Pelosi: Gov’t should probe people opposed to Ground Zero mosque

posted at 9:30 am on August 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Of course!  What better way to defend the First Amendment freedom of religion than to have the Speaker of the House ask the federal government investigate those exercising their First Amendment right to free speech?  Nancy Pelosi just guaranteed at least two new news cycles for a story, tossing even more gasoline on the fire than Barack Obama’s pas de deux this weekend:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.

Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”

“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”

Does that mean that Pelosi wants Harry Reid investigated, too?   Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY)?  This should be fun!

One might think that Pelsoi would want a peek at where the Park51 will be getting its funds to build the mosque, especially since the State Department is footing the bill for a tour conducted by the imam at the head of the project.  Instead, Pelosi wants the power of the government directed at people taking political positions.  That goes well beyond any supposed extremism by the mosque’s opponents, most (but not all) of whom acknowledge that the property owners have the right to build on their lot anything that meets code, but want to express their opposition to the plans.  Pelosi would take this opportunity to use the government as a thought police to silence dissent.

Incredibly, in the same interview, Pelosi also says this:

Still, Pelosi said she’d like to see the issue determined by New Yorkers and slip off the national stage.

Yes, and a federal probe into political speech will certainly accomplish that, Speaker Pelosi.  Is the leadership of the Democratic Party really this clueless all of the time, or did something get into the water system in Washington DC this past week?

Update: The Daily Kos gets one right on this issue.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

If two blocks away is hallowed ground, then get your lazy ass to work shutting down the titty bar that has the gall to shake its junk in the face of ground zero.

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 1:31 PM

If the towers were destroyed for/in the name of strip clubs, you bet we’d have a problem with any clubs within the debris field.

But since it was MUSLIMS who flew the planes into the buildings and did so in the name of Allah…

…then it’s plain and simply wrong to build a mosque there.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM

NY is not trying to “stop a church from being built”. The deal fell through because of money issues. If those weren’t there, the church would have gotten the OK.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Wrong. The church could rebuild as long as it looks like a warehouse and not a church.

ladyingray on August 18, 2010 at 1:37 PM

The State Dept. funds a fund raising tour for this doofus , sexist, bigoted Imam, but won’t help out the church. Amazing!!!

Now…Nancy wants opposition investigated, yet questions remain as to who is funding this mosque. Dollars to donuts our tax dollars are part of that funding. The opposition investigation comments are just a distraction.

capejasmine on August 18, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 1:31 PM

I’ve come around to your position, build the Mosque. Make it 1000 feet tall.

They will call it a mosque and I will call it the gravestone for the absolutely worthless, corrupt and incompetent Democrat Party.

This issue is just going to rain defeat and destruction on Democrats and in that context, it will be a good thing.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Yay! Nancy the Nazi wants to investigate 70% of our citizens! That should turn up a few of them illegal immigrants undocumented workers aliens. Or maybe not.

starboardhelm on August 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Overdue for a little self examination.

darwin on August 18, 2010 at 1:43 PM

He’s waiting on Obamacare.

ladyingray on August 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM

NY is not trying to “stop a church from being built”. The deal fell through because of money issues. If those weren’t there, the church would have gotten the OK.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Wrong. The church could rebuild as long as it looks like a warehouse and not a church.

ladyingray on August 18, 2010 at 1:37 PM

The G.O. priest was on Fox News this morning, from the site. It appears that because of what the Port Authority has built under the church property, that the church cannot be rebuilt on that site.

There’s something that sounded like an inspection gate under there for underground parking at the new Freedom Towers.

Doesn’t sound like a money problem. Sounds like the government has devalued the property and needs to reimburse the church for the loss of value.

slickwillie2001 on August 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Of course they should probe them – America needs to know why mosque opposers don’t have the bal*s to come out and say they want to kick all Muslims out of the country.

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 10:12 AM

This is what happens, when you live under socialism. You lose all thought processes, and any intelligible thought. The socialist regimes do all they can, to do the thinking for their willing subjects. Every now, and then, one like this will try to step out of the shadows, and TRY to convince others, they have a mind of their own. But it usually, as is the case here…just looks sad, and pathetic.

This is why we rail against this kind of leadership in this country. Some parents embraced the socialism, and now their kids are drones. I do NOT want this for my children, or any other American citizen.

capejasmine on August 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM

In all fairness to the other side of this debate, I have a question for other conservatives on this site.

From my perusal of the map, GZ Mosque location is 2 blocks from the World Trade Center site. I understand the frustration with building the mosque / community center / whatever this close to ground zero (or in a building struck by debris), who far would it have to be to not be offensive? 3 blocks? 4?

when I started in this argument I assumed, based on it being called the GZ Mosque, that it was right up against the World Trade Center site. But it isn’t. there are buildings between it and the site. It is 2 blocks away.

I agree that this seems like provocation from teh muslim community and based on the emotions it has evoked, it clearly does not help their alleged “outreach” or “tolerance” efforts.

But I am curious what people actully think would be an appropriate distance.

And before anyone calls me a concern troll – review comments I’ve posted. I come down as far right as almost any other commentator. And, I still agree that this is not a freedom of religion issue, or racism issue, or any other such nonsense. I’m just genuinely curious what people think is appropriate in relation to distance to ground zero.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 2:00 PM

“How is this being ginned up?”

How obtuse is this statement? Really?

Even if you think a mosque should be built there, you can understand that opposition to a mosque at Ground Zero, does not have to be “ginned up”.

If it were “ginned up”, it would be something that people wouldn’t otherwise have an opinion on.

Pretty much every American has an opinion on 9/11 and anything related to it.

Just shows how incompetent and out of touch this painfully stupid woman is. She’s an embarrassment to women, to Democrats, to America and to all human beings who have ever existed.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM

when I started in this argument I assumed, based on it being called the GZ Mosque, that it was right up against the World Trade Center site. But it isn’t. there are buildings between it and the site. It is 2 blocks away.

As I said earlier:
The proposed site for the mosque is the old Burlington Coat Factory that was damaged by the landing gear of one of the planes that struck the towers.

It was, in fact, inside the debris field of the attack.

Which means, that it is likely (although unprovable either way) that some of the ashes and dust that coated the building was from the bodies of the victims.

I’m just genuinely curious what people think is appropriate in relation to distance to ground zero.

I think the BARE MINIMUM would be beyond the debris field.

And a couple of blocks outside of that would help, also.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 2:00 PM

I don’t know if you noticed, but the planes hit more than the 2 towers.

faraway on August 18, 2010 at 2:05 PM

The woman is insane. Stark raving mad.

Terrye on August 18, 2010 at 2:07 PM

When I asked “who is trying to stop a church from being built?” i was asking in the context of people trying to stop one from being built because of the religion it represents — like what is happening with the Cordoba Center.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Mormon Temple in Boston, 1999. Just so happened to be in Mitt’s home town, too.

Remember, many on the Left see the Mormons as an anti-gay Hate Group.

Del Dolemonte on August 18, 2010 at 2:07 PM

This is terrific for conservative candidates this fall.

Run ads stating the high percentage that liberal opponent voted with Pelosi – Win election.

forest on August 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM

And another thing, why is it that liberals save all their lecturing and scolding for America?

How many churches and temples are there in Saudi Arabia? In Iran? In Syria?

Seems to me, Obama and Pelosi are being stingy with their great wisdom.

Go lecture the mullahs on how intolerant and bigoted they are being, then get back to us on what they say.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM

All this opposition to the Ground Zero Endzone Dance Mosque sounds a little “fishy” to me…

Haiku Guy on August 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Rauf is against that kind of barbaric enforcement of Sharia law and has called for a reform of Sharia law to bring Islam more into the 21 Century.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-shariah-law-is-all-a_b_190825.html

He’s against barbaric enforcement (though he doesn’t go into any details in this article as to what that means exactly), but he doesn’t actually denounce any of the laws.

Sincerely, if this is your view of a moderate, you have less faith in Muslims than I do. Regardless of enforcement, Sharia has no business in America whatsoever. The fact that he wants it here does not make him moderate.

Anyone who denies that past U.S. actions help create resentment that led to the 9/11 attacks is just hiding their head in the sand. Again, no one is saying the U.S. deserved to be attacked. he’s just saying that past actions can bring about unwanted consequences.

Or that their chickens came home to roost, or that their evil took God’s protection from them.

No matter how you word it, there’s nothing moderate about the position.

I don’t necessarily think what nuns did was wrong, but I can see why the Jewish people would not want the camp or memorial to be infringed upon like that…

But on this issue, all who don’t like the building are automatically prejudiced, even though the Jews who didn’t like this are not for some reason.

Here’s the thing. The Cordoba House is not at Ground Zero. It’s not at a place designated as a memorial for the victims of 9/11. It’s in the middle of a city block two blocks away from Ground Zero.

Actually, here’s the thing, the Burlington Coat Factor was hit by one of the planes. It is a part of Ground Zero.

Remember, Muslim Americans lost their lives on 9/11 too. The people who are building the Cordoba House are not radical muslims. They are not al qaeda and they had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Catholics lost their lives at concentration camps too, and they certainly had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Because some people can’t make that distinction is not good enough reason for trying to stop them from building there.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Strawman. People aren’t offended by this because they think the only good Muslim is a dead one (obviously some are, but not all 70% of Americans and over 60% of New Yorkers), just as Jews weren’t blaming Catholics for their Holocaust.

You thumb your nose at all of us while asking us to show the tolerance you’ve yet to show.

I am tolerant of Muslims. I have nothing against them. I oppose this for the same reason I think it was wise for the nuns to finally leave the concentration camp, because it’s harmful to making bridges.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM

forest on August 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Exactly – just slap them so hard, Democrats starve to death rolling on this one.

They’re for the mosque – 70% of Americans are against them.

They’re against the mosque – their lunatic, dhimmi base sits home on election day.

It’s a beautiful thing.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Did you hurt yourself with that stretch? Physically I mean, since the remark totally destroys your credibility.

Cindy Munford on August 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM

But I am curious what people actully think would be an appropriate distance.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 2:00 PM

As a minimum, far enough away not to have been hit by parts of the airplanes that were used in the attack.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Drumming up sentiment against the center being built near ground zero is an extra-legal way to “not allow” it from being built.

It’s different means to the same end.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Remember this day, boys and girls. Tom Shipley has condemned protest and the attempt to convince others of the rightness of your views.

The great Tom Shipley has spoken! *BONG!*

I wonder if he really realizes that he sounds like a mentally-ill street person, or if this all comes off as “reasonable” to him? Protest is “extra-legal” and just another tool of the man to keep a brother down!

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Bong! Cuckoo! Bong!

Merovign on August 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM

“but but but pieces of the towers might have hit that location so it’s also hallowed ground” in 3….2…..1….

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Might have? My God you’re ignorant.

Drumming up sentiment against the center being built near ground zero is an extra-legal way to “not allow” it from being built.

It’s different means to the same end.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM

So it was wrong for people to protest Don Imus for his “nappy” comment? It’s wrong for people to protest building casinos and theme parks on former battlegrounds?

Does free expression only go one way? Or do we all have the right to do say what we believe?

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Seems to me, Obama and Pelosi are being stingy with their great wisdom.

Go lecture the mullahs on how intolerant and bigoted they are being, then get back to us on what they say.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Unlike Drywall they reserve it for their own country.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 2:15 PM

This is what happens, when you live under socialism. You lose all thought processes, and any intelligible thought.

capejasmine on August 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM

What does he know? His country doesn’t have free speech.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:15 PM

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Liberals don’t criticize people in Iran or anywhere else because liberals are bigots. They infantilize and excuse all bad behavior by “people of color” in other countries because “they don’t know better” and are not capable of making moral decisions due to some alleged injustices imposed upon them by white folks, or whatever. Somehow, libs pull off the trick of being self-loathing and elitist racists at the same time.

forest on August 18, 2010 at 2:15 PM

I received an e-mail today from a local Tea Party group (I’m in northern NJ) regarding a protest on Sunday being combined with an annual 9/11 memorial bike run. A number of groups appear to be involved, along with information going out to individuals like me. Wonder if any of the MSM will cover it?

Willie on August 18, 2010 at 2:16 PM

PS it would have helped if the Mosque organizers had:

A) Not named the project after a “romantic” symbol of prior Islamic conquest of Europe.

B) Scheduled opening day on 9/11/11

C) Actually opened the project with questions about people’s opinions (you know, a DIALOGUE) instead of stating their intentions and then, when protests began, digging in their heels.

Maybe this could have been a chance to build bridges, but it was a very, very poor attempt.

Merovign on August 18, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I received an e-mail today from a local Tea Party group (I’m in northern NJ) regarding a protest on Sunday being combined with an annual 9/11 memorial bike run. A number of groups appear to be involved, along with information going out to individuals like me. Wonder if any of the MSM will cover it?

Willie on August 18, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Only to cover all the racists that showed up…and specifically film the infiltrators with their morbid, and offensive signs, to make the whole thing look like a collection of hate mongers, and nazis. *sigh*

capejasmine on August 18, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Hmmmm. I’m seeing a pattern here:

Last week Obama implied that Americans for Prosperity was a foreign corporation which needed to be scrutinized (which was factually wrong on both counts – it’s not a corporation and it’s not run by foreigners).

The article Ed linked to stated:

“The concern is that an organization like Americans for Prosperity could dump millions into an election to sway voters without the voters ever knowing who’s behind it all.”

Now Pelosi is calling for the opponents to the Ground Zero Mosque to be investigated. Look for more of this – it’s looking suspiciously like an approved talking point, where attempts will be made to raise questions in the voters’ minds about radical subversives funding the G.O.P. and Tea party (yes, I see the irony here).

They won’t actually investigate anyone (they can’t) but it’s a trick such as lawyers use in trials – asking questions they know will be stricken by the judge but which still floated out there for the jury’s benefit. Or to be repeated by erstwhile Journolisters.

Buy Danish on August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Might I also suggest that the TIMING of the proposed mosque is pretty poor?

I mean, we’re STILL AT WAR with radical Islam.

Our troops are still being killed “in the name of Allah.”

So, maybe it’s a bit too soon, the pain still too raw, to be thinking about building a mosque there.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM

As a minimum, far enough away not to have been hit by parts of the airplanes that were used in the attack.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM

That would work for me. Of course, using the 10th anniversary of the attacks to celebrate the building is another consideration, regardless of where it’s built.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM

The fact that the muslims planning the mosque initially called it ‘Cordoba House’ tells us that they consider it a part of Ground Zero. The fact that they still try and sell it as a site for ‘common understanding and reconciliation’ tells us that they consider the site a part of Ground Zero.

If not, they could do all that reconciliation crap at any other mosque in Manhattan. They could rename any other mosque ‘Cordoba House’ as well, but then it would not be a logical place to celebrate their terrorist action, would it?

slickwillie2001 on August 18, 2010 at 2:26 PM

And yet again…

…if the people pushing and backing this mosque were REALLY interested in fostering communication and building bridges…

…why are they continuing to push forward despite 70% of Americans opposed to it?

That doesn’t really sound very “sensitive” or “tolerant”, does it?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I received an e-mail today from a local Tea Party group (I’m in northern NJ) regarding a protest on Sunday being combined with an annual 9/11 memorial bike run.

Willie on August 18, 2010 at 2:16 PM

This sounds like a bad idea to me. A memorial run and a protest shouldn’t be combined ever, no matter what’s being memorialized.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Good point, every single day our troops are being murdered by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Wonder what would have happened had there been a proposal to build a Shinto Shrine on the beach at Pearl Harbor?

How would the libs feel about a National Guard recruiting cener being built at Kent State?

Personally, I’d contribute.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Now she out saying she wants to investigate the mosque developers too….

KEEP DIGGING NAN!

dogsoldier on August 18, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 2:00 PM
I don’t know if you noticed, but the planes hit more than the 2 towers.

faraway on August 18, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Debris hit more than the 2 towers. Debris includes parts of the planes. this is my question. Is it b/c this particular building was hit by part of the plane – meaning that the property right next door would be o.k.?

Or is it anywhere dust and debris hit after the towers came down, which would be a pretty significant radius?

Or is it simply some distance from the world trade center site?

We can’t be claiming that some 3 mile circumfrance around the site is “hallowed ground”, that would be unreasonable. Particularly since most of that is private property already being used in ways inconsistent with “hallowed ground”.

I guess I’m trying to get a feel for what is reasonable here. What if the issue were not building a large new building but simply converting an existing building?

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 2:35 PM

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:33 PM

I’ve asked the same question about the Shinto shrine, answer: /crickets

dogsoldier on August 18, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Debris hit more than the 2 towers. Debris includes parts of the planes. this is my question. Is it b/c this particular building was hit by part of the plane – meaning that the property right next door would be o.k.?

Or is it anywhere dust and debris hit after the towers came down, which would be a pretty significant radius?

I believe you’ve been answered several times:

I think the BARE MINIMUM would be beyond the debris field.

And a couple of blocks outside of that would help, also.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:03 PM

As a minimum, far enough away not to have been hit by parts of the airplanes that were used in the attack.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM

That would work for me. Of course, using the 10th anniversary of the attacks to celebrate the building is another consideration, regardless of where it’s built.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I am tolerant of Muslims. I have nothing against them. I oppose this for the same reason I think it was wise for the nuns to finally leave the concentration camp, because it’s harmful to making bridges.

Why is it harmful to making bridges?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Obviously Pelosi has botox on the brain!

MCGIRV on August 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Chuck Schumer has been awfully quiet on this issue.

He was in the fore-front against the Dubai Ports Deal. He even appeared on the Michael Savage Show.

Pelosi: needs to be institutionalized.

carbon_footprint on August 18, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Why is it harmful to making bridges?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Why do you feel it’s necessary for everyone else to constantly give in to the demands of Islam?

Secondly, building a 13 story mosque near an area where Islam inspired the murder of 3000 people isn’t “building bridges” … it’s establishing dominance over the are.

darwin on August 18, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Debris hit more than the 2 towers. Debris includes parts of the planes. this is my question. Is it b/c this particular building was hit by part of the plane – meaning that the property right next door would be o.k.?

That they wanted this building specifically because it was hit is certainly more offensive than if they’d picked one that wasn’t hit.

Or is it anywhere dust and debris hit after the towers came down, which would be a pretty significant radius?

Or is it simply some distance from the world trade center site?

The two are pretty much the same. And yes, that would make a significant difference. There are plenty of mosques in New York, some only a few blocks away from the Burlington Coat Factory, and they aren’t getting this kind of attention.

We can’t be claiming that some 3 mile circumference around the site is “hallowed ground”, that would be unreasonable. Particularly since most of that is private property already being used in ways inconsistent with “hallowed ground”.

Legally, that’s correct and not in dispute.

But if someone wants to build a bridge, he must consider the sensibilities of the people he’s trying to build a bridge with. You know, what the man said to Gutfeld about his proposed gay bar.

I guess I’m trying to get a feel for what is reasonable here. What if the issue were not building a large new building but simply converting an existing building?

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Then presumably they wouldn’t need permission from anyone for anything, but since they already have that, there’s ultimately no difference whatsoever.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Why is it harmful to making bridges?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Who said it was harmful to make bridges?

But also, how exactly is building this mosque “building bridges” if 70% of America opposes it?

It seems more like they’re BURNING bridges instead of building them.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Why is it harmful to making bridges?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Maybe you can answer it by explaining to me why Jewish people were understandably offended at what the nuns were doing, or by explaining why Rauf believes Gutfeld’s Dialog won’t be building any bridges.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM

This is a great read, the professional left has been exposed.. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-professional-left-vs-the-amateur-right/

reshas1 on August 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM

-Republican Allen West, Tea Party candidate

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 11:00 AM

That would be Col. Allen West
I LOVE Col. West.
how much time have you put into the service of your country Dave?

Willie on August 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Who said it was harmful to make bridges?

I said it was harming to making bridges, not that making one itself would be harmful.

But also, how exactly is building this mosque “building bridges” if 70% of America opposes it?

It seems more like they’re BURNING bridges instead of building them.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM

And that’s one of the reasons I said it.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Hmmm – I’ve lost two comments to the ether – not quite sure what’s in them to cause them to be held back.

So my apologies when my two virtually identical comments DO get posted.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 2:54 PM

We already know who the bigots are.

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM

You realize Dave, if it gets built, they aren’t going to let you in, let alone welcome you in. So explain to me again who the bigots are?

Willie on August 18, 2010 at 2:57 PM

The exercise of the freedom of religion does not occur in a vacuum. Most Americans agree that the Mosque developers have the right to exercise their freedom of religion. The resultant backlash is the consequence of their exercise of their rights and there is nothing wrong with a public outcry against the demonstration of their rights. If they choose to exercise their freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, they should welcome the exercise of other’s right to protest, also guaranteed by our Constitution. Rights come with responsibilities. Their right to exercise their freedom of religion does not include the right to silence opposition with name calling or threats of investigation.

txmomof6 on August 18, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Canadian Dave. He was dancing on 9/12 after his phony show of sympathy the day before. Bank on it.

ClassicCon on August 18, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Why is it harmful to making bridges?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM

You’re not very adept socially, are you?

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Someone should probe her skull for evidence of a brain.

ButterflyDragon on August 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Enjoy your final days in office, Nancy. America is, finally, kicking you to the curb. Gonna be fun watching them pry that over-sized gavel from you shriveled clutches!

Christien on August 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Willie on August 18, 2010 at 2:57 PM

You haven’t seen Dave in his burka.

He will be permitted to join the segregated women section.

Maybe he will lead the protest at the lunch counter.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM

We can’t be claiming that some 3 mile circumference around the site is “hallowed ground”, that would be unreasonable. Particularly since most of that is private property already being used in ways inconsistent with “hallowed ground”.
Legally, that’s correct and not in dispute.

But if someone wants to build a bridge, he must consider the sensibilities of the people he’s trying to build a bridge with. You know, what the man said to Gutfeld about his proposed gay bar.

If you read my comments, you will see I have agreed with these points. I do not claim that this is a question of legality or religious freedom, and I am opposed to this mosque being built there.

I think though that claiming no mosque should be built anywhere debris went is unreasonable. That covers almost all of downtown manhattan. You cannot be claiming that all of that ground – including restaurants, adult stores, etc., is hallowed ground?

That is my point. By the way I saw the answers people put – I think those are not real answers. “Beyond the debris field” means nothing. give me blocks / miles. Are you saying anything within 20 blocks fo the world trade center site is off-limit to mosques? 30 blocks?

I think I would stop at 2 blocks outside the permiter of the world trade center site. I think that is reasonable.

I’m asking a real practical question here. I’m not asking what is legal or not legal. I’m asking what people actually think. I hope this time I made that clear enough.

Would people feel differently if they were simply converting a building on that spot rather than building new?

what if the proposed site was 4 blocks from the World Trade Center site?

what if it was not the 10 year anniversary, but was opened in February 2009 or February 2012?

What if the proposed center was only 2 stories instead of 13?

I think a lot of these things matter and would change the way people feel about it. But I also think the distance issue should be reasonable.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Why is it harmful to making bridges?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM

The ones their fellow faithers tried to blow up?

Maybe they need to talk to them first.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 3:07 PM

the people arguing this is a freedom of religion issue and that we should not critize the decision to build there are the same people who think it violates their first amendment rights when you critize something they say.

You have the freedom to practice your religion, and I have the freedom to comment on it. YOu have the freedom to make statements and I have the freedom to point out your statements are idiotic.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 3:10 PM

KeepAmericaSafe.com: WE REMEMBER

Seven Percent Solution on August 18, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I think though that claiming no mosque should be built anywhere debris went is unreasonable. That covers almost all of downtown manhattan. You cannot be claiming that all of that ground – including restaurants, adult stores, etc., is hallowed ground?

Correct. I’m not claiming that any of it is hallowed ground.

I think I would stop at 2 blocks outside the permiter of the world trade center site. I think that is reasonable.

I would stop it where the debris of the airplanes as they crashed into the World Trade Center buildings stopped, but to set up a line is really missing the point. That’s why I specifically mentioned being sensitive to others.

Had they even asked what those who lost loved ones on 9/11 felt or even just what New Yorkers felt, this would be an entirely different debate.

A little respect goes a long way. Middle fingers waving in the air can of course go even longer.

Would people feel differently if they were simply converting a building on that spot rather than building new?

No, why would they?

what if the proposed site was 4 blocks from the World Trade Center site?

That would depend on many things.

what if it was not the 10 year anniversary, but was opened in February 2009 or February 2012?

That would make a significant difference.

What if the proposed center was only 2 stories instead of 13?

That would also make a difference albeit a slight one.

I think a lot of these things matter and would change the way people feel about it. But I also think the distance issue should be reasonable.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 3:06 PM

I think it is reasonable. There are 30 mosques in New York. From what I understand, there’s already one within walking distance of the Burlington Coat Factory building that has attracted no protests.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Just shows how incompetent and out of touch this painfully stupid woman is. She’s an embarrassment to women, to Democrats, to America and to all human beings who have ever existed.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Yup.

Alana on August 18, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I think though that claiming no mosque should be built anywhere debris went is unreasonable. That covers almost all of downtown manhattan. You cannot be claiming that all of that ground – including restaurants, adult stores, etc., is hallowed ground?

I used the phrase “debris field” – which I would define as the radius where most of the debris landed.

In fact, I’d go another couple of blocks outside of this before I built any new mosques – out of consideration and sensitivity toward the dead and their families.

And, yes, I’ll call it “hallowed ground.” In my posts that are sitting in the ether, I talked about Civil War battlefields.

Short summation – just because there’s something already there doesn’t make the ground any less “hallowed.”

What’s unreasonable, though, is that over 3000 people died by lunatics espousing Islam and doing it in the name of Allah.

What’s also unreasonable is the expectation that we shouldn’t be a bit wary and suspicious of some kind of mosque/community center that is DEMANDING to be built in the debris field.

Liberals and the MSM want to keep the pressure on those who oppose it, but I think the pressure should be on those supporting it.

HOW, exactly, is building this mosque in the debris field an example of bridge building?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I think though that claiming no mosque should be built anywhere debris went is unreasonable. That covers almost all of downtown manhattan. You cannot be claiming that all of that ground – including restaurants, adult stores, etc., is hallowed ground?

I used the phrase “debris field” – which I would define as the radius where most of the debris landed.

In fact, I’d go another couple of blocks outside of this before I built any new mosques – out of consideration and sensitivity toward the dead and their families.

And, yes, I’ll call it “hallowed ground.” In my posts that are sitting in the ether, I talked about C*vil W*r battlefields.

Short summation – just because there’s something already there doesn’t make the ground any less “hallowed.”

What’s unreasonable, though, is that over 3000 people died by lunatics espousing Islam and doing it in the name of Allah.

What’s also unreasonable is the expectation that we shouldn’t be a bit wary and suspicious of some kind of mosque/community center that is DEMANDING to be built in the debris field.

Liberals and the MSM want to keep the pressure on those who oppose it, but I think the pressure should be on those supporting it.

HOW, exactly, is building this mosque in the debris field an example of bridge building?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Hmmm – I found out what was putting my posts in the ether…

…the phrase C*vil W*r (without the asterix, of course)

Now, why on earth should that phrase be banned?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Hmmm – I found out what was putting my posts in the ether…

…the phrase C*vil W*r (without the asterix, of course)

Now, why on earth should that phrase be banned?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:28 PM

You mean we can’t talk about the civil war?

rollthedice on August 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM

I just can’t wait to see her speak after the Democrats lose the House in a historic rout.

Not sure what she’ll do. My guess is that she’ll play all nicey-nice, “this is just politics and it’s sure been swell to be Speaker and we accomplished so much”, I can just hear her chirp.

She won’t give us an expletive filled rant, no shrieking, no tearing out her hair, no spittle laden invectives aimed at Republicans and the voters.

Or maybe she’ll just shatter into a million pieces when they take the gavel from her claw.

That would be something to see.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I hope that the have to drag her from the Speaker chair sobbing and blaming George Bush.

Come on America!!

C!V!L W4R!!!

rollthedice on August 18, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Muslim ‘bridge-building’ sounds like the same thing as when Bammie says ‘let’s unite’ and ‘let’s compromise’. It means we’ll build a bridge and then you will come over the bridge to our side.

slickwillie2001 on August 18, 2010 at 3:44 PM

rollthedice on August 18, 2010 at 3:42 PM

More like kicking and screaming, “it’s mine, all mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!!!!!”

Regardless of how well or poorly she’ll take it outwardly, it will just kill her inside to become so worthlessly irrelevant.

No more queen bee, no more honey, just another wallflower, Nancy.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Now, why on earth should that phrase be banned?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Cause some idiots want to literally “take their country back” from the Democrats. R3volution is banned too, no matter the one you’re referencing.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 3:48 PM

I

think a lot of these things matter and would change the way people feel about it. But I also think the distance issue should be reasonable.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 3:06 PM

I think it is reasonable. There are 30 mosques in New York. From what I understand, there’s already one within walking distance of the Burlington Coat Factory building that has attracted no protests.

Whether or not there are other mosques is irrelevant. There’s a church on every corner where I live. So what? There’s way too many churches for parishoners, half of them are mostly empty every week. Does that mean that if the parish wanted to build another, it should not be allowed to?

Short summation – just because there’s something already there doesn’t make the ground any less “hallowed.”

Really, an adult bookstore is “hallowed”? I don’t see it.

What’s unreasonable, though, is that over 3000 people died by lunatics espousing Islam and doing it in the name of Allah.

No disagreement. I urge you to actually read some of my other comments at this site before assuming I am somehow a muslim apologist.

What’s also unreasonable is the expectation that we shouldn’t be a bit wary and suspicious of some kind of mosque/community center that is DEMANDING to be built in the debris field.

I think the term debris field is unreasonable. Anywhere dust settled that day? That is simply not being reasonable. The site of the actual attacks, the buildings that came down, and immediately adjacent to it is reasonable.

HOW, exactly, is building this mosque in the debris field an example of bridge building?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I did not say it was. I’m not asking questions about their motives here – while I support their right to practice their religion, I am suspect of islam and don’t particularly believe that there is such a thing as moderate islam. That was not my question though. My question is what is reasonable in terms of arguing where a mosque should not be sited and why. I’m thinking of it in practical terms. How close is too close. By your anwswer of “debris field and then some” you are claimnig any new mosque built anywhere within about 3 miles of ground zero is off-limits. B/c the dust travelled pretty far. Frankly, that is an unreasonable position in my opinion.

And I don’t agree that everywhere dust settled is not hallowed ground. In the civil war, everywhere that stray bullets landed did not become hallowed ground. There has to be some practicality. You can’t claim the corner liquour store 5 blocks from the world trade center site is hallowed ground because dust landed there when the towers came down.

I’m trying to reduce the argument somewhat to practicalities. My guess is that they are going to work out some kind of deal to site it somewhere else a little further away, and then if the right is still opposed we may see public opinion turn the other way if we still oppose.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM

I don’t give a crap if it is ‘hallowed ground or not.

What I care about is that it is pretty obviously intended to be a monument to a great victory over the infidel, rather than a place to ‘heal’, ‘to come together’ to ‘foster understanding’ like they pretend it to be.

Either the supporters of it being built are ignorant of the reality of Islam, or they understand it very well and are practicing taqiyya, or they merely hate America enough that they will support anyone who will try to ‘bring us down a notch’.

LegendHasIt on August 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM

R3volution is banned too, no matter the one you’re referencing.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 3:48 PM

What’s next, I wonder? Will G3orge W3shington and Thom3s J3fferson be banned too?

Tav on August 18, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Cause some idiots want to literally “take their country back” from the Democrats. R3volution is banned too, no matter the one you’re referencing.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 3:48 PM

I usually roll my eyes at that kind of language. I hated it when it was from the Democrats and I hate it even more when it comes from Republicans. It’s just sour grapes over losing an election.

However…

…when the Speaker of the House – the third in line to the president – starts ranting about “investigating” ordinary citizens (and what happens at the END of that “investigation”?) for having the temerity of using their First Amendment rights…

…I’m beginning to wonder a bit.

To be honest, when I saw this headline I remembered an old line from Larry the Cable Guy when he was just starting out and did radio shows…

…what the h3ll IS this? Russia?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Either the supporters of it being built are ignorant of the reality of Islam, or they understand it very well and are practicing taqiyya, or they merely hate America enough that they will support anyone who will try to ‘bring us down a notch’.

LegendHasIt on August 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Should we even be calling Islam a religion?

Calling Islam a religion is rather absurd if you stop and think about it for a moment. A Chrysler has a transmission component to it but you don’t call a Chrysler a transmission; you call it a car. A Chrysler has a radio component to it but you don’t call a Chrysler a radio; you call it a car. I am 1/8 Swedish but people don’t call me Swede. People don’t say, “Oh look, Swede is getting into his radio and driving away.” Likewise, Islam has a religious component to it, but with Islam the religious component is only one of many components, so Islam should properly be called a Totalitarian System, not a religion. This is so simple. It’s logic 101. Nazism, another Totalitarian System, had a religious component to it too, albeit one arguably smaller than Islam, but I have never heard anyone call it a religion.

Tav on August 18, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Hmmm – I found out what was putting my posts in the ether…

…the phrase C*vil W*r (without the asterix, of course)

Now, why on earth should that phrase be banned?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I posted a long response to you using the same term, and it got eaten. I don’t feel like re-typing. I disagree that anything touched by dust that day is hallowed ground. places where stray bullets landed in the unmentionable war did not become hallowed ground. A liquor store 5 blocks from the world trade center site is not hallowed ground. Also, there are churches on every corner where I live, more than double as many as needed. If the church wanted to build a new one, should it be prohibited? Then what difference does it make if tehre are already mosques in NY?

My point is to be practical adn reasonable in this fight. the world trade center site and the area immidiately adjacent is reasonable to oppose this. 10 blocks away is not. then you are actually getting in to simply not wanting a mosque in ny b/c you don’t like islam. I don’t like islam, but I’m not going to oppose every mosque they try and build.

If the people behind the mosque offer to build it 3 blocks further away and we still oppose, I have a feeling that public opinion would start to turn against us as being unreasonable.

I’m trying to come to a consensus on what is practical and reasonable, that is all.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Tav on August 18, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Can’t say I disagree with that.

LegendHasIt on August 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM

when the Speaker of the House – the third in line to the president

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Not to quibble but I think it would be more accurate to say second in line. Obama already is President and Biden is first in line.

Tav on August 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Can’t say I disagree with that.

LegendHasIt on August 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I wish more people would agree. Islam’s most powerful defense is it’s hiding behind the skirt of religion. That skirt should be removed.

Tav on August 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM

My point is to be practical adn reasonable in this fight. the world trade center site and the area immidiately adjacent is reasonable to oppose this. 10 blocks away is not.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Again, how about outside the radius actually hit by the airplanes used in the attack?

Or alternatively, we could hear your proposed distance and the rationale behind it.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Just as we should refuse to call statists, liberals, we should refuse to call Islam, religion.

Tav on August 18, 2010 at 4:26 PM

I posted a long response to you using the same term, and it got eaten. I don’t feel like re-typing. I disagree that anything touched by dust that day is hallowed ground. places where stray bullets landed in the unmentionable war did not become hallowed ground.

I’m sure that this is a subject where reasonable people can disagree.

But, again, I didn’t say “everywhere touched by dust” because that would extend miles and miles and miles.

What I said was “the debris field” – a radius of land where the majority of the debris (tower, plane, victims) landed.

There is no argument that the proposed site is indeed WITHIN the debris field.

Also, there are churches on every corner where I live, more than double as many as needed. If the church wanted to build a new one, should it be prohibited? Then what difference does it make if tehre are already mosques in NY?

But the objection is not about zoning issues or even population issues.

It’s about building a mosque dedicated to the same being in whose name 3000+ were murdered.

My point is to be practical adn reasonable in this fight. the world trade center site and the area immidiately adjacent is reasonable to oppose this. 10 blocks away is not.

I couldn’t respond without knowing the precise size of the debris field.

On the other hand, “reasonable” would err on the side of being further away, not closer.

then you are actually getting in to simply not wanting a mosque in ny b/c you don’t like islam.

Stop with the straw man arguments. There have been too many here today already.

Unless you’re psychic, then there’s no way to know what exactly is “fueling” people.

And we must also acknowledge that this is a very raw and emotional issue. The wounds of 9/11 have not healed (and may never heal for those of us who witnessed it).

This is neither unusual nor wrong.

How close do you think a Japanese War memorial would be allowed to Pearl Harbor? Or an American memorial to Hiroshima?

I don’t like islam, but I’m not going to oppose every mosque they try and build.

There are mosques being built in America right now as we speak.

Yet no one here is opposing them.

But maybe, just maybe, Muslims should look somewhere else other than that part of NYC to build new mosques.

At least for awhile.

If the people behind the mosque offer to build it 3 blocks further away and we still oppose, I have a feeling that public opinion would start to turn against us as being unreasonable.

Considering that they have refused to meet with the NY Governor, I find that highly unlikely.

And let us not forget the “murky” funding details along with the not-quite-moderate talk and ties that the imam has.

There is NOTHING about this mosque to lead anyone to believe that it is truly about peace and building bridges.

And I don’t care WHERE they want to build something like that, it simply doesn’t belong anywhere in America.

I’m trying to come to a consensus on what is practical and reasonable, that is all.

You ALREADY have a consensus – you just don’t like what it is.

Build it OUTSIDE the debris field.

And at least several blocks away from that.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM

You ALREADY have a consensus – you just don’t like what it is.

Build it OUTSIDE the debris field.

And at least several blocks away from that.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM

You have a high opinion of yourself to consider yourself a consensus. I don’t really take you seriously when looking for reasonable and practical discussion, based on your claim that everything touched by dust is hallowed. Sorry. Also, you state outright that “And I don’t care WHERE they want to build something like that, it simply doesn’t belong anywhere in America.” – Thus you actually are the strawmen that the left is talking about when stating this has nothing to do with ground zero and everything to do with dislike of islam. Like I said, I dislike islam too, but you are being ridiculous. Sorry.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 4:38 PM

then you are actually getting in to simply not wanting a mosque in ny b/c you don’t like islam.
Stop with the straw man arguments. There have been too many here today already.

It is not a straw man argument considering that you admit it later in the same comment. Perhaps you should look into your own heart.

Again, stop acting like I am a muslim apologist, you need to calm down and be logical and rational. Google my name and posts on this site. You will see I am no lefty and no muslim apologist – but you act like I am. I feel like I am arguing with a liberal here.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Whether or not there are other mosques is irrelevant. There’s a church on every corner where I live. So what? There’s way too many churches for parishoners, half of them are mostly empty every week. Does that mean that if the parish wanted to build another, it should not be allowed to?

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM

You missed the point of my mentioning that, which was that no one’s protesting those mosques, so clearly there is an acceptable distance that’s not unreasonable.

That’s all.

The rest of your comments are responses to Religious, not me.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 4:43 PM

I don’t like islam, but I’m not going to oppose every mosque they try and build.
There are mosques being built in America right now as we speak.

Yet no one here is opposing them.

If you look at your other comments, one of your arguments against this being built is that there are already mosques in NYC. I simply point out that that is irrelevant and not a good argument. Do you remember what you wrote 10 minutes ago? Again, I feel like you are not thinking rationally or respondnig rationally to what I am writing – or even actually reading what I am writing.

I’m talknig about being practical and reasonable in our opposition. You sneer at it and keep saying “debris field”, yet by your own comment don’t even know what that is.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Now, why on earth should that phrase be banned?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Cause some idiots want to literally “take their country back” from the Democrats. R3volution is banned too, no matter the one you’re referencing.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Unfortunately, it’s like being in grade school again. The whole class is punished for the one who shot the rubberband at the teacher, and no one wanted to be the tattle tale, and the culprit didn’t want to confess.

A few ruin it for the rest. Allah, and Ed try to reason, and give reasons for not wanting certain talk on here, but some feel it’s their rite. Despite the rules we’re to abide to. It sucks, but sometimes actions like this have to be put in place.

capejasmine on August 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM

But according to the Nancy Pelosi/Tom_Shipley view, we’re not allowed to voice organized opposition either.

I never said you’re not allowed to, I said voicing strong opposition to the construction of the mosque is an attempt to have it not constructed there — don’t pretend that it’s not.

I’ve been making points as to why I think it’s wrong to oppose the construction, but I’ve never said people were not allowed to do so.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 4:46 PM

What’s next, I wonder? Will G3orge W3shington and Thom3s J3fferson be banned too?

Tav on August 18, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Eh, I somewhat sympathize. There are some crazies here that have hurt the site.

I usually roll my eyes at that kind of language. I hated it when it was from the Democrats and I hate it even more when it comes from Republicans. It’s just sour grapes over losing an election.

That’s my feeling as well. I can’t stand that so many have become what they used to hate. It’s repulsive.

To be honest, when I saw this headline I remembered an old line from Larry the Cable Guy when he was just starting out and did radio shows…

…what the h3ll IS this? Russia?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:08 PM

That’s fair, but it’s still a bit nuts to start talking about using violence to change things.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Or alternatively, we could hear your proposed distance and the rationale behind it.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM

That would be interesting.

I never said you’re not allowed to, I said voicing strong opposition to the construction of the mosque is an attempt to have it not constructed there — don’t pretend that it’s not.

I’ve been making points as to why I think it’s wrong to oppose the construction, but I’ve never said people were not allowed to do so.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 4:46 PM

No, but by your own, above-stated logic, your attempts to tell us how wrong we are, racist even, for not supporting the building is an attempt to stop us from speaking on the matter.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 4:49 PM

I’m just genuinely curious what people think is appropriate in relation to distance to ground zero.
Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Howsabout religions that require its adherents to kill or oppress infidels cannot obtain 1st Amendment protections?

Akzed on August 18, 2010 at 4:49 PM

You have a high opinion of yourself to consider yourself a consensus.

-sigh-

As a minimum, far enough away not to have been hit by parts of the airplanes that were used in the attack.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM

That would work for me. Of course, using the 10th anniversary of the attacks to celebrate the building is another consideration, regardless of where it’s built.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 2:21 PM

You’ve had three direct responses to your inquiry, and all three say the same thing:

build it OUTSIDE the debris field.

based on your claim that everything touched by dust is hallowed.

And silly me just said that reasonable people can disagree about that. Obviously, you’re not the reasonable type.

Also, you state outright that “And I don’t care WHERE they want to build something like that, it simply doesn’t belong anywhere in America.” – Thus you actually are the strawmen that the left is talking about when stating this has nothing to do with ground zero and everything to do with dislike of islam.

It looks like we’re at the end of our “discussion” because I’m getting to the point where I need to point out that reading comprehension is obviously not your strong point.

The straw man built by the left is that there is no such thing as radical Islam, thus any opposition to radical Islam is the same thing as being opposed to Islam (or something like that, as I said earlier, trying to understand straw men is like trying to see the bottom of a muddy puddle).

EVERYTHING that we know about THIS mosque points to it being all about RADICAL Islam.

And THAT is what I oppose.

If they were truly about peace and love and non-radical Islam, they would never have proposed building it there and they certainly would have backed off once the opposition got started.

So, if you want to join the ignorant left and conflate opposition to radical Islam with opposition to Islam, go right ahead.

But don’t count on anyone taking you or your arguments seriously after that.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:50 PM

No, but by your own, above-stated logic, your attempts to tell us how wrong we are, racist even, for not supporting the building is an attempt to stop us from speaking on the matter.

Your right, it is an attempt to make you stop speaking out against it — but not by force, not by saying you CAN’T speak out against it, but by trying to change your mind.

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should — sound familiar?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6