obvious in what they are attempting to do. It’s the same sort of innuendo regarding Obama’s religion and birthright that contributes to american’s stupidity, that is later touted in polls as evidence, which is either “I take him at his word (wink wink)” or “He’s a Muslim, and wasn’t born in America”.
Be honest and say, “Islam is not the enemy, religious fanatics are.” and move on. Don’t feel proud that 70% of Americans are incorrectly associating a religion with the act of a few of its members, and only 30% believe our president when he says he is a Christian. Feel embarrassed.
In a related piece of amusing happenstance, Fox News and Republicans are calling for the leaders of this initiative not to accept any money from Saudi Arabia. News Corp is 7% owned by Saudi Arabia, and News Corp (owners of Fox News) just gave $1 million dollars to the Republican Governors Association.
August 24, 2010, 12:57 amJosh Bornstein says:
Kamal,
Do you have a cite re Fox owned 7% by Saudis? I’d love to be able to come out with specific facts when I come across people whining about Muslims building this cultural center/mosque/whatever-it-is.
Ilya & Orin,
August 24, 2010, 1:26 amWhy engage Brian? I suspect that it does not take much to get him ‘increasingly repulsed.’ This is a temporary condition, and will last only until similarly-controversial acts are done under a conservative president’s tenure.
A.W. says:
I personally proposed using the Federal Historic Sites act. It certainly pierces the claim that this is purely a local matter.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-federal-government-could-prevent.html
I think the idea that you cannot use imminent domain when someone has merely expressed an interest in speaking is wrong headed. The whole idea of that act is to say “no one else may speak on this spot, but the federal government.” Because these kinds of things belong to all of us, Ground Hero more than most.
And no, no one else gave it to me.
As for the intentions of the imam, you can look at the stuff pam geller is putting out today. I go through the more risable stuff, here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/fisking-gzm-imam.html
Or you could ask yourself this. Why the name Cordoba House? Why that? Why name it after a place where Christians were conquered, persecuted, where one saint was martyred?
I mean its not like there was no better option. Many muslims were murdered by terrorists on 9-11. And many others have given their lives fighting terrorism. Why not name it after one of them?
As for the whining about freedom of speech, i say simply this. The first amendment doesn’t apply to Tokyo Rose. We are at war, and in no time in our history would we be as insane as to let someone plant what even might be innocently misinterpreted as a victory flag for our enemy. Even with the best intention, this will be seen by many as a victory mosque. We should not let it be built.
Oh, and don’t bother to call me a bigot for saying that until and unless you explain how it is that muslims agree that this thing is unwise.
August 24, 2010, 1:33 amA.W. says:
And btw, it is a mosque, in part. Okay, so can we cut that out?
And it is at ground zero. Debris from the towers fell on that property and it was explicitly chosen for precisely that reason. If only by the principle of estoppel, its at ground zero.
August 24, 2010, 1:35 amJKB says:
Obviously, you couldn’t do a taking as outlined. Really you just let them build. It would take that long to arrange for a politically connected developer to put together the deal to improve the even more desperate tax situation of the city. Just about anything would improve the tax potential since it will be religious or non-profit operation. Then just before the building is habitable, they put an injunction against further work, pending the outcome of the imminent domain of this blighted area for a condo/hotel with shops development.
And really, with all this talk of the mosque, no one has asked the people who really control whether it’ll be built. Sure some construction workers have come out as unwilling to work the site but they are small potatoes. They site will need concrete right. Well, the mixture could get messed up or the trucks run a little slow. And construction material in NYC is always getting misplaced. God forbid something should happen but you never can tell.
And of course, if arrangements are made and the mosque or controllers are in the future linked to terrorists, well, everyone’s cash gets tangled up and put under a microscope.
August 24, 2010, 1:38 amMark Horning says:
How does one determine whether it is a Mosque or a “Community Center”. Taxation Status?
I think the location was picked intentionally to be as offensive as possible to the majority of Americans. I also think they have every (1st Amendment protected) right to build it there once they have legal title to the property. I also think that folks who are opposed to such a thing have every (1st Amendment protected) right to protest it, short of actual violence. These are not contradictory statements.
August 24, 2010, 1:38 amStephen Lathrop says:
In a previous thread I attempted to make the point that the question of whether Muslims have a propensity to inflict violence on unbelievers was irrelevant to the GZM debate—saying instead that the issue that animates resistance to the GZM was a belief that Muslims worldwide are united in waging aggressive war against the U.S.
That notion is false, of course, but people who assert that a public taking of the property is appropriate obviously believe it. Polls seem to suggest that belief is widespread, and may even be a majority opinion.
It’s dangerous when a large portion of the population takes up a deranged idea, and starts using it to drive public policy. In this case, a flow of misinformation is being actively encouraged by opportunists who call themselves conservatives, particularly leaders of the Republican party. Only outspoken resistance from responsible conservatives can put that myth to rest. Opportunists who think they stand to gain personally will not listen to criticisms from their traditional opponents. The genuine conservatives on this blog should take the lead.
August 24, 2010, 1:41 amA.W. says:
btw, on the foxnews story, i believe news corp is a publicly traded company. its hard to understand how they are supposed to control that funding? Indeed, unless the shares were bought directly from the IPO or something like that, i fail to see how they were funded at all. Its just ownership all 7% of it, bought from someone else.
And of course in stock-based companies owning 7% doesn’t mean a whole lot. For all we known, someone else could own 51% effectively owning the company.
i suppose they could vote with their feet or something, but i doubt it would make much a difference either.
August 24, 2010, 1:42 amA.W. says:
stephen
> saying instead that the issue that animates resistance to the GZM was a belief that Muslims worldwide are united in waging aggressive war against the U.S.
I am continually amazed that his smear is made, undeterred by the fact that muslims are opposed to the GZM, too. Including Miss USA, among many others.
So are those muslims bigoted towards other muslims?
August 24, 2010, 1:53 amShelbyC says:
August 24, 2010, 2:05 amSarcastro says:
Islam = Enemy
Mosque = Enemy Barracks
Moderate Musilm = Deep Cover Enemy Agent
Current POTUS = Not-So-Deep-Cover Enemy Agent
democratic party = 5th column
August 24, 2010, 2:11 amStephen Lathrop says:
I noted above that opportunists aren’t likely to take criticism from their traditional opponents. But one of the cool things about satire is that even the targets pay attention. Keep it up, Sarcastro.
August 24, 2010, 2:28 amUrsus Maritimus says:
Tayyip Erdogan agrees with point two, and I don’t think he was sarcastic.
Anyhoo, since takings can be justified by observing that other proposed uses give greater tax revenue wouldn’t it be easy to kelo it for a standard ‘shops downstairs, swanky apartments on all other floors’?
August 24, 2010, 2:48 amyankee says:
Care to share the secret of your mind-reading powers? It would make cross-examination much easier.
August 24, 2010, 2:55 amStephen Lathrop says:
Alas, you’re mistaken. The method is, you check what you think, and then assume how you think is how everyone else thinks. Won’t help at all with cross-examination.
August 24, 2010, 3:05 amRicardo says:
Only if — as Ilya explains — the federal government takes over the entire area around Ground Zero and builds a memorial park the way it did with the crash site of Flight 93. Barring such a radical move, the federal government cannot micromanage what does or does not get built in Lower Manhattan.
The organization responsible for the community center is called the Cordoba Initiative. They have since changed the name to the more neutral Park51.
But why call the organization the Cordoba Initiative? It seems to me that Muslims can celebrate Cordoba the same way that many Europeans celebrate ancient Athens and Rome despite the many deficiencies of these places. Is it really necessary to mention all the Christians who were martyred in Rome whenever making a favorable reference to the place?
They are entitled to their opinions. But since they don’t own the land where the community center will be built, I don’t see how some select Muslims get veto power over this project any more than Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin do.
August 24, 2010, 3:09 amRicardo says:
There’s no evidence for this at all. In December 2009, Daisy Khan — the wife of the Imam who is heading up this project — appeared on Fox News Channel to explain the project and the intent behind it. She was interviewed by Laura Ingraham in an extremely cordial manner and one imagines that this interview was watched by at least 1 million people who probably tend to lean to the conservative side. What happened after the interview?
Nothing. There were no protests, no “grassroots” campaigns, hardly any buzz in the blogosphere at all and the story disappeared off the radar screen for months. The controversy was kicked up only in May when the New York Post picked up the story and Pam Geller went into high gear with her attacks on the project.
This timeline suggests the outrage surrounding this project is partly manufactured — probably for political gain just in time for midterm elections. Neither Imam Rauf nor Khan engaged in any in-your-face tactics that would tend to be associated with deliberate offense. Before May of 2010, the harshest criticism of Rauf came from the Muslim world where he was seen as too pro-American and pro-Israel.
August 24, 2010, 3:22 amJ.T. Wenting says:
More likely Bloomberg and his mobsters will condemn the current building (the Muslim brotherhood and their “Cordoba initiative” front only own half of it…) and give it to the terrorist lovers to build their obamanation of a victory mosque.
After Kelo and other cases, eminent domain in order to grab land from citizens to give it to your political supporters with paperthin legal grounds is commonplace.
August 24, 2010, 3:24 amstuhlmann says:
Instead of the government using eminent domain to take the property, why not get all those private citizens, who oppose the Muslim community center, to pool their money and buy out the current owners of the property. Make them an offer. Make them a good offer. Make them a very good offer. I’ve read that they may be having trouble raising the funds to build what they want. Help them build what they want but somewhere else. This would show respect for religious freedom and respect for property rights. And it would limit the role of government in settling this matter. Sounds like a win-win-win.
August 24, 2010, 4:21 amRobbie says:
Why is the Obama State Department funding the GZM Imam’s Word Tour with American tax dollars?
If it was Franklin Graham or another Christian leader being funded, the Left and its useful idiot libertarian allies would be screaming.
August 24, 2010, 4:47 amRicardo says:
The same reason the Bureau of International Information Programs sends over 100 other speakers to other countries: it’s a somewhat quixotic mission to promote American values in other countries. Bush’s state department saw Imam Rauf as a basically pro-American guy who would still have some street cred with foreign Muslims back in 2007 and he has had a relationship with the State Department since then.
August 24, 2010, 6:12 amisland says:
Do not assume Sgt. Castro is being sarcastic.
August 24, 2010, 6:24 amArkady says:
@Ilya
“But the Cordoba Initiative leaders do have some abhorrent views on terrorism and related issues.”
They’ve been comparing notes with Rand Paul.
August 24, 2010, 6:37 amOwen H. says:
I keep forgetting that the Constitution only protects those the majority approves of.
But I keep wondering; if the Iman and his followers are supposed to consider the feelings of those offended even to the point of interfering with their 1st amendment rights, when are gun owners going to be sensitive to the feeling and irrational fears of those that hate and fear guns? You know, something along the lines f, we have a right to have guns, just not near them?
August 24, 2010, 7:17 amOwen H. says:
Replace “mosque” with “synagogue”. How does that sound to you? Does it sound as evil as your statement does to me?
Is that where we’ve come to in America? We should be able to block a religious organization from building, based on irrational fears and hatred? And since someone else mentioned them, I suspect many of the Muslims that have said they should move are saying that Muslims should keep a low profile to avoid problems.
August 24, 2010, 7:22 amsashal says:
Are you getting the taste what it felt like to live as a sane German in the waning days of the Weimar Republic?
August 24, 2010, 7:24 amThe writing on the wall becomes very clear to me .
The rise of the Nazi flood beginning to sweep away the last remnants of decency and shame among the troglodytes .
It is not a good feeling at all.
Floridan says:
I’ll believe that this is a serious protest and not just some campaign to stir up the rubes when people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich spend some of their considerable wealth to help fund a purchase of this “hallowed ground.”
It won’t happen.
August 24, 2010, 7:25 amisland says:
Well Obama is using our tax money to support the ground zero immam and his wife going around the world so they don’t have to use their own money to build the mosque.
If the GZ immam and his wife truly believed in what Obama claims their mission is, they would fund it.
Instead they take American taxpayer dollars to fund their trip.
And our tax dollars are rebuilding dozens of mosques around the world when the rich muslims should use their own money to rebuild them.
Instead these rich muslims use American tax money to build their holy places overseas and then Daisy and the Immam use foreign muslim money to build in America.
August 24, 2010, 7:51 amMario says:
In some interpretations of Islam, a mosque has all kinds of rules that wouldn’t necessarily work well with the site’s vision–like segregating men and women, or disallowing non-Muslims entrance. A prayer center isn’t a mosque, so they wouldn’t have to enforce those rules–but the community service elements of the plan and the stated vision of the center are very mosque-like in the traditional sense (education, appealing to the community, etc.). I imagine the linguistic flip-flopping and lack of clarity as to if it’s a mosque or not is a concession that Americans don’t find the difference meaningful, although certain Muslim groups will find that very meaningful.
August 24, 2010, 7:53 amStephen Lathrop says:
There are a zillion reasons why that is a silly overstatement—the best one being that the crazy crowd isn’t going to get political power in this country. (See, I say that, and then I immediately start wondering if it’s true. So yeah, it is an uneasy time. I’m uncomfortable predicting what could happen if ordinary people get 5 more years of steadily worsening economic conditions. I wish I could see some reason why that won’t happen.)
August 24, 2010, 7:55 amsashal says:
November is right around the corner, let’s see if the bigotry will be rewarded once again in the bad economic times
August 24, 2010, 8:04 amruuffles says:
Contrast this free market idea with the wacky idea proposed by Gov Paterson (D) and supported by Rep Peter King (R) to offer state land, either free or at a huge discount, to get Cordoba to move.
August 24, 2010, 8:25 amisland says:
There are a lot of people with a lot of knowledge here.
August 24, 2010, 8:29 amDoes anyone know of any church or synagogue that the American taxpayer is funding to rebuild?
The worl wide mosque rebuilds using American tax dollars are being done under the excuse of a world heritage site, so a similar excuse for rebuilding shinto shrines or hindu sites would be given. In many muslim nations historic churches have been destroyed and are in dire need of repair and replacement but I have not heard of a single instance of our government doing churches.
Has anyone here heard of rebuilding churches and synagogues?
Sarcastro says:
Because diplomatic envoy equals fat sacks of cash money!
August 24, 2010, 8:38 amisland says:
So you are saying that AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE SUCKERS
August 24, 2010, 8:43 amTamerlane says:
The very name of this organization — Cordoba House — is a reference to an Islamic belief that any part of the world, e.g., Andalus/Spain, once conquered by adherents of this warring religion is still rightfully Islamic property and the Jewish and Christain inhabitants thereof dhimmi (everyone else, of course, must convert or be killed). It’s a deliberate provocation which the Islamists behind this affront assume, apparently with justification, that most of us suckers in the US will not get. Anyone who claims to have been offended by the proposal for siting a Catholic religious facility near Auschwitz and is not offended by this far more deliberate, odious, and ill-intentioned provocation is a hypcrite.
August 24, 2010, 8:46 amruuffles says:
I’m more offended by a proposals for a Catholic church next to a playground.
/Daily show
August 24, 2010, 8:48 amA.W. says:
Ricardo
> Only if — as Ilya explains — the federal government takes over the entire area around Ground Zero and builds a memorial park the way it did with the crash site of Flight 93.
I do not see the law requiring an all or nothing approach. But if you read at my link, I am not opposed to taking it all over. Nor do I see the statute as requiring it all to be a memorial.
> They have since changed the name to the more neutral Park51.
Yeah, after everyone started to learn the significance of the name.
> It seems to me that Muslims can celebrate Cordoba the same way that many Europeans celebrate ancient Athens and Rome despite the many deficiencies of these places.
I am sorry, but Rome and Athens were conquered territories? A better metaphor would be creating a German cultural center and calling it Warsaw House.
> Is it really necessary to mention all the Christians who were martyred in Rome whenever making a favorable reference to the place?
False metaphor. Indeed Rome has been co-opted BY Christianity. Or well, catholicism.
> They are entitled to their opinions. But since they don’t
In which you read far more into my point than my words can be construed…
August 24, 2010, 9:05 amsashal says:
or by any German residing in the 2 block radius from Holocaust museum. Right?
August 24, 2010, 9:08 amBTW, who was offended by the NEARBY, NOT ON SITE, catholic facility in the Auschwitz?
Have names? Quotes?
Sarcastro says:
That makes it the worst provocation ever, then. Good thing you get it or no one would have been provoked!
August 24, 2010, 9:21 amShelbyC says:
Well, John Stuart reminded us about the folks who suggested that the NRA was being insensitive for holding their convention in Denver a year after Columbine. Unfortunately stupidity is bipartisan.
August 24, 2010, 9:23 amSarcastro says:
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Because the funding for the mosque totally comes from this tour somehow. The similar tour during Bush’s admin was okay, if naiive, but this is worthy of ALL CAPS.
August 24, 2010, 9:24 amruuffles says:
Actually it was less than a month after: Columbine was April 20, 1999. The NRA meeting was May 1, 1999. According to Jake Tapper, the bodies were still warm.
Also, John Stuart (Mill) is the economist. Jon Stewart is the late night comedian.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/02/nra/index.html
August 24, 2010, 9:28 amMTM says:
Is this what passes for conservatism these days? You’re just another whiny statist. I think that we can survive the Muslim Brotherhood (or whomever) giving us the finger. Let them get out there and cheer Al Qaeda with pom-poms if that’s what they want to do. I am much more scared of our Secular Humanist government than I am of the Muslims.
August 24, 2010, 9:33 amisland says:
To clarify:
So you are saying the Obama administration is fully aware of the immam and his wife are playing the American taxpayers for Suckers. Bush did it because he was “naïve.”
You are saying this “holy” man is raising money for the mosque using American tax payer money borrowed from China.
And- you are happy with him doing this scam.
Do I have that right?
August 24, 2010, 9:42 amsk says:
“If New York state government tries to condemn the land in question, it will have to either admit that the true purpose is to prevent the construction of a Muslim facility, or concoct some other rationale to hide its motives.”
This sentence contains the gist of the absurdity of Kelo, though not for the reasons Ilya thinks.
So, its ok to condemn other people’s property in some circumstances and not others. In other words, you have rights to your property in some circumstances, but not others.
What are those circumstances? As Ilya cogently states, whenever you can convince a judge that you deserve to. If the State convinces a judge that it deserves your property, you lose it. If you convince a judge you deserve your own property, you keep it.
Thus, for instance, if a judge likes football, he would approve the condemnation of your property for a football stadium. If he’s a fan of an out of state team, however, you’re probably safe. If he likes poor people more than developers, he will refuse the condemnation of a slum if the project is a development project, and so on.
Based on discussions of Kelo here at this site, it appears that it would be relatively easy to condemn the property. As Ilya stated, the property around the Ground Zero site is very expensive. Condemdning the mosque (which wouldn’t make any money) in order to use it for commercial real estate (which would make a lot of money) should be relatively easy-that’s what condemning slums is all about, and that is what the original justification for Kelo was all about. Get a commercial developer to express interest in the project, take it from the current owners, and problem solved.
But wait: judges like development, but they tend to like oppressed minorities (muslims) more. More than poor minorities (unless an activist like Sharpton or Jackson gets involved).
Thus, we can project the ‘values’ of a standard issue judge in today’s society: oppressed minorities who get alot of press (muslims, African-Americans who Sharpton has noticed, etc) trump business interests, which trump uninteresting oppressed minorities (whites, asians, often hispanics, even African Americans who nobody has noticed).
Property rights, then, ‘stick’ to these different groups based on where you fall in the hierarchy of rights.
Notice how irrelevant any constitutional or legal principle is in any of this.
‘Concocting rationale.’ How right you are…
Sk
August 24, 2010, 9:49 amuh_clem says:
So let me see if I have this right: a group of people want to build something on private land with privately raised money and its the conservatives who want the government to step in and put a stop to it?
What am I missing here?
August 24, 2010, 9:52 amMarcus says:
Boy, you were so close on this one. Had you replaced the ludicrous fear of “our Secular Humanist government” with an understandable concern regarding self-described (without the dimmest recognition of the irony) America-loving “patriots,” you would have nailed it.
And “island,” you could not have it more wrong than if you were Pam Geller herself.
August 24, 2010, 9:57 amMarcus says:
And I would like to note an item that got far too little press considering how much it underscores what a waste of good, fresh virtual ink, as well as all the tears and rending of garments, we have been exposed to the past three weeks of far-right bed-wetting on this topic. To date, the Cordoba Initiative has amassed less than $20,000 of the necessary $100 million needed for the project.
August 24, 2010, 10:08 amRicardo says:
The argument is not that the Feds cannot cite some statute to take over the relevant property. The argument is that this would violate the First Amendment as well as be an abuse of power. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was completely destroyed by the collapse of the World Trade Center yet its land has not been taken over by the government for memorial purposes. If the government does not take over St. Nicholas’ land and also turn it into a memorial, I don’t see how the government could ever convince a court that it was not illegally discriminating against Islam in its decisions.
Just about every territory in the world was conquered by somebody unless you go at least 50,000 years back in time (or 12,000 for the Americas and more recently for a handful of isolated islands). By your standards, I suppose Istanbul is still today “conquered territory.” This is to say nothing of most of North America.
Rome and Athens were indeed imperialistic, slave-holding regimes that could be quite brutal sometimes. They were also extraordinary places of cultural, scientific and literary advancement.
One of the many problems with your insinuation is that if the wily Imam really wanted to put one over on all those dumb Americans, he would have used the proper Arabic name and called it Qurtuba House. No self-respecting Jihadist would ever refer to this city by its Spanish Christian name.
August 24, 2010, 10:09 amAJK says:
The fact that almost all conservatives don’t seem to want that? Carl Paladino is the only person I’ve seen make the suggestion, and I wouldn’t exactly call him a leading light of the conservative movement.
August 24, 2010, 10:11 amRicardo says:
Because that’s exactly what the world needs — more mosques funded by rich Saudis.
August 24, 2010, 10:15 amDebrah says:
Here’s what you might be missing.
This analysis is much too simplistic of a subject filled with layers and layers of malignant contradictions.
Of course, let’s make the “Ground Zero” debate a test of tolerance.
But the conversation has been a one-way street and will continue this way unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.
Of course the construction proposed by Imam Rauf will essentially serve as a “mosque”.
Protestations to the contrary are ridiculous.
This is a power play and nothing more………(analogous to a rapist jacking off in front of the mother of the girl he’s already raped and killed……..because he can.)
“Islamophobia” is a fake term.
Dangerously so.
It insinuates that any reservations or questions about Islam must ipso facto be “phobic.”
But Islamic teachings manifest precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.
The beautiful minarets of mosques help form the skylines of many American cities; however, members of those mosques often accost passersby for something so insignificant as walking their dogs “too close” to the mosque.
Muslim cabdrivers refuse to take passengers with “unclean” canines.
And these are but two small examples.
Let’s not even discuss Muslim treatment of women.
Ah, such is life inside the tolerant confines of Islam.
Yet the families of 9/11 victims are wrong in pleading that a bit of decency and respect be shown to those murdered nearby.
August 24, 2010, 10:17 amisland says:
Just trying to clarify Sgt. Castro speak.
He said “Because the funding for the mosque totally comes from this tour…”
I didn’t.
Sarcastro also said that Obama non naively funded the man and wife’s mosque money fund raising trip.
And he is proud of it “this is worthy of ALL CAPS.”
And when I noted that if the immam really believed in his trip he would have funded it himself, Sarcastro calls the immam greedy. “Because diplomatic envoy equals fat sacks of cash money!”
So in sum: Sarcastro says American taxpayers are suckers. The immam is greedy. And Obama funded the trip on purpose.
Sarcastro does not write with sarcasm, even though some here believe he does.
August 24, 2010, 10:24 amuh_clem says:
Is this a variation on the “no true Scotsman” argument? It seems to me that there are a lot of folks who proudly call themselves “conservative” who advocate exactly that position. Look upthread if you need examples.
August 24, 2010, 10:25 amSarcastro says:
[island. I really don't get how this diplomacy tour will fund the Cordoba House. I'm pretty sure it's to be funded by private donors.]
August 24, 2010, 10:25 amLN says:
Downtown Manhattan is an oasis of peace and quiet. It’s basically a vast expanse of empty land, with very few people. The only reason to go there is to quietly meditate about the horrors of 9/11 and about how Muslims are evil, or maybe to buy a coat at Burlington Coat Factory. There’s really no conceivable reason to put a mosque there.
August 24, 2010, 10:28 amAnton Sirius says:
No, dear heart, he’s saying you are.
The State Department has asked, and Rauf has agreed, that he won’t do any fundraising when on this tour.
August 24, 2010, 10:29 amAnton Sirius says:
No, it isn’t. That is a total fabrication.
August 24, 2010, 10:30 amLN says:
Reading some of these comments, I’m really struck by how racist Jack London was.
August 24, 2010, 10:31 amA.W. says:
Ricardo
> The argument is not that the Feds cannot cite some statute to take over the relevant property. The argument is that this would violate the First Amendment as well as be an abuse of power.
Well, glad to get to that substance.
First, this isn’t speech but speech plus conduct. And it amounts to a time/place/manner restriction. As long as it is applied across the board what is the problem?
Indeed how does the rule work. How imminent does the religions expression have to be.
> St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was completely destroyed by the collapse of the World Trade Center yet its land has not been taken over by the government for memorial purposes.
The statute makes that impossible, actually, if they own the land; or at least it can’t happen without their consent. Thanks for proving you didn’t read my argument.
> Just about every territory in the world was conquered by somebody
And? Look this is your metaphor, you are the one who has to make it work. Cordoba, when coupled with islam, is associated with conquest and reconquista, the persecution of Christians and the martyrdom of one of the catholic saints. Oh, and by the way, bin Laden is counting as one of his “grievances” the fact that “infidels” hold that land, including spain in general. I mean there is that. Athens is associated with none of those kinds of things. And Rome has had the aforementioned catholic redemption so that while Christians were once persecuted there, now today it is headquarters for the largest branch of Christianity. The situations are apples to oranges, as the cliché goes.
> One of the many problems with your insinuation is
Again, Cordoba, for a site deliberately chosen for its proximity, is not the best name. They claim that they want to honor the Muslims who died on 9-11? Well, okay how about Touri Bolourchi House? Here’s how her daughter, Neda, described her murder recently:
> On the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, I watched as terrorists slammed United Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, 18 minutes after their accomplices on another hijacked plane hit the North Tower. My mother was on the flight. I witnessed her murder on live television. I still cannot fully comprehend those images. In that moment, I died as well. I carry a hole in my heart that will never be filled.
If he really wanted to build bridges that would be a great name. Instead he has succeeded in alienating this muslim woman, Neda, to the point that she came out against the mosque in the Washington post. He can’t even successfully reach out to MUSLIM victims of 9-11, let alone anyone of any other faith. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/fisking-gzm-imam.html
The issue is not whether cordoba house was potentially excusable from a certain perspective, but whether it was the best name as calculated to build bridges. Clearly it was not.
August 24, 2010, 10:36 amRicardo says:
Debrah, you really should provide a citation if you are going to basically copy and paste sentences from someone else’s writing (Christopher Hitchens, in this case).
But I will give you credit for originality for analogizing this to a rapist masturbating in front of his victim’s mother. That was, um, unexpected.
On to substance, there seem to be a fair number of Muslims who think Imam Rauf is an American stooge. That’s a pretty intolerant attitude but one that should reflect more on his opponents than on the man himself.
Rauf seems to be a wishy-washy type of character who doesn’t want to be seen as condemning anyone who he is trying to influence. I don’t like this attitude at all. If some Communists could work up the courage to condemn and repudiate Stalin, doing the same to Iran’s mullahs and Hamas ought not to be out of the question for any moderate Muslim worth the name.
But that’s an issue of diplomatic and political strategy. On the issue of personal and theological beliefs, I haven’t seen anyone provide any evidence that Rauf acts in an intolerant manner toward Christians, Jews or other religious groups. He has stated he likes the American constitution just the way it is as it reflects his own (almost certainly unique) understanding of Islamic principles.
August 24, 2010, 10:38 amAnton Sirius says:
I have a few other suggestions that would show a bit of respect to those murdered at the WTC, and demonstrate some sensitivity to their families:
1) No brown or black people. If it’s insensitive just to create a meeting place for Muslims, imagine how traumatic it might be for a person who lost someone on 9/11 to actually see a Muslim anywhere around the WTC. (Or, as we saw this weekend, those protesting on their behalf). And of course, from across the street any dark-skinned person can easily be mistaken for a Muslim through a waterfall of tears. So, in the interests of sensitivity, all dark-skinned people should just stay out of Lower Manhattan entirely.
2) No air traffic to, from or around New York City. If bumping into a theoretical Muslim on the street is traumatic, imagine how awful it must be to hear or see a jet flying overhead, if you lost someone on 9/11. Nothing could bring the horror of that day flooding back faster than that. Deep in your gut, the fear that another plane might suddenly veer off course and slam into another Manhattan tower would be overwhelming, if completely irrational. But this isn’t about rationality. It’s about emotion. Thus, in the interests of sensitivity, all air traffic to, from and in the vicinity of New York City should be eliminated.
3) No use of the numbers 9 or 11 in Lower Manhattan. This one is just obvious. 9/11 is permanently etched into our national consciousness, and using those numbers for something as trivial as the floor of a building, a street address, a price or a telephone number is just the height of insensitivity. If you had lost your husband or son or wife or daughter in the WTC, would you want to be reminded of it every time you called to order a pizza AND every time you paid for it? It’s too monstrous to even contemplate. So, in the interests of sensitivity, everyone in Lower Manhattan should completely avoid using the number 9, or two consecutive 1′s.
August 24, 2010, 10:39 amMarcus says:
Debra says: This is a power play and nothing more………(analogous to a rapist jacking off in front of the mother of the girl he’s already raped and killed……..because he can.)
In what possible way, in what possible universe, in what possible dimension, is the construction of community center and mosque two blocks from the site of a tragedy analogous to a rapist jerking off in front of his victim’s mother?
Debra also says: Islamophobia” is a fake term. Dangerously so. It insinuates that any reservations or questions about Islam must ipso facto be “phobic.”
Actually, there is no insinuation within the term “Islamophobia” that all questions about the religion be “phobic.” Islamophobia is an actual phobia exhibited within those who fear Islam to the degree where they believe sharia law is imminent, and those who believe that Islam is about to overrun the Unioted States, and those that believe that even a heretofor moderate and warmly considered Imam is, in fact, an extremist, and among those who believe that the President of the United States is a secret extremist Muslim who is converting America to Islam in front of our eyes. These are all very real beliefs and are all very real signs of the reality of Islamophobia. In fact, it seems to me the only people aho argue against the actuality of “Islamophobia” are those to whom it is most appropriately applied.
August 24, 2010, 10:40 amuh_clem says:
zOMFG! Dogs not allowed in cabs! You are right to be outraged, OUTRAGED! by this trampling of the rights of all dog-owning Christians. It’s clearly the end of American civilization as we know it.
August 24, 2010, 10:44 amMarcus says:
The only problem with your concern is that the United States government has asked Imam Rauf, again, to represent our interests among Muslims in the Middle East. Even you must agree that a Muslim speaking to other Muslims will have more of an impact than some white, blond and blue-eyed Evangelical, yes? You seem to believe that, over hot toddies on some yacht in the Caribbean, Rauf mentioned to Obama that he’d really like to tour the middle East and if Obama would pay for it using Real America’s ™ Tax Dollars, Rauf would put in an occasional nice word on our behalf.
August 24, 2010, 10:48 amSouth of Houston says:
Wow, the thread’s gone to the Nazi smear already, even given the context of post 9/11 survivors sickened by not only the devastating attack on country and civilians one lovely morning, changing their lives and city forever, but the cheering of too many Muslims and apologists here and worldwide.
People who object to this mosque ARE acting within the confines of the Constitution, exercising their right to free speech and looking for legal remedy, absent the effectiveness of public pressure.
Others of us say build the damn thing, already, and may offended Americans who are convinced of its thinly veiled Islamist reason to be continue to object, even when branded by those offended by their offense, “Nazis.
Where’s the moral high ground? Thirteen storeys up, down in the Ground Zero pit, or geographically and emotionally removed from the impact? If we have passion for politics and exhibit dispassion in the law, we seem to fare well over time, despite ongoing disagreement. But to invoke Hitler in this case is needlessly disgusting and unconstructive, certainly inapt and ahistorical.
August 24, 2010, 10:51 amisland says:
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE SUCKERS
Wow. So you are in all the private meetings. Look, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale Anton.
August 24, 2010, 10:53 amIf the trip were on the up and up, why would the Obama administration even bring up his overseas fund raising at his meetings as you claim?
Is the agreement in writing?
What is the penalty if he does raise funds?
Another jizza tax paid for trip?
LN says:
But to invoke Hitler in this case is needlessly disgusting and unconstructive, certainly inapt and ahistorical.
Personally, my favorite analogy in this thread is to the masturbating rapist.
August 24, 2010, 10:56 amJoseph Slater says:
Nicely done.
August 24, 2010, 10:57 amDebrah says:
Ha!
It really wasn’t my intention to do so, Ricardo.
Hitchens is one of my delicious addictions.
Having read his column around (5 AM ) this morning and having also, as luck would have it, a very good memory…….
…….I included elements of his most excellent analysis with my own.
I didn’t “paste” anything.
And I know that Christopher would be thrilled that I used aspects of his analysis of the subject.
I’ve met him and actually had a long conversation. He’s charming!
Not a constipated drone.
Methinks if you agreed with my position you wouldn’t be so exercised.
Nice debating tool, by the way.
By the way…..I love your link.
August 24, 2010, 11:01 amSarcastro says:
Yeah, all the calls to censor those people is really going too far.
And comparing stuff to Nazis on the internet? An unprecedented offense. It really indicts everyone on the same side as that poster!
August 24, 2010, 11:01 amgretel says:
Yeah, Joseph Slater, calling people racists over any [edit: and every] issue is a definite winner.
August 24, 2010, 11:01 amDebrah says:
Take it up with those affected.
I am neither a dog owner nor a Christian.
However, this petty intolerance at every turn is quite revealing.
The point being that many Muslims fight against even the most mundane and minute “affront”, yet bulldoze onto the premises of the dead at Ground Zero without the slightest thought of respect for others.
Thanks for helping point this out.
August 24, 2010, 11:06 amSarcastro says:
island needs no evidence. Indeed, contravening evidence is simply lies! His narrative will hold, come what may!
August 24, 2010, 11:07 amRicardo says:
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Part of the free exercise of religion is the ability to buy land and build a house of worship there on terms equal to anyone else (the community center will supposedly have lots of uses aside from worship but will still contain a fairly decent sized mosque). The federal government has legal pretexts to stop construction of both a certain church and a certain mosque near Ground Zero. If it stops the mosque but not the church, that’s a violation of the First Amendment and any court would consider it as such.
That use of the passive voice gets to the heart of the matter. Is associated by whom? You and Newt Gingrich? Different people are free to associate different things to places and events of historical significance. That’s my point.
August 24, 2010, 11:10 amLN says:
Good defense — if I suggest that those who portray 1.6 billion people as a monolithic evil mass dedicated to destroying America may harbor some feelings of racism, then clearly I think everyone everywhere is racist for everything!
August 24, 2010, 11:11 amjukeboxgrad says:
What would you need to see in order to feel differently? Would you need to see, say, Americans calling for mass murder of Muslims? Because that can be found here.
Can you think of a better word to describe the person I just cited?
August 24, 2010, 11:14 amDebrah says:
Such sweaty hyperbole.
Don’t bring the president into this conversation. He’s screwed up the proceedings already.
Rivaling his gross missteps with regard to the Henry Louis Gates fiasco from last year.
Very few people believe that Obama is a Muslim.
No one “fears” Islam.
Least of all, moi.
Why are the majority of those moderate and peaceful Muslims so unwilling to come out against the radical element?
Why?
Because they fear for their own lives as a result.
The real fear exist among those of their own ranks.
And for good reason.
August 24, 2010, 11:16 amLN says:
Such sweaty hyperbole.
Says Mrs. Masturbating Rapist.
August 24, 2010, 11:18 amJoseph Slater says:
You miss the point — LN was making a nice contrast over who on this blog was getting called a racist over what.
August 24, 2010, 11:18 amRicardo says:
I specifically stated where I disagreed with you, so no need to speculate on my views or motives. If you want to respond to what I actually wrote on the substance of your comment, you are free to do so.
But plagiarism is a pet peeve of mine.
You: ““Islamophobia” is a fake term. Dangerously so. It insinuates that any reservations or questions about Islam must ipso facto be “phobic.” But Islamic teachings manifest precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.”
Hitch: “This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be “phobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.”
Excellent memory you have there. C’mon, you could have at least changed the “ipso facto.” But why isn’t your memory excellent enough to remember where you read something as well as what you read? I call this the Maureen Dowd defense.
August 24, 2010, 11:20 amOwen H. says:
Protesting and expressing their opinions is within their rights. Demands that the government stop the project, not so much. Just be honest with yourself, at least. Your goal is to infringe on someone else’s basic rights.
What is truly sickening is that, rhetoric and lies to the contrary, Rauf is one of the good guys.
August 24, 2010, 11:21 amgretel says:
LN, blanket distortion and damnation this early in the morn?
Anyway, pray tell how objections to militant Islamism (its ideology and terroristic practices) and not Islam, and both of which are comprised of people of all races, are racist in nature?
Of course, Tea Partiers who object to Obama’s health insurance mandate and pathological spending are labeled “racists,” too, because Obama is half-black, I guess.
August 24, 2010, 11:23 amMike P Wagner says:
With regard to the the name of the organization, the stated motivation seems likely to be the real motivation:
Cordoba House FAQs
There is some historical debate as to the actual living conditions of Jews and Christians in the early centuries of Moorish rule (approximately the 8th though 10th or 11th century). But that epoch does have the (possibly mythic) reputation of a time of unprecedented religious tolerance.
I think that it’s not unreasonable to accept that the founders of the Cordoba Initiative chose the name based on their beliefs that Cordoba in that time period was a time of interfaith tolerance. Even if it turns out that the “golden age” is somewhat a myth, it is a myth widely believed and propagated.
To put it another way, if one wanted to name an Moslem interfaith initiative after a historical period of Western history, picking a symbol from that era of Moorish history would not be irrational.
Golden Age of Jewish Culture in Spain
Mike
August 24, 2010, 11:24 amJoseph Slater says:
LN is definitely on a roll today.
FWIW, I certainly don’t think all, or even most, opponents of the “GZM” or whatever you want to call it are racists. And I’m no fan of Islam (or any religion, for that matter). But the racism of some of the folks opposing the construction seems a more important issue today than the racism of Jack London.
August 24, 2010, 11:26 amjukeboxgrad says:
This is his text:
This is your text:
Quite a photographic memory you have. I also like the embellishment. He described one anecdote about a person walking a dog near a mosque. You turned that into this:
“Often?” Where is there a report other than the one anecdote described by Hitchens?
Your credibility is just where it should be, so keep up the good work.
August 24, 2010, 11:26 amjukeboxgrad says:
Pew: “Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim.”
Maybe what you’re saying is that Republicans aren’t people.
August 24, 2010, 11:31 amLN says:
Who am I distorting, gretel?
“This is a power play and nothing more………(analogous to a rapist jacking off in front of the mother of the girl he’s already raped and killed……..because he can.)”
Do you want to defend this analogy?
Do you want to defend the mindset behind this analogy?
What connects the Muslims interested in this mosque to the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11? Other than, you know, they’re Muslim — something that connects well over a billion people? What explains this ability to lump in all these people together with mutual guilt?
But what I really want to know is whether or not you think Jack London is racist.
August 24, 2010, 11:33 amDebrah says:
It would never be my quest to gain credibility from someone making excuses for this grotesque démarche at the 9/11 site.
Your motivations are quite clear.
Your petty way of debating does not eclipse the malignancy of your position.
Muslims do not like dogs, so they are perfectly justified in running off people who live nearby.
Yet something so grave and somber and heart-wrenching as the 9/11 attack should be glossed over for the sake of “tolerance”.
Your position on this matter is putrid.
Whatever opinion you might have of my comments, or of Hitchens’, for that matter, are less than meaningless to me.
Dungeon-level, actually.
August 24, 2010, 11:36 amSouth of Houston says:
Owen H.,
Pardon me, but you have the reading comprehension of a challenged gnat. I support building the project (while harboring no illusions over its “bridge building intention”– PR for domestic consumption– or Rauf’s pro-America sincerity in certain closed meetings overseas.)
Let’s just say your indiscriminate “you’s” aren’t “truly sickening”, just surly thickening.
August 24, 2010, 11:41 amAllan Walstad says:
I think Stuhlmann had it right, 7 hours ago. Don’t like property owners building a church in this neighborhood? Offer to buy them out. If they refuse, then try minding your own goddam business on and with your own goddam property. That’s a libertarian position, the same consistent position that opposed Kelo.
What bugs me the most about all those (neo?)conservatives making such a big fuss over the “Ground-Zero mosque,” is that this is exactly how the 9/11 terrorists win. They win by undermining our devotion to the liberty and limited government that is the heart and soul of what is (or was) special — and especially good — about America. They win by pushing us farther along the road into militaristic, intolerant, self-destructive collectivism. They win by dragging us down to their level. I am vastly more concerned about the concentration of arbitrary power in our own government than I am about some freaking mosque in Manhattan.
August 24, 2010, 11:41 amuh_clem says:
Well done, Debrah. It’s the best example of Poe’s Law I’ve seen all day.
I’m not sure whether to laugh, applaud, or do a facepalm.
August 24, 2010, 11:44 amsashal says:
what a mentally bankrupt unintelligent melt of an idiot caught in an act of utter stupidity
btw, where the f* this meme about “Muslims not liking dogs” coming from, bigot?
August 24, 2010, 11:46 amI have been in numerous Muslim houses , houses with numerous well cared for and groomed dogs..
jukeboxgrad says:
It’s technically true that Islam is “comprised of people of all races.” However, as a practical matter, it turns out that most Muslims have dark skin, and virtually all the individual Muslims we have identified as our enemy (e.g., OBL et al) have dark skin. But surely there is no reason to mention racism when the political party of the Southern strategy is now found fomenting hatred against Muslims.
August 24, 2010, 11:50 amParzival says:
Yes. It is. If Cordoba is being held out as the ideal of Muslims and non-muslims living together, as it explicitly is, the religious persecution against non-muslims in Cordoba is directly relevant.
Do they have the right to build there? Yes.
Is doing so a symbolic gesture? Yes.
Is this symbol an insult and a provocation? Yes.
Is this Imam in particular a reprehensible excuse for a human being? Yes.
Is it clear that the stated goal of “building bridges” is directly at odds with the reaction they’re provoking? Yes.
Have alternative sites been offered in good faith, but rejected? Yes.
Has this organization openly taunted people who disagree with their decision on the internet? Yes.
Does both of the prior two points strengthen the arguement that they’re not really interested in “building bridges”? Yes.
Do we have the right to be extremely pissed off about this? Again, the answer is Yes.
Something can be wrong without being illegal. Arguing that we cannot take umbrage at something “because it is legal” is false, and demonstrates a complete disregard for the principles of limited government.
But there is a clear case of governmental malfeasance here.
August 24, 2010, 11:51 amHad this mosque opened in the shadow of the new WTC towers, this would have been a non-issue. But those are tied up in red tape (and have been for nearly a decade). It appears that the local government is fast-tracking this mosque.
I’d love to see the press ask Nurse Bloomberg some very pointed questions about this discrepancy.
Ricardo says:
I doubt your pro-America sincerity in certain closed meetings. Prove me wrong.
August 24, 2010, 11:54 amMark Horning says:
Except that polling shows that more people are opposed to this thing than were opposed to Walter Mondale. It’s offensive, it’s intentionally offensive, and they have every right to do it and be offensive just like the KKK, Jerry Falwell, and the Militant Atheists do.
August 24, 2010, 11:54 amFrank Drackman says:
anyone else noticed Sasha Grey on this seasons “Entourage”????
August 24, 2010, 11:56 amjukeboxgrad says:
You’re not going far enough. Debrah blatantly plagiarising Hitchens and then brazenly denying blatantly plagiarising Hitchens was both utterly stupid and utterly dishonest. Funny how bigotry and dishonesty go together.
August 24, 2010, 11:58 amgretel says:
LN, good try. You’re now arguing, not the quote of yours to which I was responding, but someone else’s statement which you demand I defend. I have no cat or cur in that fight.
Once more: How are people who object to Islamism or this mosque “racists”? Are you stereotyping all Muslims as non-whites or just all Americans who are unhappy with the symbology of the project as white?
Loose “facts”, accusations and evasive/ base emotional argument don’t prop up the case for the mosque, if that’s what some here are trying to achieve.
August 24, 2010, 11:59 amLN says:
Is this symbol an insult and a provocation? Yes.
…
Had this mosque opened in the shadow of the new WTC towers, this would have been a non-issue. But those are tied up in red tape (and have been for nearly a decade). It appears that the local government is fast-tracking this mosque.
Hmm, that’s a strange inconsistency. But yes, I think you’ve gotten to the bottom of it, Bloomberg is also a secret Muslim dedicated to destroying America.
August 24, 2010, 12:00 pmMarcus says:
We have really turned a bad corner when we start saying things like, “No mosques in Manhattan until there are curches in Riyadh.” Nothing spells “American Ideals” like mimicking the repressive actions of foreign governments.
“If you liked Third World-style torture, just wait until you get a gander at our new religious restrictions!”
August 24, 2010, 12:00 pmpc says:
So, just to clarify what some modern conservatives believe… It’s okay to use government force to take private property based on religious grounds. A private business owner does not have the right to disallow pets on his property. Moderate Muslims should try to reach out and build bridges, but when they try to do so they will have their property stolen and be forced to allow pets on their private property (assuming they have any property left). Muslims should not be allowed to build a place of worship near the hallowed ground in lower Manhattan: 2 blocks is too close; 4 blocks is too close; mid-town is too close; heck, Manhattan is off limits; so is Staten island; Kentucky is too close; don’t build a Mosque in Tennessee. Is California far enough away? No, still too close. Why don’t we get this over with and make all Muslims wear yellow crescents? We know what those people are like.
Meanwhile, the liberals over at The Weekly Standard point out how much al Qaeda hates Sufis. (Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi)
August 24, 2010, 12:00 pmLN says:
Wait, which statement of mine are you responding to? Is it this one?
Reading some of these comments, I’m really struck by how racist Jack London was.
Do you know who Jack London is?
August 24, 2010, 12:03 pmFrank Drackman says:
oops wrong message board…
OK, so hows about a “Baruch Goldstein Turkey Shoot”???
OK, you have to know who Baruch Goldstein was for that to make sense…
Frank “Allah Who?” Drackman
August 24, 2010, 12:04 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I guesss you didn’t notice that I already addressed this.
August 24, 2010, 12:04 pmLN says:
How are people who object to Islamism or this mosque “racists”?
Oh and by the way, do you want to explain where I said this? Please be specific.
August 24, 2010, 12:07 pmjukeboxgrad says:
And that’s just what he wants you to think, that he’s a Sufi. Everyone knows that he’s secretly non-Sufi, just like Obama is secretly non-Christian.
Once you understand how these things work, everything starts to fall into place.
August 24, 2010, 12:09 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Although not as subtle as the Jack London reference, I think it’s nevertheless safe to assume that some people might have no idea what you’re talking about.
August 24, 2010, 12:12 pmDebrah says:
LN–
I have no idea.
There are many defenders and many detractors for which I am assuming were his views of Asian immigration at that time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(The bizarre, knee-jerk comment from “sashal” is like reading a long-cached script from Al Sharpton on “going to meetin’ day”.)
Many Sunni and Shi’a Muslim consider dogs to be ritually unclean.
This is not a discussion of personal pet habits and ownership. Capiche?
Muslims generally cast dogs in a negative light because of their ritual impurity.
However, this relates to ritual “uncleanness” and would explain why dogs were not wanted near the mosques.
August 24, 2010, 12:15 pmgretel says:
Jukeboxgrad, let’s get this straight: you contend the Republican Party is stoking racist sentiment against Muslims, blacks and Hispanics?
All I see is Republicans, Independents and moderate Democrats reacting to an Islamist agenda and security issues, New Black Panther Party poll intimidation/ the spending and mandates of the Obama administration, and unchecked illegal immigration with its attendant drug and human trafficking, violence and economic toll.
Eye of the beholder, I suppose, or maybe the decade in which one resides. You’re still in the 1960s?
August 24, 2010, 12:20 pmDebrah says:
LOL!!!
I do wish you actually had a logical defense of the Ground Zero issue.
Except feelings.
But, alas……perhaps people like Dowd and I know that the weak need to be fed some gravitas.
To be handed a dodge because their actual positions are so utterly bankrupt.
August 24, 2010, 12:24 pmRicardo says:
Who, exactly, holds up Cordoba as an “ideal”? People offer it as a historical precedent. I don’t see any evidence that Rauf considers Cordoba an ideal of religious co-existence any more than the Washington, Jefferson and Madison considered ancient Athens or Rome an ideal democratic republic.
A government construction project subject to numerous delays. Gee, I’ve never heard of that happening before. That aside, the superstructure of the new WTC already reaches over 30 stories and construction is expected to be finished in 2013.
By contrast, I don’t think the old building on the lot Park51 owns has even been demolished yet. The building is a completely private affair which means that how quickly the construction finishes doesn’t have much to do with the government one way or the other.
August 24, 2010, 12:24 pmgretel says:
Won’t let me edit. I would add that those “Republicans, Independents and moderate Democrats” who are uncomfortable with the GZM project are Diverse(TM) in their skincolor, gender, orientation, religion, and hairstyles, what have you.
August 24, 2010, 12:26 pmNickM says:
Ilya – as I read Kelo, pretextual taking applies to condemnations where the government will not continue to own the property. Since NYC or the state of NY could take the land over to build a government office building on it, how could a pretextual taking claim succeed in that situation?
Nick
August 24, 2010, 12:34 pmjukeboxgrad says:
“Saudi Billionaire Boasts of Manipulating Fox News Coverage.” Link.
Just move along folks, nothing to see here. After all, a divided, weakened and isolated US could not possibly enhance Saudi interests in any way.
You might want to consider educating yourself regarding the concept of ‘voting shares.’ It is not necessary to own 51% of a company to control or greatly influence it.
In other news, dog bites man.
Yup, two black guys in a mostly black neighborhood must have been highly intimidating to the white people who don’t live there.
This is mostly coming from the GOP. And with regard to so-called “moderate Democrats,” it would be nice if we had a two-party system.
August 24, 2010, 12:34 pmsashal says:
It’s impressive how short memories some people have. It has been conclusively proven that most of humanity have a very high potential for behaving monstrously given the right set of circumstances. Whether we perceive that as evil or perceived helplessness does not matter, the end result is the same. The means are different depending on whether we are prison guards or prisoners, parts of a grand machine or of a small and (this is about perception) persecuted group.
Suicide bombings are not more monstrous than an IRA or an ETA bomb that killed innocents. The delivery mechanisms are just dependent on tradition and what happens to work. Tactics. Not strategy.
But the important part is this: every single day we make thousands of decisions. We should, regardless of whether we are christian, muslim, jew or atheist, consider those decisions carefully. Because it is very easy to become a tool for evil and to accept, out of ignorance, fear or prejudice that some people are less than human and therefore can be treated inhumanely. If we regard all men as equal, if this is indeed an inevitable truth, then we must act accordingly and not try to redefine humanity based on some arbitrarily chosen criteria that suits our own xenophobic (because we are all xenophobic to some extent, it’s right there in the core of who we are) world view. Whether it is the color of their skin, their religion (or lack thereof) or something else we have to face the fact that they are still human and nothing makes that change. Taken to it’s logical conclusion it means that we need to accept that anyone can become a monster, a thing that goes bump in the night, and that the line that stands between humanity and genocide is a thin multicolored line of men and women avoiding to let themselves become tools of people who try to use fear as a way to reach power.
And so on.
I’m worried. That’s all. Too many people have become insane lately and it reminds me of things that have happened in the not so distant past.
August 24, 2010, 12:37 pmCockleCove says:
Voila. But it’s Prince Alaweed bin Talal — the chair of Kingdom Holding Company and, e.g., the largest single investor in Citigroup — who owns 7% of the shares of News Corp.(making him the 2nd largest individual shareholder); I don’t know of any reliable source for information re: what percentage is held by Saudi nationals in total:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-21/alwaleed-backs-james-murdoch-as-news-corp-successor-correct-.html
Business Week has published a number of pieces re: Prince Alaweed. E.g., News Corp. bought 9.1% of the shares in the Prince’s own media company, Rotana, in February for $70 million, and “Rotana and Fox International Channels in December signed a 100 million-riyal licensing content agreement with Walt Disney Co. Disney content will be aired in the Middle East on Fox Movies and Fox Series Channels”:
August 24, 2010, 12:38 pmhttp://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-26/saudi-prince-alwaleed-plans-rotana-share-sale-within-two-years.html
pc says:
I fear eminent domain won’t be enough to stop Islamic radicals like Rauf. Would anyone care to recommend some sort of final solution to America’s Muslim problem?
August 24, 2010, 12:44 pmRicardo says:
When there was a shake-up in the management of Citigroup several years ago, the company flew a special delegation to Riyadh to meet with representatives of Prince Alaweed to get his input over who should be the new CEO. Nope, nothing to see here folks. Saudi Arabia has absolutely no influence over the corporations it holds significant interests in.
August 24, 2010, 12:48 pmgretel says:
———–
Here’s what you said, LN:
——————-
Then master debater LN asks:
————–
Of course, I do. He must be the Anglo who jacked off in front of the home of his rape victim another commenter analogized and which you demanded I answer to.
August 24, 2010, 12:51 pmBlue says:
Let me see if I get this right:
Foreigner Muslims want to build religious building in shadow of WTC that will undoubtedly be used to “contextualize” the massacre of thousands of infidels. Their right to do this is ironclad protected by the Constitution.
US citizens protest this building using a variety of speech methods. This political speech is Nazi-esque, dangerous, stupid and clearly not in line with American traditions.
Did I get this right?
August 24, 2010, 12:56 pmTomB says:
Why not just change the zoning to not allow churches/religious institutions? Old ones will be grandfathered in, and new ones cannot open. Perhaps in a decade or so, the zoning can be changed.
I still think it would be best for a private organization to buy the land, but I don’t think that will happen.
August 24, 2010, 1:01 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Exactly. Saudi Arabia has no influence over Fox. And the Saudis also have no influence over the GOP, even though the company they control is pouring money into the GOP.
Obviously, this dynamic is not a threat to America, but two black guys in a black neighborhood is.
August 24, 2010, 1:01 pmSarcaustico says:
Finally, the truth is out! The Saudis are in collusion with FOX and xenophobic homophobic whRepublicans to stoke racist and Islamophobic outrage against the GZM project and all peaceable Muslims everywhere!
Hold the presses! The resident lefties are admitting to conspiracy and hidden agenda on the part of A-rabs!!
August 24, 2010, 1:02 pmRicardo says:
Nope, Feisal Abdul Rauf is an American.
August 24, 2010, 1:03 pmLN says:
Impressive, gretel. That comment looked like a bunch of questions, not a bunch of statements. By the way, do you have any interest in answering those questions I asked?
He must be the Anglo who jacked off in front of the home of his rape victim another commenter analogized and which you demanded I answer to.
I don’t remember initiating a conversation with you. You’re the person who had a problem with my comments, which weren’t directed with you. And then when I gave an example of who they were referring to, you get all upset because you don’t want to be associated with them? Next time think before you speak.
August 24, 2010, 1:08 pmTed says:
Of course, silly…Debrah, makes the well-known, obvious point that all Muslim abhor “unclean” canines. The Muslims you know have “well-groomed” and “well-cared-for” canines. Totally different. I mean, you wouldn’t let a skanky cur into your Crown Vic would you?
August 24, 2010, 1:11 pmslimslowslider says:
Sarcastro: often imitated, never duplicated, no matter how hard they try.
August 24, 2010, 1:12 pmA.W. says:
Richardo
> The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Part of the free exercise of religion is the ability to buy land and build a house of worship there on terms equal to anyone else (the community center will supposedly have lots of uses aside from worship but will still contain a fairly decent sized mosque)
No, actually you don’t have a right to buy and build a church wherever you want. Zoning regulations are but one example of rules against that.
Seriously, you are talking about a hypothetical libertarian NYC that doesn’t actually exist.
> The federal government has legal pretexts to stop construction of both a certain church and a certain mosque near Ground Zero. If it stops the mosque but not the church, that’s a violation of the First Amendment and any court would consider it as such.
In which you paid attention to nothing I said. The statute creates a distinction which you keep ignoring.
> Is associated by whom
Myself and anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
> Different people are free to associate different things to places and events of historical significance.
Right, so if I wanted to build a Buddhist temple, complete with Swastikas, at Aushwitz, no problem?
Now about a Confederate flag right over the 16th St. Baptist church, in Birmingham, Alabama? (And if you don’t know what happened there, shame on you.)
Well, if the goal, as they stated, was to heal, then it is not the idiosyncratic subjective meaning that matters, but the meaning that they would expect the public to take from it. The nicest thing you can say about it is ambiguous.
Given that there were ways of sending UNAMBIGUOUS messages, why didn’t they do that?
Jukey
> “Saudi Billionaire Boasts of Manipulating Fox News Coverage.” Link.
An inconsistent report from an outfit I never heard of before is hardly persuasive. Indeed, at least one version has him saying all he did was call to complain, posing as a regular citizen and convinced them to change.
> You might want to consider educating yourself regarding the concept of ‘voting shares.’ It is not necessary to own 51% of a company to control or greatly influence it.
Educating myself? I have created the company I am working for. And I can say in this company one person owns 51% of the stock. So guess who makes all the decisions?
You might want to educate yourself… about math.
As for the claim that this is all “racist”—um, since when is islam a race? In fact, to claim that this is racism is itself racist.
And it fails to explain the non-white Muslims who oppose the mosque. You know, like Miss USA, among many others.
August 24, 2010, 1:13 pmMarcus says:
Because passing laws abridging the rights of a religious institution to worship how and where they want to is unconstitutional. Simple enough?
August 24, 2010, 1:16 pmSarcastro says:
And the Constitution.
Plus, as Blue noted, disagreeing with people is taking away their rights just as surely as letting them build the Mosque is taking away the rights of everyone who died on 9-11.
August 24, 2010, 1:18 pmjukeboxgrad says:
It’s not really “hidden,” and it’s not really “on the part of A-rabs.” It’s on the part of people who benefit from war and conflict. That group includes Rupert Murdoch, Saudi princes, and the GOP. Nothing strange about this. It’s just business. It’s not hard to understand how loyalty to money becomes a more important force than loyalty to country.
I wouldn’t let Debrah into any of my cars.
August 24, 2010, 1:19 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Feel free to tell us that the following speech is not “Nazi-esque [and] dangerous” (link, link, link):
August 24, 2010, 1:20 pmskanky cur says:
The dog angle has been a loser from the start, you oh so clever Ones, but after a number of years of it, don’t y’all even get tired of it?
Dogs don’t cry, and the best mutts will wander on to better company. Bye [woof]
August 24, 2010, 1:20 pmTed says:
An example of religious-right logic:
“I believe in religious freedom, but a landing gear fell on that site.“
August 24, 2010, 1:21 pmLN says:
AW, I enjoy your theories of collective guilt and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
So let’s look at these analogies:
1) Swastikas at Auschwitz
2) Confederate Flag at Baptist church
3) Mosque near Ground Zero
Swastikas = symbol of Nazism, a movement led by Hitler to take over the world and exterminate inferior races
Confederate Flag = flag of Confederate Army, American traitors who fought to preserve the barbaric institution of slavery
Mosque = …
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I see two possibilities:
Mosque = house of worship for Muslims, a religion with nearly two billion human adherents around the globe
Mosque = symbol of mass murder of 3,000 Americans, carried out by 19 hijackers
I really can’t figure out which of these interpretations is more appropriate, but you seem like a really well-spoken guy so I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on the matter.
August 24, 2010, 1:25 pmRicardo says:
Nor did I say that. “Part of the free exercise of religion is the ability to buy land and build a house of worship there on terms equal to anyone else.” Government may not single out a particular religion.
A distinction that is not relevant unless it survives the heavy degree of scrutiny given to it by a federal court. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think it would survive scrutiny given that the obvious and now well-documented intent of any such action.
Do you have anything original to add or are you going to continue with these ludicrous, warmed-over Nazi analogies? Opposing the mosque is not necessarily bigoted. Comparing the symbols and history of Islam to that of Nazism is.
August 24, 2010, 1:26 pmJoseph Slater says:
I swear I was just about to post the exact same thing.
August 24, 2010, 1:31 pmL says:
* You got “foreigner” wrong – Rauf is an American.
* The extent to which “religious building” is correct is debatable. Some people seem to think that this building will be about as religious as a YMCA. Although it may have a small mosque. (Side question: can we call a small mosque a “mosquito”?)
* You got “undoubtedly” wrong, unless you mean that you personally have no doubts, in which case I have no idea, not being able to read your mind.
* I would argue that “Nazi-esque” is an exaggeration, but every comparison with Nazis is a matter of degree. Everybody’s a little like a Nazi, and nobody’s exactly like a Nazi, so I guess the question is just where do you draw the line. I think when you look at someone like Pam Geller, ideas of Dolchstoßlegende and
JudenMuslimrein seem to fit quite well. But I don’t think it applies to all Park51 opponents, no.* You got “clearly not in line with American traditions” wrong. Unfortunately, we have a long history of xenophobia and intolerance. If you change “traditions” to “ideals,” you’re getting closer.
* And of course you left out that the “right to do this is ironclad protected by the Constitution” applies to both those who propose to build it and those who protest it.
This last point deserves emphasis. Just as (most of) the Park51 opponents will claim, “We recognize your right to build here, but think you shouldn’t,” so too can the supporters claim, “We recognize your right to protest this, but think you shouldn’t.” In fact, in all this debate, although I’ve only heard a minority of opponents call for the government to stop this project, I haven’t heard any supporters call for the government to interfere with the protests. Support for the Constitution appears strong on both sides, but not equally strong.
August 24, 2010, 1:37 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Your ignorance is rampant. When a company is large, and therefore ownership is dispersed among many shareholders, the company can be controlled (or at least greatly influenced) by one shareholder who holds far less than 51%:
Also see here:
But I’m sure a Saudi prince would have no interest in influencing the behavior of either Fox or the GOP, right? Why bother? What could he possibly gain by doing so? I’m sure he’d rather just play polo all day.
I already addressed this.
August 24, 2010, 1:39 pmpc says:
If a bunch of people were protesting the building of a Jewish community center/synagogue, talking about how Judiasm was a threat to America; carrying signs saying “Let me be clear NO SYNAGOGUE HERE” and signs with “HALAKA” written to look like blood; what would you think?
August 24, 2010, 1:42 pmCockleCove says:
Well, the fact is that all of the Volokh Conspiracy’s principal contributors (i.e., those who initiate posts here) are law professors/attorneys, and until recently, its commenting readership was primarily lawyers. So if reading nuanced discussions of legal principles works you into a lather, you’ll be happier elsewhere. I’d certainly be happier if you and others who are indifferent to, even contemptuous of, grounded legal arguments — and who insist on perpetrating ill-informed, often internally illogical, nonsense as if it were gospel, who advance arguments resting on nothing more than say-so and speculative innuendo (your “this is a clear case of governmental malfeasance” claim, for example) — took it elsewhere. Lord knows there are plenty of other ‘net venues for that, no matter what your political persuasion.
August 24, 2010, 1:43 pmA.W. says:
Ricardo
> Government may not single out a particular religion.
The government can simply say this: to the extent that we can to do so we are stopping all expressions in the area except what we approve of. That is what the Historical Sites Act provides for. You go to a nationally declared historical site and the only message given there is the official message. If you want to tell a different story, you can, but not there. don’t like it? tough.
> A distinction that is not relevant unless
You evidently have literally never read my argument, because you would know that the distinction is completely content neutral.
> Do you have anything original to add or are you going to continue with these ludicrous, warmed-over Nazi analogies? Opposing the mosque is not necessarily bigoted. Comparing the symbols and history of Islam to that of Nazism is.
Well, well, well, look who is quick to lump moderate islam with the radical stuff?
I specifically compared Nazism to islamofascism, and Buddhism to moderate islam. I don’t think Godwin’s law applies to comparisons between bin Laden and hitler, but that could just be me.
See Naziism took the swastika from Buddhism, a symbol of good in that faith, and turned it into a symbol of evil. To this day there are Buddhist temples all over the world that still use swastikas, often those swastikas being stone carvings that predate the nazi regime. But I would think that Buddhist trying to “build bridges” at Auschwitz would know not to put swastikas up in sight of that death camp. They would understand that while their personal interpretation of the symbol was benign, that it would cause hurt to others. In a similar fashion, moderate and radical islam share certain cultural markers, like the believe in Allah, although what they believe Allah stands for is quite different. But a muslim who is minimally aware would understand it was in bad taste to put a mosque near the site were thousands were murdered, in order to spread the same faith. And they couldn’t claim surprise or ignorance when people take that badly.
At the very least that meant that if they didn’t want the kind of reaction they are getting now, the name of the place should have sent an UNAMBIGUOUS message of hatred of terrorism. I have suggested many alternatives that any reasonably intelligent person could have thought of. instead they have even repulsed their fellow Muslims with their provocative behavior.
Jukey
> When a company is large, and therefore ownership is dispersed among many shareholders, the company can be controlled (or at least greatly influenced) by one shareholder who holds far less than 51%:
Doesn’t change my point that unless you talk about who owns what, saying he owns 7% doesn’t mean sh-t.
As for the issue of islam and race, you would gain a little credibility if you at least addressed this point:
> And it fails to explain the non-white Muslims who oppose the mosque. You know, like Miss USA, among many others
Its amazing how pro-GZM arguments are fact-immune, but the opponents are the ones who are accused of prejudice. It seems you guys have pre-judged the issue, that is judged it before you knew the facts, and by god, you are sticking to it.
August 24, 2010, 1:50 pmBleh says:
Seems like a lot of the moderate Muslims are probably seeing less and less of a reason to stand up for the good ole’ U.S. of A. when so many people (and so many political figures) are doing as much as they can to ostracize them. Especially when people like you continually acuse them of not speaking out, when in reality MANY have.
For a good discussion of moderate Islam see this interview: http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/great-theft (Please see the discussion on whether or not moderate Muslims are getting enough support from the West — do you think the situation has improved since the time of the interview in 2005?)
August 24, 2010, 1:55 pmGuest14 says:
I think it would be a good idea for some of the people commenting here to visit lower Manhattan. It’s quite crowded, busy, and bustling, and most of what goes on down here has pretty much nothing to do with the WTC.
August 24, 2010, 2:01 pmLN says:
The purpose of a mosque is not to spread the faith, it’s to
conquer America and impose sharia law on our once-proud countryprovide a place for Muslims to gather and pray. This is not the aggressive action that you’re making it out to be.Very clever, but this is still a pretty massive analogy fail.
August 24, 2010, 2:05 pm1. A mosque is not merely a symbol, but an actual building that is used by actual people. A swastika is just a symbol.
2. Downtown Manhattan is not merely a quiet memorial to a site of a famous atrocity, but rather an extremely busy, crowded area in which millions of people work and live.
ptt says:
You haven’t, I guess, heard of service dogs for the blind and disabled.
August 24, 2010, 2:05 pmMarcus says:
AW, there is nothing historical about the Burlington Coat Factory, except that it is old. If the government tries to block the sale of the proposed Park51 site for use as a community center by having the site named historic, they will lose.
Swastikas are Hindu in origin. Hinduism and Buddhism are not the same belief system. Regardless, it is unlikely that should anyone construct a temple to either religion they would decorate the temple with swastikas. And, nobody is proposing pictures of the 19 Saudis to adorn Park51.
Al-waleed owns the second largest interest in NewsCorp at 7% of the stock. The second largest. This gives Al-waleed a fair amount of authority within the coporation. Not the final say, but in large companies, it is a significant holding.
August 24, 2010, 2:09 pmTed says:
Uh, I thought “ill-informed, often internally illogical, nonsense” was the definition of Gospel. Or maybe that’s what you’re getting at…
August 24, 2010, 2:12 pmTamerlane says:
And I — with my less limited vision — see at least one other: How about mosque = one of a set of buildings the vast majority of which are used as fora for spewing hatred against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims on Fridays in particular but also every other day of the week. And if you disagree with this definition, I’d suggest that you sample a variety of imams’ “sermons” in various parts of the world. If you live in North Virginia you won’t have to go far. The venomous nonsense they come up with has to be heard to be believed. The worst that Ian Paisley could come up with pales by comparison.
August 24, 2010, 2:12 pmMarcus says:
“Less limited vision” is the understatement of the day. You can see things that don’t even exist!
August 24, 2010, 2:15 pmShelbyC says:
Well, sloppyness can be as well :-). Doesn’t change my point tho.
August 24, 2010, 2:17 pmL says:
No, it’s pretty common.
August 24, 2010, 2:22 pmA.W. says:
LN
> The purpose of a mosque is not to spread the faith,
First, I tend to assume most faiths want to spread. And in ordinary fashion that is okay. But whether a mosque is a method of spreading islam, or merely a sign of it, it’s the same problem.
> This is not the aggressive action that you’re making it out to be.
So why the name “cordoba house” when they had literally thousands of better options?
> A mosque is not merely a symbol, but an actual building that is used by actual people. A swastika is just a symbol.
Except the location of it was intended to be symbolic, i.e. where debris from the WTC fell. They have been explicit about this from the start.
> Downtown Manhattan is not merely
And?
Marcus
> AW, there is nothing historical about the Burlington Coat Factory, except that it is old
Debris from the WTC fell there. it’s a historic site. or are you going to claim the WTC cannot be validly considered a historic site?
> Regardless, it is unlikely that should anyone construct a temple to either religion they would decorate the temple with swastikas.
It happens all the time over in India. There have been more than a few reports of American jews and others having a giant, “WTF” moment before someone explained it to them.
> The second largest.
And if the first largest is 51% of the stock… your story is simply incomplete and more than a little silly. Of all the networks, which is the one most often accused of islamaphobia? The notion that Fox is carrying water for radical islam is more than a little laughable.
August 24, 2010, 2:26 pmMarcus says:
I stand corrected. By L, that is.
August 24, 2010, 2:29 pmGuest14 says:
I’m sitting right now in a building that was damaged by WTC debris. I don’t consider my actions to have any special symbolism while I’m here.
August 24, 2010, 2:29 pmpc says:
Do you have some final solution to suggest for this Muslim problem?
August 24, 2010, 2:32 pmDebrah says:
So typical of cheap Leftist dialogue……from the “juke box” dive.
Not to worry.
I don’t ride on rusty scooters.
August 24, 2010, 2:34 pmRicardo says:
Your argument is irrelevant because you don’t appear to understand the concept of the free exercise clause. For nine years, the relevant plot of land has sat abandoned. None of the plans for the Ground Zero area gave any thought to the Burlington Coat Factory site at all. The government would have a burden under the First Amendment to say, “Yes, we waited nine years to condemn this plot of land until this whole Ground Zero Mosque controversy took off but we assure you our actions totally had nothing to do with the fact that the someone wanted to build a mosque there.” Such an argument would be laughed out of court considering the abundance of evidence to the contrary on the public record.
No, your argument depends on the idea that Muslim fanatics essentially own the symbolism of Islam in the same way the Nazis own the swastika in western countries and that Muslims who have nothing to do with Osama bin Laden are under a special obligation to dissociate themselves from these symbols. That and the absurd comparison between a swastika at Auschwitz and a mosque in Lower Manhattan is bigotry.
A less inflammatory comparison would be the construction of a Catholic Church in London near the site of an IRA bombing. And, yes, comparing a Catholic Church to a swastika in this context would also be bigotry.
August 24, 2010, 2:36 pmA.W. says:
Guest,
> I’m sitting right now in a building that was damaged by WTC debris. I don’t consider my actions to have any special symbolism while I’m here.
Well, that is not the standard under the Federal Historic Sites Act.
You may not being doing anything of symbolic interest, but the question is whether this is a site of historic importance or not. I would say the answer is an obvious yes.
August 24, 2010, 2:38 pmGreg says:
The proposed mosque is not a religious structure, rather a government building, to whit, Islam is a government. A government dedicated to the overthrow of the United States. Seems thatthis here eminent domain, et al don’t apply here.
August 24, 2010, 2:38 pmMarcus says:
No, AW, I am going to claim that the proposed project site is not the WTC. And I am going to be correct. So, anyplace in which debris fell is now an historic site? Will we declare every home formerly occupied by a passenger on Flight 93, and each other airline, to also be historic? Or are you simply being obtuse?
As for coporate shares, you clearly do not wish to understand the matter, so let’s stop here.
And actually, yes, i am saying FOX is carrying water for radical Islam. Every report on this matter and any other pertaining to Islam plays right into the hands of radicals and extremists. Every time they hammer the wedge in , they create new and improved conditions for recruitment to Al Qaeda’s side. As for Al-waleed, nobody is saying he controls NewsCorp. Except when pointing out the stories in which he personally admitted to affecting FOX coverage. What people are noting is that as FOX&Friends continue to “follow the money” pertaining to a man, Al-waleed, who allegedly sponsors extremist madrassas around the world, they should be less shy about noting that he holds the second largest amount of stock in the very company that pays their salaries. And if everyone Al-waleed has given money is now a suspected terrorist, what other conlusion can we draw from Al-waleed being the second largest shareholder of NewsCorp? See? I can be obtuse, too.
August 24, 2010, 2:41 pm1040 says:
if it is associated with reconquista, shouldn’t the christians actually like the name?
August 24, 2010, 2:42 pmMarcus says:
You win. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out what.
August 24, 2010, 2:44 pmLN says:
First, I tend to assume most faiths want to spread. And in ordinary fashion that is okay. But whether a mosque is a method of spreading islam, or merely a sign of it, it’s the same problem.
So in other words, after 9/11 all Muslims in NYC with any decency would begun to hide any public traces of their religion. And since 9/11 was an attack on America, this would actually apply to all Muslims in the country. Because, you know, their religion is like a swastika. Interesting.
So why the name “cordoba house” when they had literally thousands of better options?
They’ve changed the name… wait, that doesn’t have any impact on your thinking about it? Remarkable!
Except the location of it was intended to be symbolic, i.e. where debris from the WTC fell. They have been explicit about this from the start.
See that’s funny. If I were a moderate Muslim building a mosque near the WTC site, I would think that there may be some positive symbolism there. You know, it’s the site where terrorists killed a lot of people, but it’s also NYC, the home of millions of people from all countries races and religions, and we can shrug it off and build something that helps define Islam as something other than a terrorist ideology. Nope! Clearly this is just a sinister plot to conquer our country. They’re probably going to shoot rockets at the new WTC once that opens.
I also wrote:
Downtown Manhattan is not merely a quiet memorial to a site of a famous atrocity, but rather an extremely busy, crowded area in which millions of people work and live.
My point was that putting a mosque/community center in such a busy, crowded place should not be a big deal. To put it another way, would you be offended if people suddenly started doing all this construction and started building giant office buildings at Auschwitz? Would that be disrespecful to the victims of the death camps?
August 24, 2010, 2:50 pmRicardo says:
You are better off being specific and noting that debris from the plane fell on that site. A large swath of lower Manhattan was covered by debris from the collapse of the towers on that day. The raging inferno and dust cloud that that horrific attack kicked up was so huge I could clearly see it on the horizon 30 miles away in New Jersey that morning.
To selectively condemn a single plot of land that just so happens to be planned for a mosque is a pretty clear First Amendment no-no, but your re-framing of the issue in terms of “debris from the WTC” makes it even clearer. Out of hundreds of plots of land that were covered by debris, the odds are extremely slim that the government would just happen to condemn the plot of land with the most controversial construction project. It would be like a 95% WASP community all of the sudden deciding that the site for a planned synagogue had enormous architectural and historical value. Whether the government is authorized by statute to halt the construction or not, it may not do so if it is clear the government’s intent is to interfere with the practice of a certain religious institution or congregation.
August 24, 2010, 2:53 pmA.W. says:
Marcus
> No, AW, I am going to claim that the proposed project site is not the WTC. And I am going to be correct.
Yes, it is not the WTC. But it is part of ground zero. Indeed, it was chosen in particular because of its relation to the attacks. They wanted to send a message about them. that much is admitted by the planners. They claim peace and love, but given the name cordoba, I am skeptical.
> As for coporate shares, you clearly do not wish to understand the matter, so let’s stop here.
Yes, let’s not bother to talk about actual voting percentages, which is what actually matters in the discussion.
> Every report on this matter and any other pertaining to Islam plays right into the hands of radicals and extremists.
Lol, it’s a conspiracy! A conspiracy! But then square the circle. If that is the case and he is associated with the mosque—giving directly to it—then it is, just as I alleged INTENDED to alienate people rather than bridge the gaps. By your paranoid logic, both the building of the mosque and the reporting on it are two sides of the same coin.
> Every time they hammer the wedge in , they create new and improved conditions for recruitment to Al Qaeda’s side.
Nothing encourages the terrorists like looking weak. Guess who is causing that to happen?
> As for Al-waleed, nobody is saying he controls NewsCorp.
Nah, he just controls it a little. But in fact being in control is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t.
> And if everyone Al-waleed has given money is now a suspected terrorist, what other conlusion can we draw from Al-waleed being the second largest shareholder of NewsCorp?
Except you haven’t established that buying the shares put money into newscorp’s treasury. Most of the time a company has no profit in the sale of its stock, except in the IPO.
> See? I can be obtuse
You said it.
1040
Odd nick, by the way. just curious what you mean by it.
> if it is associated with reconquista, shouldn’t the christians actually like the name?
Yes associating it with manufactured Islamic grievance. How charming.
August 24, 2010, 2:56 pmJozxyqk says:
I think this is a very apt analogy.
August 24, 2010, 3:00 pmBleh says:
Woah. You sir, just blew my mind.
August 24, 2010, 3:03 pmGuest14 says:
Cite?
August 24, 2010, 3:04 pmTamerlane says:
Marcus:
I lived in Alexandria VA doing consulting on terrorism issues just after 9/11. I used to surf the “community service” channels on cable TV at odd hours. There was a large Muslim presence. The vile crap that some of these people were allowed to broadcast was unbelievable. By comparison Der Stuermer might have been a Hillel weekly and Lyndon LaRouche a model of sanity. From curiosity I checked out some more radical mosques and found the same sort of nonsense. And this was within spitting distance of the Capitol and within a year of 9/11. I have been informed by friends who’ve done similar informal research in other times and places that what I observed is not atypical. So not only does what i described exist, but I’ve seen it first hand.
August 24, 2010, 3:09 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
I am not willing to read 300 comments to see if this has been raised, but it seems like a pretty pertinent question to the anti-mosque crowd: How close is too close? Is “moral outrage”, like gravity, a force that varies inversely with the square of the distance, or….what?
August 24, 2010, 3:13 pmTamerlane says:
Except that membership in the IRA is a mortal sin and grounds for ex-communication from the Catholic Church. When the senior imams in Saudi Arabia and mullahs in Iran issue fatwahs against all Islamic terrorists then perhaps there will be some bite to the analogy.
And do I detect some of the usual, spastic, left-wing anti-Catholicism here.
August 24, 2010, 3:15 pmRicardo says:
The people screaming like a bunch of little girls at the prospect of a mosque in Lower Manhattan. Strong, confident people don’t care very much what others think about them. They don’t worry about sinister, closed-door meetings where their enemies supposedly cackle at fantasies of imminent victory. A strong country is too busy achieving victory in the real world to care about what some barbaric riffraff fantasize about.
August 24, 2010, 3:18 pmpc says:
Hate behaves more like a constant than an inverse square.
August 24, 2010, 3:28 pmKen Arromdee says:
That reasoning creates a catch-22. Either they support radical Islam, or else they oppose radical Islam, which means they support it anyway.
And by your reasoning, every time Obama does something bad for the economy that means he’s being controlled by Republicans who want him to mess up so that it makes Republicans look better.
August 24, 2010, 3:28 pmpc says:
Prince Alwaleed heads a board of directors meeting attended by News Corporation executives. Heh.
August 24, 2010, 3:34 pmRicardo says:
Rauf has declared that the taking of innocent human life is a serious crime and I don’t see him welcoming a proven murderer into his community. If you have information that he considers either the nineteen hijackers or any other terrorist to be Muslims in good standing, please share.
Nonsense. Rauf is an American. He is neither Saudi nor Iranian nor is he even Shia or Sunni.
Here is what I wrote, “A less inflammatory comparison would be the construction of a Catholic Church in London near the site of an IRA bombing. And, yes, comparing a Catholic Church to a swastika in this context would also be bigotry.”
I’m going to imagine you are arguing in good faith and did not see the second sentence quoted or the wider context in which I made it.
Even so, I do see spastic anti-Islam sentiment here quite comparable to old-school anti-Catholic bigotry. You automatically jump to the erroneous conclusion that a Muslim cleric in the U.S. is somehow comparable to an agent of a foreign state simply by virtue of being Muslim. You furthermore assume that his integrity can be impugned by people who do not even share a religious denomination with him and might not even consider him a real Muslim.
August 24, 2010, 3:38 pmA.W. says:
Ricardo
> You are better off being specific and noting that debris from the plane fell on that site.
Well, yeah, I wouldn’t consider everywhere that cloud of dust went to count.
> To selectively condemn a single plot of land that just so happens to be planned for a mosque is a pretty clear First Amendment no-no
Except the selection is driven by the statute, which you haven’t bothered to look at, apparently.
> Whether the government is authorized by statute to halt the construction or not, it may not do so if it is clear the government’s intent is to interfere with the practice of a certain religious institution or congregation.
The intent of the whole statute is to stop all other competing speech and conduct at the site. They chose the site because of its location, and they wanted to be given exclusive dominion over what is said there even before they own all of it. its one thing to say a person can build what they want on their land, but to say they have a right to build what they want on land they don’t even own yet, because they INTEND to own it? Give me a break.
> The people screaming like a bunch of little girls at the prospect of a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
Thanks for the laugh.
> They don’t worry about sinister, closed-door meetings where their enemies supposedly cackle at fantasies of imminent victory. A strong country is too busy achieving victory in the real world to care about what some barbaric riffraff fantasize about.
Wow, talk about 9/10 type thinking. I mean on 9-11 the barbaric riffraff turned their fantasies into nightmare.
Look if you are that brave, then just jump off a building. I mean brave people don’t worry about breaking their backs, right? The rest of us will address real dangers to us.
LN
> So in other words, after 9/11 all Muslims in NYC with any decency would begun to hide any public traces of their religion
There you go, murdering an innocent straw man.
> They’ve changed the name…
Yeah, only after we noticed what it meant.
> If I were a moderate Muslim building a mosque near the WTC site, I would think that there may be some positive symbolism there.
Agreed. And in that case, I would name the mosque after something that gave it a distinct ANTI-TERRORISM edge. You know, like naming it after a muslim killed BY terrorists. Something like that. not naming it for a mosque that once stood on ground that bin Laden claims belongs to islam and has demanded it be returned to them (including all of Spain, by the way). The nicest thing you can say about Cordoba house is that the message is ambiguous. If you are going to build something at ground zero, it should not be ambiguous. Not if you intend to bring about healing.
> Nope! Clearly this is just a sinister plot to conquer our country. They’re probably going to shoot rockets at the new WTC once that opens.
Or just make a victory mosque that gives aid and comfort to our enemy. I mean there is that. and in truth even if they in fact have the best possible intentions, and they are just idiots who keep saying and doing things that offend us, the founders of this mosque will be giving that aid and comfort, whether they intend to do so or not.
> To put it another way, would you be offended if people suddenly started doing all this construction and started building giant office buildings at Auschwitz? Would that be disrespecful to the victims of the death camps?
I guess proximity would matter to me. And you know what did offend jews there? Building a convent. So Pope John Paul II said, paraphrase, “I know you guys didn’t mean any harm building it. but you have offended these people. so let’s move the convent.” I think maybe those jews were a little too touchy, but I also think the pope did the right thing. And I am a presbyterrian—I have no dog in that hunt.
And you know what also would offend me at Auschwitz? A german cultural center called “Warsaw House.”
Guest
Here’s a cite. Mind you follow the links and all that good stuff. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/19/ap-to-reporters-no-more-references-to-ground-zero-mosque/
PC
until and unless you can explain why muslims are among those opposed to the mosque, your comments have no salience. indeed, they represent prejudice against your fellow americans, because you are prejudging the matter.
August 24, 2010, 3:38 pmMarcus says:
Tamerlane, have you ever read the comments section at WorldNetDaily or FOXNation? What about Fred Phelps and his ilk? StormWatch? There are vile lunatics everywhere. Our homegrown crew are every bit as dangerous as anything The Others might say or do. And our local nuts are a much bigger threat to the foundations of this country. I say this because it will be a helluva lot simpler, sadly, for our local nuts to convert people to their beliefs than it will ever be for radical Islamists to convert Americans to their beliefs.
August 24, 2010, 3:43 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Maybe the anti-mosque contingent can have a car wash (or a bake sale) to raise money to buy the property from the mosque-builders.
August 24, 2010, 3:44 pmSarcastro says:
How can we have freedom of speech when people are using it wrong?
Wow, your friends seem a font of information. Yep, your kick-ass anonymously sourced anecdotal evidence is proof that the vast majority of Muslims are just jihadis waiting to explode.
August 24, 2010, 3:47 pmA.W. says:
Ricardo
> Your argument is irrelevant because
You don’t even know what it is. How can you judge its relevancy?
> “Yes, we waited nine years to condemn this plot of land until this whole Ground Zero Mosque controversy took off but we assure you our actions totally had nothing to do with the fact that the someone wanted to build a mosque there.
Often under the act the Federal Government lets the state do its thing until they appear likely to be about to f— it up. Which is the way I prefer my Federal Government to act—to act least.
> No, your argument depends on the idea that Muslim fanatics essentially own the symbolism
Nope, but you did kill that ther strawman dem good.
> in the same way the Nazis own the swastika
I don’t think the Nazis own the swastika. But they are clearly associated with it. They killed and died under its banner.
And the terrorists killed and died to spread islam. So a visible symbol of that spread at the site would tend to encourage those who are working to spread islam by violence.
> under a special obligation to dissociate themselves from these symbols
… at the site when people murder 3,000 people to spread islam? Um, yes. If they want to build bridges and all that. Again they should have at least picked a name that was clearly anti-terrorism, rather than one that invoked one of Osama’s grievances.
> is bigotry.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, the bigotry card is maxed out. It appears the left has used it one too many times.
> A less inflammatory comparison would be the construction of a Catholic Church in London near the site of an IRA bombing.
With the problem in that analogy that you make the common mistake of interpreting an ethnic squabble as a religious one. Mind you, you have a whole media to confuse you, but there you go.
August 24, 2010, 3:51 pmRicardo says:
Um, no, this is pretty normal in the world of real estate contracts. Last time I checked, many retailers (especially in Manhattan, of all places) did not own the land their stores sit on. Do you think you can pitch a tent in the parking lot of your local Walmart running on leased land and not explain yourself to the management? Give me a break. A lessee — to say nothing of a partial owner — can and does exercise exclusive dominion over what is said on a particular piece of land if a contract allows them to exercise that dominion.
None of this is relevant to the First Amendment issue which you simply don’t appear to understand at all. A statute cannot trump the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The government’s selective condemnation of one plot of land and not other comparable plots based on the proposed religious use of the condemned plot violates the free exercise clause. If you don’t understand that point, you don’t understand anything at all.
August 24, 2010, 3:54 pm1040 says:
tamerlane, if i were you, i wouldn’t argue for something so self damaging as limiting freedom of speech for a-holes.
August 24, 2010, 4:00 pm1040 says:
ahem. the islamists didn’t make up the concept of reconquista.
August 24, 2010, 4:02 pmA.W. says:
Ricardo
> Um, no, this is pretty normal in the world of real estate contracts
They have a lease. The act requires ownership. if you even cared what my argument was, you would have noticed that and stopped making that absurd comment about the greek orthodox church. The Con Ed people don’t have to sell to them and might ultimately be convinced not to. Which I admit might be the smartest solution.
> Last time I checked, many retailers (especially in Manhattan, of all places) did not own the land their stores sit on.
And that makes them vulnerable under the act.
> Do you think you can pitch a tent in the parking lot of your local Walmart running on leased land and not explain yourself to the management?
Do you think Walmart even has standing to challenge the condemnation of land they don’t own?
> None of this is relevant to the First Amendment issue which you simply don’t appear to understand at all. A statute cannot trump the First Amendment.
Its not. It is giving the government the right to say “not here. This belongs to us. Git.” Its called a time, place or manner restriction. Look it up.
August 24, 2010, 4:02 pmLN says:
So a visible symbol of that spread at the site would tend to encourage those who are working to spread islam by violence.
Step outside your own little mind for a minute. There were Muslims who lived and worked in NYC before 9/11. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there were actually fewer Muslims than there were before, because a number of Muslims were killed in the attack.
The only “spread” of Islam going on here is in your own mind. You were ignorant of Muslims in Manhattan, and then you were aware of them, so now you’re very worried about the “spread.” I’m sorry to break this to you but Muslims are actual people, they’re not just figments of your imagination. What are you, like 3 years old?
August 24, 2010, 4:06 pmDebrah says:
A nice bouquet for the peaceful.
Three Things About Islam
August 24, 2010, 4:10 pmA.W. says:
1040
> ahem. the islamists didn’t make up the concept of reconquista.
Nope, they just falsely pretend that kicking the moors out of a country they conquered is a grievance against them, centuries after the fact.
LN
> Step outside your own little mind for a minute
Why don’t you for once in your life? I mean just read the bin Laden confession. Or watch the video. From that right wing outlet, cnn:
> Reveling in the details of the fatal attacks, bin Laden brags in Arabic that he knew about them beforehand and says the destruction went beyond his hopes. He says the attacks “benefited Islam greatly.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/
So would a mosque at ground zero tend to confirm that belief, or not?
And yes, a lot of good Muslims died on 9-11, presumably working in the building, working in emergency services, even just being passengers on the planes that struck the buildings.
So why didn’t they name the project after one of them? Why name it instead Cardoba House?
None of you have even begun to answer that question.
August 24, 2010, 4:17 pmRicardo says:
Your argument is that the federal government can purchase or seize the plot of land on which Park51 is proposed to be built and impose restrictions in line with the Historic Sites Act. I don’t deny that the government has the general power to do such a thing. The government cannot, however, selectively condemn a particular plot of land when there is clear evidence that the intent in doing so was to prevent a certain religious group from setting up a place of worship there — as demonstrated by its failure to condemn equally suitable plots of land intended for other purposes and by a documentary record clearly demonstrating its intent. That violates the free exercise clause. I don’t know how much more clearly I can spell that out.
August 24, 2010, 4:20 pm1040 says:
so you, who believe that we are at war with all muslims, that a mosque is a victory flag, that these muslims can be equated to nazis, would have been happy if they had singled out one of the muslim victims of 9/11 to commemorate this project. would you also sell me a bridge in brooklyn to help me get to that mosque you’d support?
August 24, 2010, 4:21 pmRicardo says:
“Stop making”? As far as I can tell, I only made that argument once and will happily concede you are right that the federal government cannot condemn the Greek Orthodox church’s land pursuant to this particular act. The federal government may well have another pretext, though, and state and local governments certainly do. The power of eminent domain can and is used by governments against church-owned property — see Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton, for instance.
But my central argument has been completely unanswered by you for the simple reason that you cannot answer it with even a single citation. Government may not use statutory law as a pretext with the specific intent to interfere with the construction of a certain house of worship because it doesn’t like the religion represented. Full stop.
August 24, 2010, 4:34 pmA.W. says:
Ah, more bridge building from the Ground Zero Imam. Memri explains that, surprise surprise, he says different things in different languages:
> Imam Faisal ‘Abd Al-Rauf’s book What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West was published in Indonesian in 2007 with a different title – Seruan Azan Dari Puing WTC: Dakwah Islam di Jantung Amerika Pasca 9/11(“The Call of Azan from the Rubble of the World Trade Center: Islamic Da’wa in the Heart of America Post-9/11″).
The azan is the muezzin’s call to prayer. It consists of a number of sentences repeated several times: “Allahu Akbar,” the Shahada (la ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasoul Allah – “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger”) and the phrase “Gather for prayer.” It is noteworthy that, in the period of Muslim conquests in the first centuries of Islam, this call was made from newly conquered sites.
Oh, and dawa refers to proselytizing Islam. http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/29598.htm
Oh, and chris hitchens has the founder supporting the mullocracy in Iran. http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/
Hey, let’s have him build a mosque!
August 24, 2010, 4:36 pmLN says:
So would a mosque at ground zero tend to confirm that belief, or not?
A new mosque anywhere would tend to confirm that belief, no? Seriously, what is the connection between this group’s ability to build a mosque and 9/11? Are you seriously arguing that before 9/11 “real Americans” would have had an easy time stopping this mosque from being built, but after some terrorists took down the WTC we no longer have the strength to defend ourselves from the invading Muslim hordes?
I don’t understand why you think we should reflexively oppose everything Islamic just because bin Laden claims to be for Islam. (Before you call that a strawman, you may want to look at the logical structure of what you just wrote.)
So why didn’t they name the project after one of them? Why name it instead Cardoba House? None of you have even begun to answer that question.
Yes, it’s becoming more and more apparent I’m having an internet discussion with the homeless guy in the parking lot.
August 24, 2010, 4:37 pmA.W. says:
Ricardo
> The government cannot, however, selectively condemn a particular plot of land when there is clear evidence that the intent in doing so was to prevent a certain religious group from setting up a place of worship there — as demonstrated by its failure to condemn equally suitable plots of land intended for other purposes and by a documentary record clearly demonstrating its intent. That violates the free exercise clause. I don’t know how much more clearly I can spell that out.
Nope, you don’t have a right to free speech or exercise on land 1) you don’t own, that 2) is on a historical site.
> “Stop making”? As far as I can tell, I only made that argument once and will happily concede you are right that the federal government cannot condemn the Greek Orthodox church’s landpursuant to this particular act.
Then what on earth are you going on about selectivity. And by the way who says they have to be selective? Indeed again, if you read what I actually said in the first place, I suggested having them take over.
> Government may not use statutory law as a pretext with the specific intent to interfere with the construction of a certain house of worship because it doesn’t like the religion represented.
They can say, “hey, we are in charge of what messages are presented HERE.” That is the entire idea of the act. time, place, manner. I will keep repeating it until you get it.
So basically you didn’t bother to read my argument in the first place, and you don’t even answer my obvious retorts. Why do you bother?
1040
> so you, who believe that we are at war with all Muslims
Right we are all bigots. including the first muslim Miss USA, right?
I know, I know, you will pretend I didn’t even say it.
August 24, 2010, 4:42 pmBleh says:
So you specifically sought out radical mosques? Confirmation bias much?
August 24, 2010, 4:43 pmSteve P. says:
Reading this comment thread, it really does feel that way.
August 24, 2010, 4:48 pmLN says:
I don’t think Miss USA would argue that the Cordoba Institute is attempting to advance the causes of Osama bin Laden, AW. I’m also not sure if she’d appreciate being used as a human shield because you are afraid of laying out all of the logical consequences of your arguments (really, 4 times in this thread already!) Anyway, how do you know she’s not the most successful sleeper agent of them all?
August 24, 2010, 4:50 pm1040 says:
when i say you are a bigot, it doesn’t mean everybody is a bigot. just because you believe in collective blame doesn’t mean the rest of us do. the views i attributed to you are purely from your comments on this thread.
seems like tamerlane is a real threat to america!
August 24, 2010, 4:56 pmJL Novak says:
Riddle me this: If the government determined that public ownership or public use of the Park 51 site (either of which would satisfy the Public Use Clause) was better land use policy than allowing a controversial use of the site, would that taking satisfy the Necessary and Proper Clause? And, if so, what exactly would the First Amendment objection be?
August 24, 2010, 4:56 pmRicardo says:
The land is not currently a historic site. In order for the land to be a historic site, the U.S. government must take ownership of it. The U.S. government can try to do so but would almost certainly be sued. In court, the government would have to demonstrate that their taking was not discriminatory and (possibly, under current case law) served a compelling interest under RLUIPA. The government cannot do either unless it also condemns other similarly situated plots of land. Otherwise, there is literally no case.
Because you said, “I do not see the law requiring an all or nothing approach.” And you are wrong. The government must come up with a generally applicable rule for which properties to condemn and must follow it across the board without discrimination.
If you want the government to turn the entire area within a two block radius of Ground Zero into a memorial park, fine. I’m interested in discussing policies that actually have a chance of being enacted in the real world. Up until a few months ago, I would have assumed that no government would be stupid enough to try to halt the construction of this building on a statutory pretext of some kind but I find I can no longer make that assumption. But the idea that tomorrow the government will decide to tear down 30 stories of steel superstructure on Ground Zero to build a memorial instead is not a possibility worth considering.
August 24, 2010, 5:02 pmTed says:
Is this the crux of your complaints? If the GZM was named the Cordero House instead, would you be ok with it? Doesn’t it seem just a bit silly to gripe, complain, and get all worked up over the name chosen for a building?
Also, are you or are you not advocating for the government to actively prohibit construction of the GZM? I mean, do you want to see the government stop construction of the GZM by force of law, or are you just expressing an opinion about what you think is appropriate and respectful, but not making any claim regarding government or legal involvement?
August 24, 2010, 5:05 pm1040 says:
A.W – Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?
August 24, 2010, 5:07 pmM.A.H. says:
I look forward to spending time at the sacred ground of the WTC; working in one of the office buildings being built, shopping in the 500,000 square feet of retail space during lunch, and ending my day at the strip club across the street.
I comfort myself secure in the knowledge that no Muslims will work in any of the offices and if per chance they do they shall never pray there.
Finally I am starting a committee to map the areas that had debris or dust from the from the collapse fell upon it. So far I have found that area is most of Manhattan south of 14th street and western Brooklyn. Please join me in lobbing for a monument to be built that will encompass these sacred grounds completely.
/sarcasm
August 24, 2010, 5:07 pmGuy says:
Further proof that debating this issue with opponents of the mosque is the most productive and rational endeavor ever. Moving on…
August 24, 2010, 5:22 pmA.W. says:
1040
> just because you believe in collective blame
Except I don’t.
Ricardo
> The land is not currently a historic site.
Its not a legally designated one, yes, but it is in fact a historic site.
> In order for the land to be a historic site, the U.S. government must take ownership of it. The U.S. government can try to do so but would almost certainly be sued.
We are sued a lot.
> In court, the government would have to demonstrate that their taking was not discriminatory
Easy. We only stopped where someone wanted to make a statement. Because we wanted only our statements there, or nothing.
And again, they can take everything. You keep missing that point.
> and (possibly, under current case law) served a compelling interest
Not at all.
> The government must come up with a generally applicable rule for which properties to condemn and must follow it across the board without discrimination.
No, the government has ever right to be selective in where it builds its monuments and preserves history.
> I’m interested in discussing policies that actually have a chance of being enacted in the real world.
Ah, well, then f— this whole discussion. It depends on Obama doing something about it. Which if you really read my argument in the first place, was kind of the point of the argument.
> But the idea that tomorrow the government will decide to tear down 30 stories of steel superstructure on Ground Zero to build a memorial instead is not a possibility worth considering.
Nor is it required by the law. Turning the place into a historical site doesn’t mean that they can’t still develop it. Sheesh, open your mind a little.
Ted
> Is this the crux of your complaints?
It’s the evidence of bad intent on the GZM’s founders.
> Also, are you
Scroll up.
1040
> Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?
Our crappy socialist education system.
August 24, 2010, 5:22 pmRicardo says:
This is not even a coherent sentence, let alone a cogent argument. Who is “we”? What is being “stopped”? What “statement” are you referring to? What are “our statements”? Try again.
No, I specifically addressed it. As per Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, government cannot enact a policy that specifically targets religious practice. The federal government can take everything but it is not going to.
See Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency and Gonzales v. UDV. Are you going to provide any actual facts or are you just going to continue to argue by assertion?
That selectivity cannot include specifying sites predominantly because of their planned use by certain religious groups which is what you clearly propose to do.
August 24, 2010, 5:49 pmjosh says:
Wow. This subject really brings out the crazy.
August 24, 2010, 6:34 pmThe River Temoc says:
The organization responsible for the community center is called the Cordoba Initiative. They have since changed the name to the more neutral Park51.
Cordoba. Lejana y sola.
August 24, 2010, 6:56 pmJaca negra, luna blaca
Y racistas in my alfombra
Aunque sepa los caminos
Nunca llegare a Cordoba.
Pandaemoni says:
I completely agree that the people opposed to the mosque have every right to argue against the building of the mosque/community center (“Park 51″). That said, if their goal is to persuade the builders of Park 51 not to build it, then very clearly the current general tone is ineffective. Surely the reasonable thing to do is to adopt a more conciliatory tone and discuss why the location of the facility so upsets them, then to discuss possible issues that could arise in relocating it. (Those issues include, needing to find a suitable alternative site in southern manhattan, abandoning the purchase option the builders have over half the site and the economic and contractual implications of that, etc.)
It seems likely to me that the reason they maintain the strident tone is that persuasion is not what they want. More likely, they want government actiun to preclude the building, so they can avoid making conciliations to those that they have concerns about. I would concede that some are so emotionally distraught that they may have no rational goal in mind.
I wonder whether the advocates of eminent domain might not pause when reminded that we would have to pay the Cordoba Initative the site’s “fair value” to condemn it. If their fears are justified, we’d be as good as handing money to terrorists. Worse, we would not stop them from building Park 51 somewhere, just in this one location.
It seems to me that I’d rather prefer it if terrorists spent their money buiding some costly building near Ground Zero, since that would make it a relatively bad place to plot anything. For the amount the site costs they could probably build five more rural madrasas/mosques. I am not sure if the value of the site merely as a costly signal to radicals could possibly be worth it. (And why isn’t the mosque in the Pentagon similarly a useful signal to radical jihadists?)
On the other hand, the opposition to the project seems like it could itself be used by radicals to show that the U.S. opposes Islam (true or not, the rhetoric being thrwn around makes that sound like a reasonable interpretation). The heated opposition to the mosque is likely a better recruiting tool for the radicals, at least over a short term, than Park 51 itself would be.
In general, I agree with the libertarian approach here. If enough people are opposed to using this location for this project, those people should band together and buy out the Cordoba Initiative’s interest in the land and its purchase option under its lease with ConEd. If people value *not* having Park 51 there more than the Cordoba Initative values placing it in that location, then they will be able to negotiate a price acceptable to all. (If the Cordoba Initative refuses to sell, then that suggests that they value this location more than their opponents value it being mosque-free, and the site goes to its higher valued use.) The market wins, no one feels cheated of their constitutional rights, property rights are vindicated, and–at least overtly–no one looks terribly biased against Muslims.
Edit: I should add that the more likely reason for the use of the name “Cordoba” is that Cordoba is often portrayed as having had a golden era of religious tolerance and interfaith understanding. Many historians dispute the historicity of that, but the impression remains and some still defend it. It seems more likely that is the reason for the use of the name than the conservative theories. A sly insult to Christians is not a good idea if those involved actually had evil intent.
August 24, 2010, 7:02 pmjukeboxgrad says:
The “same faith?” Really? You’re trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you are pointing out that ‘Islamofascism’ and ‘moderate Islam’ need to be distinguished from each other. This is how you give yourself permission to make a comparison to Nazism. You claim that you are only comparing the former, not the latter, to Nazism. But to the extent that you see the latter group as separate from the former, then it doesn’t make sense to say that they believe in the “same” faith. You might as well claim there should be no churches in this neighborhood, because that is a symbol of monotheism, and Islamofascism is a form of monotheism.
You’re being exceptionally obtuse. This is not rocket science. If I own 7% of a company, I automatically become part of small group of people with a great deal of control over that company. By definition. Why? Because if I own 7%, that means that the number of people with a similarly large portion can be no greater than 13 (93/7). This means I am one of (at most) 13 people in charge of the company. As a practical matter, the number is typically going to be much smaller than 13, because with a large company there are typically a large number of shares in the hands of a large number of owners, who each own a very small portion. So if I own 7% I’m probably not sharing control with 13 other people. I’m probably sharing control with 3 or 4 other people.
In the instance of Al-Waleed, it turns out that he is the second-largest shareholder in Fox (as a couple of people have mentioned), which means that the prince is approximately the second-most powerful person at Fox. Your claim that “7% doesn’t mean sh-t” is an example of extreme financial illiteracy. I already cited multiple sources explaining that “controlling interest often involves ownership of significantly less than 51% of a firm’s outstanding stock.”
The key word in that sentence is “if.” Do you know who owns 51% of Fox? Answer: no one. Murdoch owns 39.7%. The prince owns 7%, and no one else owns more than 2.3%. Which means, as I said, that the prince is more powerful than anyone else at Fox, aside from Murdoch himself. It also means that to the extent that the prince can form a coalition, on any particular issue, with other owners who control 32%, then this group can even overrule Murdoch himself.
Because Murdoch himself owns less than half, he cannot control the company without forming coalitions with other owners. And because the prince owns more than anyone else (aside from Murdoch himself), the first person Murdoch would solicit for support is the prince. Which means the prince has more power at Fox than anyone other than Murdoch.
What’s amazing is how ironic this statement is. I’ve cited multiple sources indicating that your financial illiteracy is financial illiteracy, but you’re still sticking with it.
What a joke. You’re the one repeatedly talking about “51%” without lifting a finger to find out that the number of people who own 51% of Fox is zero. So the one failing to look at “actual voting percentages” is you.
Another example of extreme financial illiteracy. It doesn’t matter that when the prince bought the shares he was not putting “money into newscorp’s treasury.” What matters is that he was buying the right to exercise control over the company by voting his shares.
By the way, when a company sells stock in an IPO, the money it gets is not called “profit.” This is more proof your financial illiteracy, but your other statements have already pegged the meter.
Some interesting facts about the prince, such as how many wives he has, are here and here. I’m sure it will warm your heart to know that he donated $27 million “to help relatives of Palestinian martyrs.” And to know that he said “the Netanyahu government does not want to have peace with the Palestinians … The terrorist acts and all these things are really side effects.” In other words, terrorism exists because Israel doesn’t want peace. Terrorism is Israel’s fault.
Like I said, nothing to see here. There’s really no problem with this person in a position to exercise so much influnce over Fox and the GOP.
They’re carrying water for people who worship money, and who profit from war. As I said, this group includes Murdoch, Saudi princes, and the GOP. And, as Marcus explained, this anti-Muslim hysteria is a recruiting bonanza for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Given that Saudi Arabia is a leading financier of terrorism, and given the prince’s own payments to “relatives of Palestinian martyrs,” it’s pretty amazing that you find it so hard to understand what’s going on.
August 24, 2010, 7:14 pmjukeboxgrad says:
What “point?” You have no “point.” The existence of blacks inside the GOP does not prove that there are no racists inside the GOP. Likewise, the existence of Muslims who oppose the mosque does nothing to immunize opponents of the mosque from charges of racism. No one is claiming that all opponents of the mosque are racists, but I think it’s clear enough that some are.
The convent was not just at Auschwitz. It took over a building that had been used “to store the poison gas used in the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria.” Which is a little bit different than desecrating the Burlington Coat Factory.
In many instances, probably because they are afraid. Similarly, there were Jews in Germany who thought they might be safer if they submerged their Judaism.
Rauf recognized the election in Iran, as did our pal Hamid Karzai. Presumably you have been posting night and day on how disgraceful it is that two American presidents have spent billions propping up someone who is “supporting the mullocracy in Iran.”
Except that the government (to avoid being discriminatory and unconstitutional) would have to say that about every building within two blocks of Ground Zero, and not just the former Burlington Coat Factory. Among other things, this would present a problem for “places like the New York Dolls and the Pussycat Lounge.” Ricardo has already explained this numerous times, but you are spectacularly obtuse.
August 24, 2010, 7:14 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You might find this helpful:
August 24, 2010, 7:15 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Did you write that line yourself or is it something else you plagiarized?
August 24, 2010, 7:15 pmA.W. says:
Ricardo
> This is not even a coherent sentence
Um, if you are having trouble with the language, your problem not mine.
> As per Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, government cannot enact a policy that specifically targets religious practice.
Actually the word is “law” not policy.
> See Cottonwood Christian Center
Oh my the best you can come up with is a district court decision from California. *Rolls eyes.*
> That selectivity cannot include specifying sites predominantly because of their planned use by certain religious groups which is what you clearly propose to do.
Again, you fail to understand that the whole concept of the historic sites act is to say that ultimately this kind of place belongs to us, and not them. Their stupidity that they stirred up this sh-tstorm w/o actually owning the land.
August 24, 2010, 7:17 pm1040 says:
honestly, while i don’t like this accommodation, it seems of a piece with policy that allows pharmacists not to dispense birth control or plan b (although i personally find the latter more pernicious in regions where women don’t have easy access to pharmacies).
August 24, 2010, 7:39 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You fail to understand that the Historic Sites Act does not supercede the constitution, and it would be unconstitutional for the government to take this site to prevent it from being used for a religious purpose.
I wonder who you think is “us” and who you think is “them.” Because the American Muslims who want to build the cultural center are just as American as the Americans who oppose it.
And by “this kind of place,” do you also mean the local strip-joints that are just as close to Ground Zero? Are you proposing that the government take them over? Just wondering.
August 24, 2010, 8:09 pmA.W. says:
jukey
> You’re trying to have it both ways.
Nope. I can say that Presbyterrianism is not Catholicism, but they are both Christianity.
But its hilarious to watch you try to convince yourself I am a bigot.
> If I own 7% of a company, I automatically become part of small group of people with a great deal of control over that company.
Not if someone else or a group of allies owns 51%. Then you exercise zero control. Duh.
> Do you know who owns 51% of Fox? Answer: no one.
Mmm, yeah and first, nbc, even cnbc is not reliable.
> Murdoch owns 39.7%
And what about the rest of the Murdoch family? And pretending he had no family, you would still have to convince the remaining 82% of remaining stockholders to go along with his islamofascist plans, if he was inclined to do so. no matter how you massage it, 7% is not really a big deal.
And that is assuming your facts are straight, which i doubt.
> You’re the one repeatedly talking about
…what actually matters. And you keep trying to pretend that 7% can run the company.
> It doesn’t matter that when the prince bought the shares he was not putting “money into newscorp’s treasury.”
It does when you claim that he is “funding” fox news.
> They’re carrying water for people who worship money, and who profit from war
Lol and now you go full metal conspiracy nut!
> What “point?” You have no “point.” The existence of blacks inside the GOP does not prove that there are no racists inside the GOP.
It does cast doubt on the claim that they are all racists. Duh.
> No one is claiming that all opponents of the mosque are racists
Since you have called me and others racists for MERELY opposing it, yes, you have claimed that all persons opposing it are racists.
Indeed, um, how do you know I am not a dark skinned Muslim? Oh please don’t tell me you are just assuming this is my real name.
> The convent was not just at Auschwitz.
Yeah, and this wasn’t just near ground zero.
> In many instances, probably because they are afraid. Similarly, there were Jews in Germany who thought they might be safer if they submerged their Judaism.
Riiight, there you go turning the paranoid up to 11.
> Rauf recognized the election in Iran
Yep islamofascist leanings.
> as did our pal Hamid Karzai
You know that is hilarious. You cite the mythical fear that Muslims supposedly have in America, that they are all going to be rounded up and shoved into ovens. But then you ignore the very real cause for concern Karzai had. Yeah, we had a US president who wouldn’t even stand up for the Iranians. Why would you expect Karzai to do? You expect him to make accommodation, because obviously we weren’t going to be there for him. These things don’t happen in a vacuum.
The problem isn’t that we are “propping him up.” The problem is our president is cutting his feet out from under him.
> Except that the government
Already answered.
> You might find this helpful:
Yeah, notice you still don’t demand their tolerance.
August 24, 2010, 8:25 pmLN says:
AW isn’t a bigot — he just thinks that Muslim-Americans aren’t real Americans (except for Miss USA). AW doesn’t believe in collective guilt — he just thinks that all Muslims have a responsibility to prove to him that they’re not radical terrorists. AW doesn’t support religious discrimination — he just thinks that any public sign of Islam supports Osama bin Laden and that Muslims should be more sensitive. AW doesn’t believe in socialism — he just thinks that decisions about land use are best made by “us” the people even if we don’t own the land or even live in the relevant state, and that the President of the United States has an obligation to personally intervene here.
August 24, 2010, 8:35 pmLN says:
7% is not really a big deal.
But you know what a big deal is? The fact that no one thought to name a mosque near Ground Zero after a Muslim who was murdered on 9/11. That’s a really big deal, and a major issue that proves that Muslims are bad and evil.
If some Muslim billionaire owned 7% of the New York Times, I’m pretty sure you’d find a way to think of that as a big deal.
August 24, 2010, 8:44 pmleo marvin says:
Speaking of “dodge,” did you plagiarize Hitchens? Because the evidence from Ricardo and jukeboxgrad looks pretty darn compelling. The way I see it, you have four choices:
1. Come up with something more convincing than the Maureen Dowd defense.
2. Own up to the plagiarism, and resign yourself to slowly, if ever, building your credibility from zero.
3. Keep stonewalling, and resign yourself to never being believed.
4. Admit defeat, abandon “Debrah,” and create a new ID.
All good choices, but I’d suggest #4 might buy you the most good-will, since we all enjoy trying to guess which new commenters are the banned or ignominious undead.
August 24, 2010, 8:52 pmMikeybackwards says:
Hey dumb f*ck – don’t you get that laws don’t trump the Constitution and/or the Amendments thereto?
Your refusal to consider this very cogent and foundational concept demonstrates that whatever failings those with whom you dispute may hold – they trump yours if only because they make note of this one fact.
August 24, 2010, 8:58 pmBarb says:
Cordoba was a Christian city defeated by Muslims, and as such, it is a poor choice for a name. Not a silly concern. I guess they think we are stupid in our multi-cultural la de da philosophy. It’s clearly one more destruction site cleared by Islamists–(a piece of the plane fell through this building) –and they are building as close to WTC as they can. It’s a symbol of their intentions and victory in the west –a handful of them brought down the two tallest buildings of great international significance –symbols of western materialism. A mosque there is a sign of hope that they will march on to victory eventually and be in charge of the world. O Happy Day! Is it coincidence that they have often built mosques on the sites or close to the sites of western buildings they have destroyed –or in the case of Jerusalem, on the sacred Jewish temple mount? I think not.
August 24, 2010, 9:28 pmShelbyC says:
1. Somebody wants to build a Mosque or whatever there.
2. It’s a free fargin’ country.
Ergo, they can build a Mosque there.
August 24, 2010, 9:32 pmBarb says:
Shelby, I don’t think you all have any idea of the nature of Islam or their goals –which do fuel the terrorists. World domination is their goal. For the glory of Allah. Now, Christians have world evangelization as a goal, but we believe that conversion has to be a matter of free will –not imposition by gov’t or law or terror –a matter of the heart.
I suggest you get books by the Caner brothers –two Muslims turned Christian who are both college profs in the states now. when they go anywhere to speak, there is no advance publicity –for fear of Muslim terrorists who would like to see them dead.
August 24, 2010, 9:45 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Your commitment to running away from facts you don’t like is quite impressive. You’ve been saying over and over that the Saudi prince owning 7% of Fox “doesn’t mean sh-t,” because supposedly someone else owns 51%. Meanwhile, of course, you never lifted a finger to find out if that was true, or to show evidence that it was true. So I showed you this page, which shows you are wrong. So does this prompt you to take responsibility for your ignorant error? Of course not. Instead, you say “cnbc is not reliable.” Even though they’re just reporting data that is provided to the SEC and to the public by News Corp. That’s why you can see the same data at various other places, like here. That site is dailyfinance.com, which is owned by AOL. Also “not reliable?” The data they’re using comes from forms that you can get directly from News Corp, here. Feel free to demonstrate that both CNBC and AOL are part of a great conspiracy to falsify this data.
Their ownership also has to be reported, and it’s summarized here. Two other Murdochs are listed, and the amounts they own are so small that they have a combined value of under $100,000, and they round to 0.00%. Let me put this in terms you can understand: their ownership “doesn’t mean sh-t.”
I know you have some strange idea about math, but where on Earth does the number 82% come from? Murdoch owns 39.7%, and the prince owns 7%, and a bunch of other people own the other 53.3%. No one else owns more than 2.3%. What did you have to do to your abacus to get it to tell you that the number 82% has any relevance here?
That’s your story, and you’re going to stick with it. Which is inadvertently helpful, because it establishes beyond doubt that you are entirely impervious to facts.
I notice you put “funding” in quotes. You seem to be saying that someone said the prince is “funding” Fox. Who said that? Please be specific.
August 24, 2010, 9:53 pmPandaemoni says:
I do agree that 7% is not trivial.
Item 403(a) of Regulation S-K requires public dsclosure of anyone holding 5% or more voting control of a company. CFR cite. They do that because 5% shareholders wield significant control in most public companies.
Similarly, the NYSE rules labels anyone with 5% or more a “substantial security holder” in a NYSE company (and, for example, you can’t issue any new shares to an officer, director or significant shareholdr without having the shareholders as a whole approve the same). See Section 312.
It may be that al Waleed exerts only limited influence on News Corp…but it *may* be that he exerts only minimal influence on the Cordoba Initiaive (where, to the best of my knowledge, he owns nothing). If we shouldn’t get worked up in one case, then I suspect we shouldn’t in either.
August 24, 2010, 9:55 pmMikeybackwards says:
Guess who destroyed the Jewish temple mount? Wrong – not Muslims, but Romans. So I guess we have to re-name such American cities named after Roman cities since these are monuments to the Roman plan to resurrect their empire on the bones of our freedoms. So no more Palmyra, no more Syracuse, after all these are all an affront to freedom from Roman Tyranny and paganism.
Also, talking about building on the site of buildings they have destroyed – I guess anything named after any Christian city or reference is out too.
Ain’t logic grand
August 24, 2010, 9:59 pmJozxyqk says:
What do you think we should do about all the Muslims in the country?
August 24, 2010, 10:14 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I think it’s best to put it in the terms that pc used:
Those links were added by me. I think it’s a good idea, since the historical ignorance of certain people should never be underestimated.
August 24, 2010, 10:20 pmBarb says:
I know. If you’ll notice, I never said they destroyed the Temple. I said, “OR in the case of ….” Meaning, they built on the Jewish sacred site in that case but did not destroy the temple as in the cases of other sites.
Why don’t they name it Reconciliation Mosque? or Crossroads Mosque –or Lower Manhattan Mosque. They chose a name with 2 different interps –one for us that says Cordoba was a place of multi-religious tolerance and peace–and one for them that says Cordoba was a conquered Christian city –their goal for NYC. You know, they don’t have many choices for names when i think about it. We have St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul and Peter –and Sacred Heart, Good Shepherd, and a number of popes or Cornerstone or just the name of the cities or geog. landmarks where the churches are located. Like Cedar Creek, Willow Creek, Saddlebrook.
August 24, 2010, 10:25 pmMikeybackwards says:
Why should you care what the call it. You think they are all murderers, terrorists, and out to take over the world.
August 24, 2010, 10:27 pmShelbyC says:
Hey, I want to be able to download “Super Best Friends” as much as the next guy, but how free do you think we’d be if we deprived people of there freedom every time somebody cast aspursions on their goals? Weren’t the Jews trying to take over the economy? The blacks trying to rape all the white women? The Japanese trying to buy us all in the 80′s? Etc.
August 24, 2010, 10:31 pmMikeybackwards says:
Because after all, no one would ever claim to be a Christian and then endorse terrorism and murder of those who they disagree with.
August 24, 2010, 10:32 pmBarb says:
Be good neighbors and love our neighbors individually–but in turn, if they were good neighbors, they would understand the sensitivities and the fears of westerners where they are concerned. They need to read some of the books about themselves by the westerners –and then refute where they do not share the sentiments of the radicals –and those who danced in the streets –and distributed pictures of a mosque-filled NYC after 9/11. For American citizens, they really have not been too strong in rebuking terrorists. And when they say it’s our policies, they are justifying and agreeing that our policies are bad enough to inspire terrorism. They want Israel demolished –no question about it. They want the Muslims in control of it.They have a long standing vitriolic hatred of Jews, calling them pigs –and the Christians monkeys –in their Saudi-written text books in American Muslim schools. When some one pointed it out, they claimed to have removed the offenses from the text books –but they did not! They just moved the material to different pages! For them to have their own schools is a mistake; they need to assimilate. Schools were the melding pots.
These people do not think as we do –even with all our American religious and political diversity, we have more in common with each other than with them.
I have a friend married to a Muslim –and she watched their family viewing the trade center go down–and she thought they were fascinated and not at all grieved by it but in good spirits about it though reserved around her in commenting.
I’m not saying we should be cruel to Muslims or hate them. I don’t hate them. I fear their intentions are not honorable by our standards. I know they think they are right and that their religion should someday be the religion of the whole planet. They are taught to be separatists –not to assimilate. they are taught to hate unbelievers –instead of loving them. This is a diabolical, deceitful, dark, scary religion.
2 Corinthians:
Mohammad was illiterate and said the angel Gabriel inspired his writings which he dictated to scribes. One scribe left him when he began to realize that the inspirations were not divine, but leaning political and expedient. I think his Gabriel was Satan masquerading as an angel of light. I also believe I could be shot or stoned or beheaded for saying so.
August 24, 2010, 10:50 pmRicardo says:
Here is a quote from Deborah Burlingame, “In the Muslim world, a moderate believes that you can take down America without violence. You can do it by infiltrating their colleges and universities. You can do it by infiltrating the media, government, [and] cultural institutions, and you can bring down the house of the infidel from within.”
There you have it, the Muslim equivalent of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Burlingame has no doubt suffered enormously and unimaginably over the loss of her brother on 9/11. But that doesn’t excuse this sinister, raving propaganda at all.
August 24, 2010, 10:56 pmMikeybackwards says:
So first we learn that 2 blocks and ten years is too close for comfort for some to have anything related to Islam built in relation to the 9/11 tragedy. Now from Barb we learn that 568 years is too soon to be building on a site that someone, somewhere, might believe is sacred. Even if you also believe that site to be sacred and build a temple to commemorate that sacredness.
At least if you’re a Muslim. Not that Barb has a problem with Muslims . . .
. . . or something.
August 24, 2010, 10:56 pmDebrah says:
Let me suggest something to you.
It will be impossible in one comment to convey how very trivial I find your phony issue.
If you actually had a program going and actually could debate, you wouldn’t have to create discord by relying on trivia.
On these fora you have always been a detractor.
My senses tell me that a few of you live and die on the comment threads of the internet.
If so, your strange behavior is understandable.
This is “all you’ve got” and you have to bully people to keep from feeling like the man on the Titanic who clawed to get into the lifeboat with the women.
You’ve chosen the wrong person to bully and if you choose to proceed, that can be made clear.
You and Ricardo and the other freakish troll will have to find another target.
This is a comment thread. If you don’t like a comment, I couldn’t care less.
You and your buds are going to use the Hitchens comments as a tool instead of actually debating and it’s not going to work with me.
Get a life that doesn’t consist of “winning” or “losing” in a fleeting comment section of a blog authored by other men—your betters.
I will not be bullied by idle, pseudonymous men.
I suggest that you find someone who can be bullied.
August 24, 2010, 10:57 pmBarb says:
I’m sure a Christian might do that–and might do it as a “just war,” given evidence that Muslims were waging war here in the states in great numbers. But when Christians hate and just want to vent anger on a suspected enemy, they are not being Biblically correct. The Lord is not in it.
Are you one of those bloggers who picks on typos and grammar? You have a dangling preposition in the above statement.
August 24, 2010, 10:58 pmMikeybackwards says:
No, but apparently you are.
August 24, 2010, 11:02 pmRicardo says:
Muslims who attend public school go to the same schools as everyone else in the United States (European countries like the Netherlands are different on this count). Sure, Muslims who attend private school can go to a religiously oriented school just as Catholics and Jews can. Your statement above is basically the KKK position on Catholic schooling in the 1920s.
August 24, 2010, 11:05 pmBarb says:
Yes, I think they are out to take over the world –in time. And the terrorists try to speed up the process. I don’t think they are all murderers and terrorists –but I think they have too much sympathy for the terrorists.
August 24, 2010, 11:05 pmL says:
FTFY.
August 24, 2010, 11:07 pmL says:
Argh, beaten.
August 24, 2010, 11:08 pmMikeybackwards says:
Why should we believe you when you say that. If all who claim to be Muslims (1 billion and counting) supposedly believe and want the same thing (if we believe what you say); why should I not similarly believe the same about all of those who claim to be Christian (2-3 billion and counting)?
August 24, 2010, 11:14 pmBarb says:
I realize this was said of Catholic schools vs. public schools. But Catholic schools weren’t as different from public schools as Muslim schools are –because the public school students were also being taught Christianity in their churches and some in their public schools –which had religious music programs and Christian holiday observances and respect for the Ten C’s and the Golden rule –and sometimes had an optional weekly Bible class from the community –as in my public school.
You said Muslim kids go to the public schools –not all. There are Islamic schools in the U.S. and these are worrisome to me. The valedictorian of the upscale Islamic school in D.C. had a plan to assassinate the president. And that school had the questionable Saudi-made texts. but there’s nothing we can do about the existence of Muslim schools in America –since we have parochial schools in general. Do you know if a Muslim school teaches either religious or secular equivalents of forgiveness, kindness, honesty, humility, equality of men and women and all people, compassion and tolerance of diversity and freedom of speech and religion? I’m betting not.
August 24, 2010, 11:17 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You’re confused. There’s no phony issue. The issue is that you’re a phony. You plagiarized, Ricardo caught you, and you then denied it. Therefore we know that to you, honesty is indeed “trivial.” Like leo said, a new ID is your best bet.
Your phoniness has already been “made clear,” but I have a feeling you’re going to make it clear over and over again. Keep up the good work.
August 24, 2010, 11:18 pmMikeybackwards says:
Not beaten, just a case of great minds thinking alike.
August 24, 2010, 11:19 pmjukeboxgrad says:
A.W., have you ever heard of Frank Gaffney? His conservative credentials are impeccable. For some odd reason, he said this:
“Some say over the way the business is run?” Really? How peculiar. Doesn’t Gaffney know that “7% doesn’t mean sh-t?” Thank goodness we have you to set us straight and let us know that Gaffney is wrong. By the way, he wrote that in 2005. Since then, “fourth largest” has been expanded to second largest. But what difference does it make? After all, “7% doesn’t mean sh-t.”
By the way, here’s another reference to the incident where the Prince bragged about his influence over Fox. I mentioned this before, but you dismissed it because you didn’t recognize the site that posted the report. Maybe this link will suit you better. Have you ever heard of National Review? They posted this:
How could that happen? I thought “7% doesn’t mean sh-t?”
And are you at all familiar with the wonderful people at Power Line? Because they reported the same anecdote. And have you heard of the Washington Times? They also reported how the Prince bragged about his ability to tell Fox what to do.
But your powers of denial are great, so I’m sure you will dismiss all this.
I’m sure you’ve also forgotten what the Prince said after 9/11:
The Prince also said this:
All this famously prompted Giuliani to tell the “Saudi prince to take his $10 million donation and stuff it.”
Just a few things to keep in mind when you’re watching your favorite “news” channel.
August 24, 2010, 11:22 pmJozxyqk says:
Wow… that was a very long answer to a relatively simple question, but I think this first part is the only part that was responsive (all the rest was about what you think of Islam, and what you think Muslims should do). Correct me if I am not interpreting the above statement correctly — You think Muslims Americans should be treated the same as other citizens?
August 24, 2010, 11:27 pmleo marvin says:
Debrah,
I take that to mean you’re going with option #3. As I said, also a good choice.
August 24, 2010, 11:36 pmDebrah says:
Says the guy with a “juke box” moniker.
One wonders how many “phony” monikers you guys have utilized while camping out on the Volokh’s blog.
And someone is supposed to give a flying fleeb about your opinion on anything?
A group of ultra-Leftists drawn to a place with a more conservative edge.
Is this how you come alive each day?
LOL!!!
You guys are (unintentionally, I’m sure) hilarious!
August 24, 2010, 11:37 pmmattski says:
You don’t say.
August 25, 2010, 12:06 ammattski says:
Barb, don’t be running off now!
August 25, 2010, 12:17 amMikeybackwards says:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
August 25, 2010, 12:26 amjukeboxgrad says:
I know I’m in the presence of a staggering intellect when the best they can do is make fun of my name. It’s always an instructive moment. I could point you toward the many times it has happened before (example). Those people didn’t last here very long.
Also, one of many things you pretend to know even though you don’t is my gender.
One of many things you should know but don’t is the difference between a fact and an opinion. Your plagiarism is not a matter of opinion. It’s a proven fact.
There’s no need to wonder. If you can figure out how to operate your google, you’ll notice that I’ve been using the same ‘moniker’ (here and elsewhere) since right around the time that comments were first opened here, about five years ago. leo has also been here since then (he used to use “lm,” but the change was not a secret). As usual, you’re a terrific source of worthless speculation.
Also, using a ‘moniker’ isn’t “phony.” Posting anonymously is not “phony.”
I see you’re confused about lots of different things, but this is a good place to get the help you need.
If you think there’s something wrong with reading and writing blog comments, it’s hard to understand why you’re here. I can only surmise that someone must be holding a gun to your head. Is that it? Just speak up, and I’ll dial 911 for you.
August 25, 2010, 12:30 amRicardo says:
Agreed. And there will be even less to do about them if school voucher initiatives make way and Muslim parents are allowed to pull their children out of public school and receive state money to send their children to a Muslim school.
It will be fascinating to see over the next 10 years how many religious conservatives transform into ACLU-style secularists in response to Muslim demands for religious accommodation. I suspect the number is not going to be trivial.
August 25, 2010, 12:36 amPES says:
Time, place, and manner restrictions have to be content neutral. And they certainly have to be viewpoint neutral. So keep saying it until you understand that such a proposed action would be neither content nor viewpoint neutral.
August 25, 2010, 1:26 amjukeboxgrad says:
But the constitution is not a suicide pact! And what about the Muslims! The Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming! And what about Miss USA? By the way, did I mention Miss USA?
August 25, 2010, 1:49 amjukeboxgrad says:
How courageous of you to mock someone else’s fear (and how ironic, since your shtick is all about promoting fear). It’s not necessary to go to stormfront to find comments advocating mass murder of Muslims. Such comments can be found here at VC. I have already pointed this out, but you have responded the same way you respond to all inconvenient facts: by doing this.
August 25, 2010, 8:41 amTamerlane says:
I’m delighted to note that the annointed ones, the “liberal elite”, are acting as if they have formed a suicide pact amongst themselves to alienate as large a majority of Americans as possible. They cannot bring themselves to admit that the positioning of this mosque is an ill-advised provocation.
Acknowledging this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, religion, etc. The real bottom line is that these folks just can’t resist poking the rest of us in the eye one more time. That’s all this thread really demonstrates. Let’s see how it plays out in November.
August 25, 2010, 9:15 amMikeybackwards says:
You may vote as you chose. What some of us – both conservative and liberal understand – is that it is about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. Personally, I will always champion the right of those to express their opinion and beliefs, no matter how reprehensible, revolting, and ridiculous I personally find it to be. I personally am able to do so while simulateously recognizing that such expression does not extend to the point of extra-constitutional denial or expression of those same rights to a group with whom another feels similarly to how I feel about Tamerlane’s backwoods blathering.
August 25, 2010, 9:26 amgreg says:
So these there 20 some dudes said, say, here is a good idee. Lets fly planes into the World Trade Center. Maybe one of them asked, why? Because we are peaceful? Because we are radical? No, because we are backed by our government, the factate of Islam. Wait, here is a better idee. Lets have our government buy the World Trade Center. We’ll convert it to a mosque.
August 25, 2010, 10:14 amMikeybackwards says:
Here’s a good idee. Perhaps you can consider that Islam is no more a government than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Atheism is a government. While there are governments that a theocratic in nature (ruled by the nominal or actual heads of that nation’s particular branch/sect/denomination of a religion, i.e. The Vatican City (Christian), Iran (Islam), Bhutan (Buddhism); there is no government that rules all of any of these world religions.
So maybe you can get another good idee and figure out that these were murderers and criminals who tried to justify their crimes against this nation and humanity, just as some Christians have done in the United States, Northern Ireland, and the former Yugoslavia, like some Hindus have done in India, some Jews have done in Israel, and some Muslims have done many places.
To judge all Muslims by the actions of a few is never a good idee
August 25, 2010, 11:35 amTamerlane says:
Mikeybackwards: So do you or do you not believe that the siting of the proposed mosque is an ill-advised provocation? Skip the left-wing echo-chamber cant. Just answer the question as posed.
August 25, 2010, 11:38 amuh_clem says:
I can’t answer for Mikeybackwards, but I can answer for myself, and the answer is no, it’s not.
The location of the Burlington Coat Factory is two blocks away from ground zero hidden behind another large building. It’s neither visible from ground zero, nor is ground zero visible from it. There are already several storefront mosques in the neighborhood, along with a couple strip clubs, betting parlors, bars, cafes, fast food restaurants, vitamin stores, etc etc.
Another commercial building just not a big deal. It’s a commercial district, and if they want to build a community center there I see no reason to stop them, anymore than we should try to stop the McDonalds or the Dunkin’ Donuts.
This is America. Land of the free.
August 25, 2010, 12:00 pmTamerlane says:
uh_clem:
But if there are already a number of mosques in the area and these have not occassioned outrage then this whole brouhaha is clearly not a free-speech or freedom of religion issue. No one appears to be upset by these Muslim religious establishments.
The question then becomes why is there any need for an additional high-profile mosque in this particular area which, as you yourself describe it, is rather run down? If there really is an attempt here to build bridges from the Muslim community to the wider community why not do this in a more up-scale, tourist-friendly, and accessible part of Manhattan? Why within blocks of the 9/11 atrocity? Why on a site that was in fact part of that atrocity? And why the provoking name, Cordoba Initiative? Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, I respectfully disagree with your answer.
August 25, 2010, 12:23 pmJozxyqk says:
First: I agree with uh_clem about the provocation issue.
Second: I think you would get farther in this discussion if you refrained from tossing around unnecessary “left-wing echo-chamber cant” comments in your posts.
Third (and re: the above quoted text): I think the reason this particular mosque became a big deal is because Sarah Palin decided make it one. I think she is a powerful enough voice that if she opposes any mosque anywhere, there will be considerable brouhaha. It is not difficult to make people angry at Muslims these days (see many of the comments in this thread, and the protests against Mosques around the country).
August 25, 2010, 1:18 pmMikeybackwards says:
I think it an excellent idea for any community of faith to build a community center and/or place of worship in accordance with applicable zoning and building codes [with the caveat that such zoning and building laws are not crafted with the intent of denying anyone of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of religion and speech]. I think it becomes an even better idea that someone dedicate a facility in the immediate vicinity of the former World Trade Center where the explicit purpose of that facility is to promote inter-faith/inter-religion understanding, education, and harmony, given the predilection for some people to twist these events to serve their political ends (both within the Islamic community and from those who are not Islamic would use the attacks as grounds to indulge in bias, racism, and to attack the constitutional and human rights we all enjoy).
The sooner we can all learn to disabuse ourselves and others of the viewpoint that the planners and perpetrators no more represent Islam than Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, and Paul Hill represent Christianity, the better we will all be. If you don’t know enough about Islam to understand why this is so, then I encourage you to learn more by meeting and talking to people who come from an Islamic background. If one simply admits that one knows little or nothing about Islam other than one learns in the media, one will find, as with Christians, than the adherents of Islam will be more than happy to share their heritage, their traditions, their scripture, and philosophies with one.
This is not a provocative project, unless one is trying to provoke those who would hijack a religion or a nation’s grief for short-term tactical gains.
August 25, 2010, 2:15 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Really? Are you sure? Then it’s a little hard to understand what Laura Ingraham said when she interviewed Rauf’s wife on 12/21/09 (link, video, link, link):
Hmm, let’s see. I think I know what happened. Ingraham had a spot of amnesia and forgot that a couple of big buildings nearby got knocked down a number of years ago. That’s why she said “I like what you’re trying to do” instead of “the siting of the proposed mosque is an ill-advised provocation.” But then she later recovered from her amnesia, and she switched from the former answer to the latter answer.
I realize that theory sounds a little shaky. Can you come up with a better one? Then again, maybe it boils down to this:
Kicking up hate and fear for the purpose of winning votes: one of the few things the GOP is good at.
August 25, 2010, 2:41 pmA.W. says:
Ln
> AW isn’t a bigot — he just thinks that
That’s rich given that you called arabs “sand n—rs”
Oh wait, you didn’t.
See how easy it is to win a debate when you just make sh-t up?
Let me know when you want to respond to what I actually said. Otherwise you can go on debating yourself. I hear you are a master at that, a real master debater.
mikey
> Hey dumb f*ck — don’t you get that laws don’t trump the Constitution and/or the Amendments thereto?
No, in three years of law school, they didn’t mention that.
so you are saying the historical sites act is per se unconstitutional? I mean they prevent any and all speech that other people might intend to make. OMG!
Jukey
> You’ve been saying over and over that the Saudi prince owning 7% of Fox “doesn’t mean sh-t,” because supposedly someone else owns 51%.
Nope, didn’t say that. And how dare you call arabs “sand n—-rs.”
Mind you, you didn’t but if you are not going to pay any attention to what I say and debate things I didn’t say, well, there you go. Just like LN above.
By the way, by your own numbers representatives of about 80% of all of the stock would have to show up to vote, for it to be numerically possible to defeat Murdoch on any topic. And then all of them, but Murdoch, would have to vote the other way. but with 7% he is practically running the company.
> you never lifted a finger
Those making an accusation have the burden of proof.
> I know you have some strange idea about math, but where on Earth does the number 82% come from?
Mmm, now I am beginning to think that rather than intentionally killing straw men, that reading comp is just not your strong suit.
> I notice you put “funding” in quotes. You seem to be saying that someone said the prince is “funding” Fox. Who said that? Please be specific.
My apologies. I confused you with the 30 million other liberals you were mindlessly aping jon stewarts mendacious bull.
But do go on. explain how exactly 7% will overwhelm the other 93%, including a roughly 40% shareholder? I guess by your logic, McCain only narrowly defeated J.D. Hayworth last night.
And all of this to prove… well, what? It all amounts to a massive ad hominem anyway. Either their reporting on the GZM is accurate or not. This doesn’t help us make that determination and, guess what? I am not relying on them anyway.
> have you ever heard of Frank Gaffney
Nope, and now you are arguing from authority to help build up your ad hominem. What do you call it when you create engage in a fallacy while trying to engage in a fallacy?
> Have you ever heard of National Review? They posted this:
Which leads to a quote from a dead link. And by its own terms they depend on “middle east online.” Who are they that I should trust them, especially given the contradiction between the accounts you yourself are citing? One says he called to the channel just as a customer. This one says he called Murdoch. So which is it?
> And are you at all familiar with the wonderful people at Power Line?
Citing the same source, but not helping me figure out who can be trusted in determining whether your ad hominem attacks are even factually accurate.
And then you go on to say that the prince is a bad guy. Agreed, but how does that help you given that he is funding that mosque? I mean the subject of the post is the mosque, not “fox news is evil, grrr.”
> your favorite “news” channel.
And I am sure you can show me where I called them my favorite, right? Here’s a hint, it was right after you called arabs “sand n—rs”—i.e. it didn’t happen. Indeed, I don’t believe I mentioned fox news at all until you brought it up.
> It’s not necessary to go to stormfront to find comments advocating mass murder of Muslims. Such comments can be found here at VC.
Ah, so your argument goes like this. Now, some Muslims shout kill the infidels! Kill the jews! (or in one case, “Kill all (Zionist) Juice”) But it would be wrong and bigoted of me to conclude from that that all Muslims feel that way, or that enough do that I should worry about a holocaust-level event.
But on the other hand, one or two commenters, who might be mobys for all we know, say “kill the Muslims!” And it is reasonable based on a few random nuts who might or might not be sincere, for all Muslims, without exception, to conclude fromthat that we are getting ready for another kyrstalnaught, so much so that they would oppose the creation of the GZM publicly not out of genuine agreement that but because they are pissing their pants with fear and trying to stop the coming holocaust.
See how stupid that sounds when you spell it out?
And all that discussion to try to pretend that these Muslims speaking out were not doing so honestly. For instance, take this woman, Neda Bolourchi. Like me she is concerned about a victory mosque being built there:
> Though I have nothing but contempt for the fanaticism that propelled the terrorists to carry out their murderous attacks on Sept. 11, I still have great respect for the faith. Yet, I worry that the construction of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site would not promote tolerance or understanding; I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html
And here she is describing her experience on 9-11:
> On the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, I watched as terrorists slammed United Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, 18 minutes after their accomplices on another hijacked plane hit the North Tower. My mother was on the flight. I witnessed her murder on live television. I still cannot fully comprehend those images. In that moment, I died as well. I carry a hole in my heart that will never be filled.
Wow, doesn’t she sound insincere. Clearly she is terrified that Americans are going to start holocausting her any day now!
*rolls eyes*
Face it, you have gone full metal conspiracy nut with this. And you should admit you have gone too far comparing pretending we as Americans are as bad as the Nazis. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology.
But that is how it is for the left these days. No one just honestly disagrees. Everyone is evil, racist, bigoted, or in your wrinkle, scared of an anti-muslim holocaust.
And in doing so they cheapen real and valid charges of bigotry when it does occur. Bigotry does exist in America. I have been a victim of it. But because of a—holes like you when I point it out, they think I am crying wolf.
August 25, 2010, 2:53 pmjukeboxgrad says:
No, Einstein. It’s only unconstitutional if applied in a way that violates the constitution. Duh. The drafters of the law didn’t think it was necessary to add a clause that says this: “this law may not be applied in a way that violates the constitution.” That’s because they didn’t anticipate you. Who would?
Then there must be more than one person posting as “A.W.,” because someone using that handle said this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
In at least 4 separate comments, you said “someone else could own 51%,” or words equivalent to that. How is that different from saying that supposedly someone else owns 51%?
What? Huh? That’s pure gibberish. Where did the number 80% come from? That number has zero relevance, just like the other number you invented earlier (82%), and have refused to explain. Murdoch’s portion (39.7%) can be overruled by any group of owners who control at least 39.8%. Do you have trouble understanding that 39.8% is not equal to 80%? I guess you do.
What did Stewart say that is “mendacious bull?” Please be specific.
One of many things you don’t understand about corporate governance is that many or most stockholders typically do not bother voting their shares. Therefore it’s not necessary to “overwhelm the other 93%” because typically a large portion of that 93% would not bother voting.
But please keep asking idiotic questions that broadcast how ignorant you are. It’s an inadvertent public service.
If you think it’s perfectly fine that a Saudi prince is calling shots at Fox News, that tells us a lot about your relationship with reality.
See here:
Also here:
He’s a leading conservative. The fact that you never heard of him is yet one more indication of how ignorant you are. I mentioned Gaffney because he said this: “Such a role would appear to give the Prince some say over the way the business is run.” One of many things you haven’t explained is why someone like Gaffney would say such a thing, since, according to you, “7% doesn’t mean sh-t.”
Why does it have to be one or the other? How do you know he didn’t do both?
I cited four reports, here, here, here and here. These are all conservative sites. They all treated the story as credible. With any luck at all, you will keep doing exactly what you’re doing: bending over backwards to dismiss any and all evidence that doesn’t suit you. Such an extremely vivid demonstration of pure wingnuttery is hard to find, so I hope you will continue your inadvertent public service.
I understand your concept of “who can be trusted:” people who say what you want to hear.
Where did I say “the prince is a bad guy?” Please be specific.
If Fox is not your favorite news channel, then which one is? Just curious.
Do you mean how stupid you sound when you put a bunch of straw men into a sentence? Yes, I do see how stupid you sound when you do that.
Where did I say “we as Americans are as bad as the Nazis?” Speaking of straw men. Please be specific.
August 25, 2010, 4:08 pmA.W. says:
Jukey
btw, some facts to add to your silly paranoia about an anti-muslim holocaust.
> In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, again according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim ones by at least 6 to 1.
You get that? even in 2001, the year of 9-11, jews were still more often the victims of hate crimes than muslims. if muslims are afraid of holocaust, it is because of people like you saying stupid crap, not based on actual evidence.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0824-goldberg-islamophobia-20100824,0,6090115.column
August 25, 2010, 4:10 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Hey everyone, good news! Finally, real Americans are starting to fight back against the jihadists who have been invading our soil. And it’s happening, fittingly, right in New York. Not too far from Ground Zero! Here’s a story to make all patriots proud:
With any luck at all, this will be an inspiration to other patriots, who will find their own ways to strike back against the dark hordes. Go USA!
Yes, I know he works at a “pro-Park51 group.” But that could be because he needed a job. It’s also interesting to notice that he is supporting a Tea Party candidate (link, link) on his Facebook page. More info here.
Congratulations on your impeccable timing.
August 25, 2010, 4:21 pmMikeybackwards says:
AWWWWWW, seems like AW is having a problem facing serious rebuttal to his flawed, flimsy, and fallacious ideas that somehow a law can trump the Constitution, that one can influence the actions of a company merely by dint of being the second largest stockholder in said company, and generally getting caught out without a logical leg to stand on.
AW also doesn’t seem to understand that prejudice takes many forms, the most invidious being an appeal to the innate fear of the ‘other’ in order to control both the ‘other’ and those to whom the appeal is made.
Too bad it seems like three years of law school were wasted on someone with a wit of understanding.
But just to engage in a bit of aw-shucks exposition –
Yes, I mean exactly that. Just like the recent decision where Nebraska learned (as have many other states) that laws meant to target the demonstrations of the Westboro Baptist Church by outlawing their expressions of free speech and religion as they protest outside funerals and elsewhere, including outlawing ‘desecration’ of the U.S. Flag, etc. are unconstitutional. If the intent of the law is create a prior restraint on the free expression of speech or religion, or if it is enforced in such a way as to act as a prior restraint, then it is on its face unconstitutional.
I recommend you read Alan Dershowitz’ book: Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age. Of course I am sure many of the professors and lawyers who post on this site can recommend other remedial texts to help you understand the issue.
August 25, 2010, 4:25 pmMikeybackwards says:
Of course, I should redact this statement so the the last clause reads “. . . then it and/or the manner of enforcement, is on its face unconstitutional.”
August 25, 2010, 4:36 pmjukeboxgrad says:
This is from the statement released on behalf of the victim by his union:
August 25, 2010, 4:41 pmMikeybackwards says:
But according to AW bigotry and prejudice have nothing to do with his suggestion that we scrap the Constitution because some people might feel bad if a building they will never see, never enter, or probably even be aware of as they go about their daily lives is build by private individuals on private land, using private money.
August 25, 2010, 4:45 pmA.W. says:
Juke
> It’s only unconstitutional if applied in a way that violates the constitution. Duh.
Except of course what it would do here is what it is designed to do—silence all other speech, at that spot.
> Then there must be more than one person posting as “A.W.,”
Wow, you quote me and you still don’t understand that I didn’t say what you claimed I said. So either you are telling a really stupid lie, which can be the case but is pretty rare, or you suck at reading comprehension.
Now show me were I stated for a fact that anyone else owned exactly 51% of the stock?
> Where did the number 80% come from?
Okay so let’s try a hypothetical, because it is getting clear I am talking to a slow person. You have stated that murdoch controls 39.7% of the stock. Okay. So how much do you need to beat him on a question? 39.7% plus one more share. So how much of the stock must be represented at a given meeting to give ANYONE a fighting chance against Murdoch? Well,
39.7% + 39.7% which equals 79.4, plus one more share. Thus about 80% of all shares must be represented.
And as you yourself said, most of the time most shareholders don’t show up.
> and have refused to explain.
No, I refuse to explain it, TWICE.
I figure one demonstration of my superior mastery of basic mathematics would be enough for one thread.
> What did Stewart say that is “mendacious bull?”
Like you don’t know.
> One of many things you don’t understand about corporate governance is that many or most stockholders typically do not bother voting their shares. Therefore it’s not necessary to “overwhelm the other 93%” because typically a large portion of that 93% would not bother voting.
And if that percentage of stock held by non-voters goes above around 20% it is numerically impossible to overrule Murdoch.
> If you think it’s perfectly fine that a Saudi prince is calling shots at Fox News,
I disagree that he is.
And wait, you have a problem with him calling the shots at fox news? You islamophobe!
> See here:
Don’t have to. You are arguing from authority. It’s a fallacy.
> Why does it have to be one or the other? How do you know he didn’t do both?
I don’t see how your citations can be reconciled. You have two different accounts of the same speech.
> I cited four reports, here, here, here and here
No, you cited two reports, with the same report rehashed several times. They weren’t pretending to do original reporting. They were just commenting on the same story.
> Where did I say “the prince is a bad guy?” Please be specific.
Well, I admit if you are a man of common decency would be offended by most all the things you cited to me. Sorry for assuming you were a man of common decency.
> If Fox is not your favorite news channel, then which one is?
To tell the truth, I barely watch news at all these days. I get most of it from various internet sites.
> Do you mean how stupid you sound when you put a bunch of straw men into a sentence?
Look, if you don’t want to own your own logic, that is fine, but you are the one who has suggested that Muslims should rationally be afraid of a holocaust, not me.
> Where did I say “we as Americans are as bad as the Nazis?” Speaking of straw men. Please be specific.
Okay:
> In many instances, probably because they are afraid. Similarly, there were Jews in Germany who thought they might be safer if they submerged their Judaism.
And to that I responded:
> You cite the mythical fear that Muslims supposedly have in America, that they are all going to be rounded up and shoved into ovens.
And did you say “no, I never meant to imply that they rationally feared holocaust?” Nope. Instead you wrote:
> How courageous of you to mock someone else’s fear (and how ironic, since your shtick is all about promoting fear). It’s not necessary to go to stormfront to find comments advocating mass murder of Muslims. Such comments can be found here at VC. I have already pointed this out, but you have responded the same way you respond to all inconvenient facts: by doing this.
So if you meant to walk back your comments that was the time. The dog didn’t bark and all that.
And it is silliness. Statistically speaking the average jew in America has more cause for concern about being holocausted than the average muslim.
> good news! Finally, real Americans are starting to fight back against the jihadists who have been invading our soil. And it’s happening, fittingly, right in New York. Not too far from Ground Zero! Here’s a story to make all patriots proud
Your joy on the subject is distasteful. Yes, I know you aren’t saying you support the stabbing, you are being mocking. But underneath I can sense you thinking, “oh good! I knew they were all bigots, and here is my proof. Now let me stick it to that awful A.W.!” Its sick. Get help.
Of course you might remember when that census worker died in Kentucky with the word “Fed” written on his body. The liberals went ape-sh-t, blamed it on Glenn Beck and Fox. Only thing is, though, he actually killed himself. But I am sure that won’t inspire any pause or reflection on your part, right?
> Congratulations on your impeccable timing.
Well, its funny you should say that. Politico is reporting that he was a member of a group that expressed support for Cordoba House. Funny that.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/AntiMuslim_attacker_works_at_proPark51_group.html
And all of this is the fallacy of reasoning by anecdotal evidence. One person is not a trend. But then you do suck at math.
Mikey
> fallacious ideas that somehow a law can trump the Constitution
Why did you call arab “sand n—rs?” oh, wait you didn’t.
And I didn’t say what you accused me of saying. Let me know when you want to talk about what I actually said..
> Yes, I mean exactly that. Just like the recent decision where Nebraska learned (as have many other states) that laws meant to target the demonstrations of the Westboro Baptist Church by outlawing their expressions of free speech and religion as they protest outside funerals and elsewhere
Actually that issue is presently before the supreme court, so we will see how that turns out.
August 25, 2010, 5:04 pmleo marvin says:
Al Qaeda will play it that way. And how resonant would that have been when Laura Ingraham was embracing the project? Not very. But it sure will resonate now that the right has lined up behind a campaign to suppress our imagined enemies at the cost of our civil liberties.
August 25, 2010, 5:14 pmMikeybackwards says:
I see now.
AW is just looking for an excuse to use the phrase sand n-rs.
Linking to his comments, quoting him, and showing exactly where he says something is merely taken as a pretext for more of his ignorant ravings.
AW – thanks for demonstrating beyond all measures what an ill-informed, ill-educated, regressive bigot and idealogue you are.
You should definitely consider changing your nick to AB, for Archie Bunker.
August 25, 2010, 6:09 pmHerb Spencer says:
To me, this issue is best understood in terms of state nuisance law, there being no such federal creature. There’s no question that the Muslims have a I Amdt. right to build a mosque, assuming it will not be used for non-religious – e.g., terrorist – purposes, and it’s just as clear that any attempting taking of the land in order to advance the religious purpose would foul the I Amdt, too. Given the right to build a mosque, the question then becomes one of its proper placement. It’s really very simple: a nuisance is something that’s out of place for one valid reason or another, like a pig in a parlor. There’s no doubt that the porker can be there, the questions is whether it should be. There’s evidence enough of Islam’s effects in lower Manhattan already, albeit of the negative kind. (FRE 803(7) and (10), 1004(1).) Any more would be as cumulative as it would be prejudicial. (FRE 403.)
August 25, 2010, 6:50 pmmattski says:
The Constitution is a beautiful thing. But leaving the Constitution aside, why don’t we show the world what a great and brave and accepting nation we are, instead of showing the world what a small and petty and fearful nation we are.
?
August 25, 2010, 6:58 pmlibarbarian says:
Who cares?
The truth is that it is not a victory for them in any way, so if they interpret it as such then they are just adding another mistake to their list.
August 25, 2010, 7:03 pmjukeboxgrad says:
This brings us back to one of the countless questions you’ve ducked. What you do you mean by “at that spot?” Do you mean all buildings within 2 blocks of Ground Zero? Are you proposing that the government shut down the strip clubs? Because it’s fine for the government to “silence all other speech,” as long as “all” really means “all,” which means that “at that spot” can’t mean ‘just this one spot where Muslims want to build a mosque.’
This has aready been explained to you, but I’m happy to give you another chance to demonstrate that you are impervious to logic.
Another straw man, from your endless supply. I never stated that you “stated for a fact that anyone else owned exactly 51% of the stock.” If you are stating that’s what I stated, please state where I stated that. And please be specific.
Now I understand where you got the number 80%. Thanks for explaining. The number you referenced earlier was 82%. Where did that come from?
Correct. I don’t know. That’s why I asked the question. Duh. You accused Stewart of saying “mendacious bull.” What did he say that is “mendacious bull?” Please be specific. Because here’s a good example of “mendacious bull:” accusing someone of stating “mendacious bull” and then refusing to support the accusation, when challenged for proof. In other words, the “mendacious bull” is all yours.
Correct, but this statement does nothing to address the ignorant statement you made about the need to “overwhelm the other 93%.” That assumes that 100% are voting, which virtually never happens.
But this is all beside the point. Yes, Murdoch is more powerful than the Prince, because 39% is greater than 7%. But 7% is still far more than anyone else, which makes the Prince more powerful than any owner other than Murdoch. So your statement (“7% doesn’t mean sh-t”) was ignorant baloney the first time you said it, and it’s still ignorant baloney. Of course, the internet is packed with all sorts of ignorant baloney, but what makes you an interesting case is your deep commitment to sticking with your ignorant baloney, even long after it’s been exposed as ignorant baloney. This is instructive. As I’ve said, keep up the good work. If you were doing any better people would be starting to think you’re my sock puppet.
Of course you disagree. Duh. We already know that. The fact that you disagree is not the least bit interesting. What’s interesting is watching your process of dismissing all evidence you don’t like, even when it comes from major conservative sources, and even when there is a complete absence of any contrary evidence (e.g., the Prince speaking up to deny what was said about him). As I said, keep up the good work.
Where did I say that my basis for objecting to his role at Fox is his religion? Please be specific.
I would be “arguing from authority” only if I had said I know it must be true because Gaffney said it. Where did I say that? Please be specific.
Wrong. Your reading comprehension needs work. This report is the one that says “he said he ‘called as a viewer.’ ” That report is not an account of a speech. It says he “gave an interview boasting that he had called Fox.” So the plain reading of all this is that he bragged about it in both a speech and an interview. So there are not “two different accounts of the same speech.” And it’s entirely plausible that he made more than one phone call, and that it is correct to say that he “called as a viewer,” and also correct to say that he called Murdoch directly. One of these things does not rule out the other.
Simple question: if the story is false, why was it never challenged or retracted? “An AIM call to Fox News asking for comment was not returned.”
You didn’t answer my question. Where did I say “the prince is a bad guy?” Please be specific.
Where did I suggest “that Muslims should rationally be afraid of a holocaust?” Please be specific. And you might want to consider using a quoting protocol that doesn’t make it almost impossible to distinguish your new language from language you’re quoting (both mine and your own).
The person who raised this was you (“the mythical fear that Muslims supposedly have in America, that they are all going to be rounded up and shoved into ovens”), and that was a pure straw man.
Except that it wasn’t me that said something about “rounded up and shoved into ovens.” That was you, and it was a pure straw man. It’s not my job to “walk back” your straw man. You are attempting a feeble and transparent tactic, of trying to make your straw man my problem.
Let me know where I can buy a mind-reading machine just like yours.
I realize you’d like to change the subject.
Nice job pretending I didn’t already address this. The link you provided was provided first by me. He did work for them (paid and/or volunteer) because he was into the military, and they gave him a chance to work on projects that involved filming the military.
Feel free to explain his support for Greg Ball. (By the way, the link has been scrubbed, but I saved it here).
Right. But 19 hijackers and a bunch of other nuts hiding in a cave are an existential threat to the most powerful country in the world, and a good reason to ditch the constitution. Got it.
August 25, 2010, 7:13 pmlibarbarian says:
Can we please drop this stupid idea of an anti-muslim holocaust here in America? There will be a civil war in this country before there is a holocaust here.
I’m not predicting one at all – I’m just saying that while there are those who would start/join an anti-muslim pogrom, there are also plenty of Americans who would offer them aid and even pick up our guns to defend them.
August 25, 2010, 7:15 pmA.W. says:
Mikey
> AW is just looking for an excuse to
Yeah, feel free to hallucinate whatever the hell you want. You will only fool yourself.
Libarbarian
> Who cares?
Yeah, she watched her mother be murdered live on TV on 9-11, who cares what she thinks?
Do you think if she was in favor of it, that Modo would grant her “absolutely moral authority”?
Jukey
You know, I don’t need to answer you at length. Because you have proven to be a liar even when it is provable. So why debate you any more. Just go ahead, keep making up my responses and your own.
But first, let me prove you a liar. You write:
> Another straw man, from your endless supply. I never stated that you “stated for a fact that anyone else owned exactly 51% of the stock.
Oh, except you did. To quote you:
> You’ve been saying over and over that the Saudi prince owning 7% of Fox “doesn’t mean sh-t,” because supposedly someone else owns 51%
What I said, over and over, is that IF someone owned 51% it wouldn’t mean shit. I didn’t say that I KNEW FOR A FACT that someone else owns 51%. I didn’t claim to know anything more about it.
So you misrepresented what I said. The first time that could have been innocent. But this time, it has to be a lie.
Either that or you are a million monkeys typing at a million typewriters.
August 25, 2010, 7:45 pmOwen H. says:
Newt (and others) said there should be no new mosques until churches open in Saudi Arabia. Well, Zimbabwe took away the farms of white farmers; doesn’t that mean we should ban black-owned farms here until they change their nasty policy?
August 25, 2010, 9:14 pmLN says:
AW wrote:
Who is “us”? What are “our statements”? Are the Muslim-Americans who want to build this mosque represented in the government? In fact, the local community board and NYC mayor both support Park51. So how can “our government” tell people “not here. This belongs to us. Git” (unless the local government tells AW to bug off to whatever cave he crawled out of)?
You know, political correctness does have its benefits. It can create a society in which an open bigot like AW is genuinely offended by an accusation that he is a bigot; it upsets him and he feels compelled to defend himself from this charge. That’s got to be worth something, right?
August 25, 2010, 9:37 pmA.W. says:
LN
> Who is “us”?
Look, they have wonderful courses in english that can help you understand it. i invite you to partake.
> It can create a society in which an open bigot like AW
Lol, then i am sure you can point to the statement i made that was bigoted, right? I mean if i am openly bigoted, not just a “closet” bigot, then i must have said something that admitted to bigotry, right? Right? Something like “i hate all Muslims, no exceptions.” So go to it.
And since you appear to be slow, let me clarify. Statements that you suspect are motivated by bigotry, doesn’t count. not if you are accusing me of “open” bigotry. No, you have to come up with something, well, where i am open, and straightforward in my alleged bigotry. So… go. Prove it.
Really, lying like this only proves you have no argument on the substance.
August 25, 2010, 10:44 pmLN says:
I’ll stick with what I wrote here:
AW isn’t a bigot — he just thinks that Muslim-Americans aren’t real Americans (except for Miss USA). AW doesn’t believe in collective guilt — he just thinks that all Muslims have a responsibility to prove to him that they’re not radical terrorists. AW doesn’t support religious discrimination — he just thinks that any public sign of Islam supports Osama bin Laden and that Muslims should be more sensitive. AW doesn’t believe in socialism — he just thinks that decisions about land use are best made by “us” the people even if we don’t own the land or even live in the relevant state, and that the President of the United States has an obligation to personally intervene here.
Try to get this through your thick skull.
You don’t have to say “I hate all Muslims” to be an open bigot. If you say that the American government should tell Muslim-Americans that “this belongs to us. Git” and that “we only wanted our statements here, or nothing (or a Burlington Coat Factory)” then it is clear that you think that Muslim-Americans should be second-class citizens who aren’t real Americans and who shouldn’t have a real say in our government.
You don’t have to say “I hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11″ to be a proponent of collective guilt. If you say that Muslims have an obligation to actively prove to you that they do not support terrorism, and that absence this proof it is entirely reasonable to believe that they are plotting the downfall of America, then you are a proponent of collective guilt.
You don’t have to say “I believe in religious discrimination” to be a supporter of religious discrimination. If you think that public signs of Islam after September 11, 2001 are intrinsically offensive and that Muslims should make an active effort to downplay such signs in order to be considered decent people, then you support religious discrimination.
Now it’s true that I may have misinterpreted some of your comments. However, I notice that when you have been challenged on these comments, you always refuse to defend the logical consequences of your arguments, and instead insist that liberals just call everyone bigoted, and that you haven’t said “I AM A BIGOT,” and that the Muslim Miss USA does not support the Ground Zero Mosque. At some point it becomes time to call a spade a spade. If you want to actually engage with any arguments, feel free to do so at any time. But you’ve written plenty in this thread and it’s pretty clear what your M.O. is.
August 25, 2010, 11:09 pmMikeybackwards says:
AW –
No hallucination. When someone points to your statements and quotes them word for word (with links) you claim people are saying you said things you did not and then proceed to repeat those same things interlaced with fatuous statements that one or another person used the term sand n-gs.
Your own words betray your fascination with this term, kind of like a 3 y/o playing with feces.
And then like that 3 y/o you seem surprised when you end up covered in shit.
August 25, 2010, 11:31 pmCockleCove says:
Speaking of “no arguments on the substance”, A.W., your very first response to Ilya Somin’s post airily dismissed the constitutional concerns as mere “whining” & simply declared, “I think the idea that you cannot use imminent domain *** is wrong headed. The whole idea of [the National Historic Sites Act] is to say ‘no one else may speak on this spot, but the federal government’”.
In your umpteen posts since that one, you have yet to offer any authority for your legal propositions. According to your blog, which I just clicked onto, you are an attorney. So you should be able to back up your say-so with, e.g., legislative history and case law. I’d also be interested in a reasoned assessment from you re: the impact of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, enacted far more recently than the Act you’ve been hanging your hat on.
August 25, 2010, 11:48 pmhttp://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/housing_rluipa2.php
A.W. says:
LN
> You don’t have to say “I hate all Muslims” to be an open bigot.
Actually you do. that is what the term “open” means. Face it you have nothing left to say but lies and you got caught in an easy one.
And no I didn’t say the things you claimed. That is your lying interpretation of them.
Mickey
> No hallucination.
Either that or lies, Mickey boy. I mean you guys keep trying to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. Am I to believe you stink this much in your native language? That all of this is an honest mistake? Or at some point am I going to figure out that you are lying?
Cockle
> In your umpteen posts since that one, you have yet to offer any authority for your legal propositions.
Yes, I did. Follow the links.
> I’d also be interested in a reasoned assessment from you re: the impact of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, enacted far more recently than the Act you’ve been hanging your hat on.
Easy. This is not a regulation. This is a taking. The act by its very terms doesn’t appear to limit taking at all, just zoning limitations on land that is not taken.
Of course, ironically if they owned it none of my idea would work. The statute is exceedingly clear on that point. They appear to own the Burlington coat factory land, although I wonder, but not the con ed land.
And it only makes sense. You have no expectation of even using the land in the future unless you own it. Con Ed, tomorrow, could say, “we are not extending this lease and we are not selling you the property” and the GZM project is SOL.
Of course my point really was to make it clear that the Federal Government did have a say in the matter. So for Obama and Pelosi to pretend this is a local matter isn’t exactly true. Obama could do something. But he is unlikely to.
Of course I didn’t think he would thrown his racist minister Rev. Wright under the bus, either, so I have been known to be wrong about those sorts of things.
August 26, 2010, 12:30 amjukeboxgrad says:
You’re right. When I said “supposedly someone else owns 51%” I should have said “supposedly someone else might own 51%.” My mistake. I didn’t understand the problem until I just examined that passage again. Thanks for the correction.
Let us know when you’re ready answer the zillions of questions you’ve been ducking. Here’s a reminder about just one. You said this:
I wonder who you think is “us” and who you think is “them.” Because the American Muslims who want to build the cultural center are just as American as the Americans who oppose it. So why are you saying they’re not “us?” What are the requirements for joining the club you call “us?”
August 26, 2010, 12:45 amCockleCove says:
I did that before posting. The sole link you’ve proffered, bearing on questions of law, is to your own blog post. That, in turn, leads readers to (a) the text of the National Historic Sites Act, and (b) a 1939 decision by the Eighth Circuit of a case in which there was no First Amendment challenge.
There is nothing in the Act itself or in that 71-year-old case which supports your notion of Congressional intent. More importantly, we’re still in the dark as to your rationale for pooh-poohing Ilya Somin’s and Eugene Volokh’s conclusions grounded on constitutional analysis.
August 26, 2010, 1:33 amA.W. says:
Jukey
For God’s sake, do I have to explain everything to you people? “Us” is the government. *Rolls eyes.*
To be very blunt, you have maligned as a bigot a man who has been on record saying that every American could convert to Islam, and as long as it is the good variety, no big deal, and has argued against an idiot who claimed that all Muslims and all arabs should be shut out of the country.
I have explained that we are a nation defined not by religion or ethnicity, as other nations are, but as defined by values that are not tied to a specific faith. I make that point, here: http://patterico.com/2010/08/09/when-provocation-suddenly-isnt-ok-greg-gutfeld-announces-plan-for-muslim-gay-bar-next-to-ground-zero-mosque/#comment-687263
Start at comment 188 and keep reading my comments. And hey, as a bonus you will learn my real name.
The same guy I was arguing with there, continues to argue with me in another thread, here: http://patterico.com/2010/08/16/ninth-circuit-stays-gay-marriages-until-september/#comment-688781
Start there at comment 98.
And seriously keep scrolling. This man I was arguing with DOES want to eliminate all arabs and Muslims and I told him off, pointing out that this would have included Medal of Honor recipeint Michael Monsoor. Monsoor. I admit I was moved rereading those stories about the man. Hey, so if you are looking for a real life bigot, there you go, that is subby the guy I was arguing with.
I don’t need to defend anything. I know my own heart. And I know my own arguments. I have never rested any argument on collective guilt and I never will. I have never asserted that being a Muslim made you less of an American, or any of the other crap. The worst you can say about me is I have a different view of what the first amendment means in that I think the government can silence people entirely at historical sites. That is not a radical idea. Indeed, just the other day a group of schoolchildren were told they couldn’t sing the national anthem at the Lincoln memorial. But maybe you will read those other argument I had with real bigots and start to realize I am none of the bad things you have accused me of being.
> the American Muslims who want to build the cultural center are just as American as the Americans who oppose it.
I think the vast majority of American Muslims are just as “American” as anyone else.
But not these guys. But not because of their ethnicity or their faith. There is such a thing as un-American ideas. For example, Roger Taney was an un-American man. Yes, a citizen and all that, but the very idea that a man had no human rights because he was black was un-American, and Taney was un-American for expressing it in our law.. I think Bull Connor was un-American. I think John C. Calhoun, whose poisoned tongue proclaimed that the slaves were happy to be slaves, was un-American.
And I think this Imam is un-American too. He is on record as endorsing the Mullocracy of Iran. He seems to want it here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/about-that-moderate-ground-zero-imam.html
I mean imagine if today you turn on the TV and Glenn Beck is talking about the killings of innocent Muslims and the killing of Muslim terrorists like there was no difference between the two, like one was not more lamentable than the other? And Beck pretended that al Qaeda was only evil when it killed non-Muslims, but AQ killing Muslims didn’t bother him at all. You would call that bigoted, and you would be right.
Well, you might have sensed a twist, because this Imam did EXACTLY THAT, saying:
> We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims.
As I wrote at my own blog:
> Now let’s unpack that. Notice the comparison, how he stacks up the scales. First he says precisely that the United States has “Muslim blood” on its hands. Not the blood of innocent Muslims, mind you, just plain Muslim blood. So for instance presumably if a United States missile paints bin Laden’s guts all over the back of a cave in Bumf–kistan, that counts. Silly me I think there are some Muslims we should be downright happy to kill, but in his mind we should be killing no Muslims, I suppose.
> And then against that, he says we should count the number of innocent non-Muslims against al Qaeda. Isn’t that funny? I thought this guy specifically wanted to build that mosque in order to honor the Muslims killed on 9-11, and suddenly he doesn’t think that the Muslims murdered by al Qaeda count?
And then I go into the story of the murder of Touri Bolourchi, a Muslim murdered when Flight 175 slammed into the WTC and her daughter who today opposes the GZM. Its curious that a man who wants to build bridges is actually even alienating Muslims. I go on:
> So [innocent Muslims] don’t count, in his mind, in assessing the evil of al Qaeda.
> And really, leaving them out does eliminate a lot of death, because the statistical ugly reality has been for a while that al Qaeda is actually more likely to kill Muslims than anyone else. I mean there is that.
I admit his radicalism, even his bigotry, is not open or beyond debate. But you can see it creeping under the surface of statements like that. I mean just take the part when he tallied the murders of non-Muslims. I mean his comparing AQ to America, right? So is he under the impression that Americans shouldn’t care about Muslim deaths, EVEN IF THEY ARE AMERICANS? And reading that, its not hard to imagine that HE is the one who doesn’t think Muslims are really Americans. Because why else does he think Americans would only be concerned when AQ murders a non-Muslim?
I mean you guys have spend a few days trying to discern the hidden bigotry that exists in my words, to no avail. Why don’t you turn those powers of observation to this man’s words, study him, and see if you notice anything problematic.
My argument doesn’t rest on this guy being a radical. But I think he is one.
August 26, 2010, 2:07 amjukeboxgrad says:
If what you’re saying is ‘this kind of place belongs to the government,’ how can it be constitutional for the government to show no interest in the place until the moment that Muslims say they want it to be a mosque? Is that supposed to be understood as just a coincidence?
That’s not all you’re saying. You’ve saying “the government can silence people entirely at historical sites” for the purpose of silencing a particular religion. Even if you say that’s not what the government would be doing, the circumstances show that’s what the government would be doing.
I think you would be an excellent choice to run the government bureau in charge of sorting out who gets to be accepted as “the good variety.” What makes you perfect for the job is your deep understanding of what the constitution says about religion.
How magnanimous of you. Would you like a cookie? Next up, you will brag that you have spoken out courageously against the torture of kittens and the rape of nuns.
You expect us to be impressed with you because it’s actually possible to find someone who’s more of a nut than you are. This would work only if we had exceptionally low standards.
This is very much the same kind of ‘logic’ we often heard in statements like this: ‘what we do couldn’t possibly be torture, because what AQ does is worse.’ Here it is in another form: ‘Al Capone isn’t really a thief, because Bernie Madoff stole more than he did.’
Like I said, I think you should be in charge of the government bureau in charge of deciding which Americans are more or less American than other Americans. And this idea isn’t new. It fits in quite well with the idea that “some parts of the country are more American than others.”
You’re doing what you’ve done over and over again in this thread: pretend someone said something they didn’t say. In this case you’re doing it by taking his words out of context. In his very next sentence, which you pointedly omitted, he said he was talking about “the death of over half a million Iraqi children.” So it’s self-evident that he’s talking about “innocent” Muslims. You’re trying to build a case on the fact that he omitted the word “innocent,” even though the omission was perfectly benign and natural.
Your constant practice is to dismiss all evidence that doesn’t suit you. In this instance, that evidence is the sentence you omitted.
Your bigotry is hidden only to you. It’s obvious to everyone else. The fact of your own bigotry is a fact you dismiss, just like you dismiss all inconvenient facts.
There’s nothing unusual about your bigotry; there are lots of bigots just like you. What’s unusual, though, is your willingness to post lots of words that expose the inner mechanics of your bigotry. So the inadvertent public service is considerable.
August 26, 2010, 3:27 amLN says:
AW, I like how you pretend that the questions about what “us” and “them” mean arise simply because people aren’t familiar with these big complicated words. Well played. Instead of engaging with the questions you are asked, start talking about how you once had an argument against a really overt bigot, and then point out this iman wants to impose sharia law in America.
Wait, what’s the evidence that he wants to impose sharia law in America? Let’s follow the links:
The damning quote comes from an interview:
“Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed.”
I don’t see anything here about establishing sharia law in America. Since you like to complain that people misinterpret what you write, maybe you can help properly interpret this smoking gun.
August 26, 2010, 3:39 amjukeboxgrad says:
Tamerlane, I was really hoping that you would help us understand what Laura Ingraham said (link, link). You asked a question, and several people answered you, so it’s only fair that you would reciprocate.
August 26, 2010, 3:55 ammattski says:
Well, yes, I would.
August 26, 2010, 6:40 amMikeybackwards says:
You know for someone who keeps claiming that people are hallucinating you have a problem seeing straight. In fact, you have a problem even seeing my nick correctly your view is so cock-eyed on this topic.
You are a bigot and you are every bit as un-American as those you cited. You would deny people the fundamental right to practice their religion and all of the attendant trappings and freedoms that accompany such practice, including the freedom of association, the freedom of speech. You would deny the developers of Park51/Cordoba House of the free, legal use of their own property. And you would do all of this based upon a demonstrated prejudice towards the developers of this project; to wit:
Yes you follow this up with the facile disclaimer that it is not because of their ethnicity or faith, but that some ideas are just un-American. How sublimely ironic, however, that all of your examples of un-American Americans and ideas are racist and as bigoted as you and your ideas.
You talk about the terms of the Historical Sites Act and how it supposedly authorizes the infringement of the First Amendment, yet you have yet to respond to anyone’s request for citation or evidence that the statute you suggest using, for the express and blatant purpose of curbing, impeding, and imposing a prior restraint on the speech and religious expression of these individuals; trumps the First Amendment.
So I will repeat myself:
August 26, 2010, 6:58 amA.W. says:
Juke
> If what you’re saying is ‘this kind of place belongs to the government,’ how can it be constitutional for the government to show no interest in the place until the moment that Muslims say they want it to be a mosque?
Well, I have said it before, but I will say it again. No the government is perfectly fine leaving it alone until someone decides to make a big statement there, by starting a building with an explicit expressive purpose, to break ground on September 11, 2011, the 10 year anniversary.
You know, government governs best when it governs least and all that.
> You’[r]e saying
No, I am not saying that. no other religious institution is situated like them. indeed I know of no organization trying to build a building there as a statement. Most of the rest of the places around there are just engaged in commerce like anyone else.
> I think you would be an excellent choice to run the government bureau in charge of sorting out who gets to be accepted as “the good variety.” What makes you perfect for the job is your deep understanding of what the constitution says about religion
Wow, you are willfully unwilling to even try to understand what I am saying.
If America went communist totalitarian, would it be America? NO.
If America went KKK, would it be America? NO.
If America went the way of iran, would it be America? NO.
Now just because the third hypothetical transformation is a mix of politics and religion doesn’t exempt it. And there is nothing wrong with saying that bigotry, racism, dictatorship are not properly what America is about. Indeed, if you were not so determined to “score points” in an argument, I suspect you would agree.
Yeah, I am intolerant of intolerance. Sue me.
And that is so hypocritical of you. How many times have you accused me of lumping all Muslims together and called me a bigot based on that (false) accusation? And then when you can’t deny that I am differentiating between good Muslims and radical ones, suddenly I am a bad guy for making that differentiation? I mean are you arguing with any good faith at all?
> So it’s self-evident that he’s talking about “innocent” Muslims.
No, it is not. If he meant innocent Muslims he would have said innocent Muslims. If I say I am proud of Americans like Michael Moonsor, am I saying I like only Americans of Arabic descent? Just because he specifically named one subset doesn’t mean that limits the set.
If I say, “I hate crime. I hate it when people murder, rape or steal.” Does that mean that I only hate those crimes? Does that mean that fraud is kosher in my book? Or is it reasonable to think that I hate all of it?
And notice you don’t even address my point that when talking about al Qaeda’s evil, he doesn’t even mention the murder of innocent Muslims. There is no getting around the fact that he is not holding the murder of innocent Muslims against al Qaeda. And indeed the fact he remembered to modify the phrase “non Muslims” with the word “innocent” makes his FAILURE to modify the term “Muslim blood” with the word “innocent” all the more glaring. Expressio unius, buddy. The expression of one is the exclusion of the other.
And notice the double standard here. You bend over backwards to insert adjectives into his comments that exonerate him. But you hallucinate bigotry into my words. Why does he get the benefit of the doubt that I don’t?
> It’s obvious to everyone else.
So obvious you can’t prove it. Can’t quote anything.
No the real bigotry is here. Yours. Your belief, immune to all contrary facts and evidence, that you can’t oppose this mosque without being a bigot.
Well, 71% of all Americans oppose it (although most believe like you they have a right to build it). So are 71% of all Americans bigots?
And if they are not, then what argument is moving them?
LN
> Wait, what’s the evidence that he wants to impose sharia law in America?
First, Shoebat can read Arabic. Can you? Unless you can and can show me in the whole context that Shoebat is being unfair, I will go with him.
Second, you might also google his name and the word “sharia.” You would get stuff like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-shariah-law-is-all-a_b_190825.html
Oh and at his own site, he is promoting things like the Sharia Index.
http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/17/ground-zero-mosques-hidden-websites-follow-the-shariah/
Oh, and more on that here. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090721/NATIONAL/707209836/1138
It is a tool designed to promote Sharia. And included in that list of sharia rules, rules against blasphemy. That is right, he is encouraging muslim countries to put anyone in jail who insults mohammed. So excuse me if I consider him my mortal enemy. http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/welcome-to-new-visitorswe-are-calling.html
Funny that. he thinks there is nothing wrong with a country limiting freedom of speech and religion in the name of so-called blasphemy laws. And that attitude is un-American.
And you can read in a lot of detail about his views. America in his mind is a sharia compliant state, and you should read what that involves in his mind. http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/The-Imam-Behind-Ground-Zero-Mosque_20100720.pdf
So he talks about creating a sharia index and gives us tips on how to be more sharia compliant. I would say he wants sharia here. Silly me, I suppose.
MickeyMouseAssbackwards
> You would deny people the fundamental right to practice their religion
I didn’t say he can’t worship Allah. I said he can’t do it THERE. Classic example of one of many hallucinations.
Like right now I can’t walk into the white house and hold a church service. Does that mean I am being denied my fundamental right to practice my religion? I can’t even sing the battle hymn of the republic at the Lincoln memorial. Does that mean I am being denied freedom of speech?
> Yes you follow this up with the facile disclaimer…
…that you know is lying because? I mean the argument is circular. You know my real motivation is bigotry because you know my real motivation is bigotry. But you can never actually prove it. So it amounts to you prejudging the matter.
> you have yet to respond to anyone’s request for citation or evidence that the statute you suggest using, for the express and blatant purpose of curbing, impeding, and imposing a prior restraint on the speech and religious expression of these individuals; trumps the First Amendment.
Citation? The act. And the fact its been on the books since the 1930’s and not been struck down. In fact, I don’t see a specific challenge in the caselaw, but for “fun” legal issues I don’t use the premium services. What you complain about is what the act does. It says that the government can take over the site and kick all other speakers off. the first amendment gives you the right to express your ideas, but the government always has the right to establish time place and manner restrictions.
August 26, 2010, 10:12 amjukeboxgrad says:
I should have known this might happen. I need to check and make sure I have enough for everyone. In retrospect, I really should have done that before offering.
Anyway, you should know that Drew at Toothpaste for Dinner isn’t so sure that it’s a good idea.
August 26, 2010, 10:12 amCockleCove says:
Do you do this in real life, tell a court that you don’t have to back up a legal argument, even when you’re asking it to break with precedent or adopt a minority view? Had any luck with that?
Here, you take on two law professors, widely regarded as authorities on the First Amendment and on property law, and denounce their conclusion that “you cannot use imminent [sic] domain” as “wrong headed”. Sure, you don’t “need” to support your bald assertion that they are in error. But you are an empty suit, entitled to no credence, when you fail to do so.
August 26, 2010, 10:54 amA.W. says:
Cockle
> Do you do this in real life, tell a court that you don’t have to back up a legal argument, even when you’re asking it to break with precedent or adopt a minority view
What precedent?
And no I don’t bother to cite precedents for time/place/manner restrictions being kosher. Because its black letter constitutional law.
> Sure, you don’t “need” to support your bald assertion that [the professors] are in error.
Well, look at the very title of this post. “Property rights.”
I am not talking about their property. Because the statute wouldn’t let the Federal Government take their property (at least not without consent, which defeats the purpose of what I am proposing). I am talking about the part that is NOT their property.
So when Ilya writes “the proposed taking would almost certainly violate the owners’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion,” well, we are not talking about the owners, but the tenants. The tenants have no reasonable expectation of future speech or religious practice there. And the idea that the power of the FG can be limited in its power to control a historic site, because someone might someday in the future wish to build a church there, when its not even clear that they can even physically do so, yeah, that strikes me a wrongheaded.
And Volokh talks about property regulations and takings based on the message. That only means “take them all regardless of message.” So their arguments don’t even properly relate to my own. Which isn’t surprising because I was raising an idea different from the ones they were discussing. they can’t be expected to rebut every idea on the planet.
So bluntly I am not saying the professors are in error. I thought it would be obvious to everyone that their arguments are not even addressed to what I am suggesting, except in the most general-subject matter relation, that is “can anyone use eminent domain to take the land?”
August 26, 2010, 11:43 amjukeboxgrad says:
Naturally. And that’s why you think the feds should swoop in to protect the Burlington Coat Factory from being desecrated by “these guys,” because the government has deemed them to be not “the good variety.” Even though the government had never before shown any interest in the Burlington Coat Factory as a historic site. And, according to you, this would not desecrate the constitution. And, acccording to you, this is consistent with the principle “government governs best when it governs least.” Got it.
Naturally. And it makes perfect sense for the government to be in the business of making sure that only folks of “the good variey” can choose to make “a statement.”
You’re doing a lot more than that. You’re suggesting that the government should be in the business of deciding which American Muslims are considered “good Muslims” and therefore allowed to worship on their own property. Here’s what that makes you: an enemy of the constitution.
In other words, the government should be in the business of deciding which gods can be worshipped, and at which locations. And if I am not “the good variety,” the government can suddenly decide that my private property is a historic site, even though it never expressed interest in my property until I announced which god I planned to worship there. Got it.
I guess you must be one of those socialists who doesn’t recognize any difference between private property and public property.
Except that it has to do that in a way that’s viewpoint-neutral. Suddenly noticing the great historic importance of the Burlington Coat Factory at the exact moment that a bunch of wingnuts start expressing anti-Muslim hysteria is not viewpoint-neutral.
If you say ‘I hate crime, I hate it when people murder, rape or steal,’ it’s perfectly reasonable to surmise that this strong emotion (“hate”) is indeed reserved for those most serious crimes.
This is another excellent example of how you demand that everyone read your words in the most favorable light, while you do the exact opposite when the shoe is on the other foot.
His next sentence refers to children, and this makes it obvious that he’s talking about “innocent Muslims.” And your decision to omit the next sentence, while also providing no link so we could see the context, makes it obvious that you’re a dishonest hack.
August 26, 2010, 12:07 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Except that Con Ed is on record saying that the part that you claim “is NOT their property” actually is their property:
August 26, 2010, 12:23 pmJohn Burgess says:
Barb: Exactly the same number of students from the Saudi Islamic Academy in N. Virginia (one) has been hit with terrorism charges as students at Herndon High School, a few miles away… One.
August 26, 2010, 12:46 pmLN says:
So I followed the links and here’s the money quote proving how dangerous the iman is:
“(w)hat I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is shariah compliant, for a „state inhabited predominantly by Muslims neither defines nor makes it synonymous with an Islamic state. It can become truly Islamic only by virtues of a conscious application of the sociopolitical tenets of Islam to the life of the national, and by an incorporation of those tenets in the basic constitution of the country.‟ By the same token, a state that does incorporate such sociopolitical tenets has become a de facto Islamic state even if there are no Muslims in name living there, for it expresses the ideals of the good society according to Islamic principles. For America to score even higher on the „Islamic‟ or „Shariah Compliance‟ scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation‟s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws”
This is absolutely terrifying.
August 26, 2010, 12:46 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
AW
I will ask this again, since I do not believe you or anyone has answered: How far away would the mosque have to be to get you to be quiet?
August 26, 2010, 1:02 pmJoseph Slater says:
If mattski gets a doughnut and I don’t, well, then the terrorists have won.
August 26, 2010, 1:33 pmCockleCove says:
So, you’re content to let the Cordoba group retain ownership and control of 45-47 Park Place & will acknowledge (albeit reluctantly) that a mosque could be built on that smaller plot if they are unable to exercise the purchase option for 49-51 contemplated by the extant long-term lease with Con Ed?
August 26, 2010, 1:44 pmGreg says:
Theocracy is not a government? I beg to differ. The Catholic Church was the nominal government in Europe at one time and it was a disaster, the main reason for the first amendment.
August 26, 2010, 2:00 pmA.W. says:
Jukey
> And that’s why you think the feds should swoop in to protect the Burlington Coat Factory from being desecrated by “these guys,” because the government has deemed them to be not “the good variety.”
Where did I propose that the government designate people good and bad Muslims?
And, by the way, it’s the con ed land, not the Burlington coat factory. But that is neither here nor there.
> You’re suggesting that the government should be in the business of deciding which American Muslims are considered “good Muslims”
Where did I say that?
> In other words, the government should be in the business of deciding which gods can be worshipped, and at which locations.
Where did I say that, either?
> I guess you must be one of those socialists who doesn’t recognize any difference between private property and public property.
Get this through your head. ITS NOT THEIR PROPERTY. And the historic sites act is about HOW TO CHANGE PRIVATE PROPERTY INTO PUBLIC PROPERTY.
> Suddenly noticing the great historic importance of the Burlington Coat Factory at the exact moment that a bunch of wingnuts start expressing anti-Muslim hysteria is not viewpoint-neutral.
Think of it this way. Ward Churchill went for years lying to his school about his heritage. One day he made a very ugly statement about 9-11 and it became national news. As that controversy swirled a few politically interested people noticed he was not, pardon the term, an “honest Indian.” (Sorry, un-p.c. but too good to resist.) So the U. of Colorado noticed this.
Were they supposed to pretend they didn’t notice this academic fraud he had perpetuated? They decided not to, that just because the people who discovered it probably had a political agenda, didn’t suddenly make their allegations untrue.
So all we have to say is this: “I wasn’t aware that anyone was trying to make a statement at ground zero. Now I know someone is, we are moving to prevent it—all of it. And if anyone else wants to buy land to make a statement, we will block you too.” Now, what is the constitutional problem there?
And notice you skip over my point about him differentiating between the innocent and not-innocent “non Muslims.” He makes the distinction in one term, but not the other.
Its called expressio uniuis. Like when I toured by law school for the first time, they explained that the city was originally built around a graveyard, but they discovered that this was not very sanitary with the fish markets and the like right nearby. “So,” the tour guide said in her best deadpan, “they moved the head stones.” And a beat followed and everyone got it. They moved the headstones, not the bodies.
But this is even more blatant than that. this is like saying, “they moved the graves from Spring Hill cemetery and the headstones at Brentwood Cemetery.” The implication is hit you over the head obvious; they did not move the entire graves at Brentwood.
So he indicts America for the murder of Muslims.
But only indicts AQ for the murder of innocent non Muslims.
What am I supposed to think?
And even if you decide to supply the word “innocent” in front of the word “muslim” you still have to explain why he thought that we should only hold the murders of NON-MUSLIMS again AQ.
You can’t even refute that point so what do you do? You ignore it. that is after accusing me of ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Speaking of ignoring all evidence to the contrary:
> you claim “is NOT their property” actually is their property
Your own quoted passage states that this is an “opti