Building a Mosque Near Ground Zero

[jschild]

Jon Stewart once again beautifully sums up the inanity of the "controversy" regarding the Not at Ground Zero Not Mosque.

http://tv.gawker.com/5609824/jon-ste...nd-zero-mosque

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by jschild

Every time we abandon our values (accept torture, rendition, discrimination) because of 9/11, they win and we lose. I'm ashamed by how many people don't seem to understand that, or are more terrified by the tiny remote chance a terrorist will kill them, instead of the literally thousands of of other things that are far more likely to kill or harm us.

I'm having some difficulty parsing all that. First, I'm not convinced that there is such a wholistic thing as "our values" which exists and is available to be abandoned. Second, were there such a thing and if a temporary abandonmentment of them could theoretically eliminate all terrorists then whether or not the victory was pyrrhic, we would win and they would lose. Third, my recognition of that apparently makes you ashamed for reasons I cannot fathom. Lastly, I find myself wondering who you know that is terrified they will be killed by a terrorist (I personally don't know anyone terrified of being killed by a terrorist).

Since I agree that the center should be allowed (though I note my belief that it would be unwise), I'm not exactly arguing against your basic position. It just seems that you had a bit of a burst of rhetoric there

~Aldin, loquaciously

[jschild]

Originally Posted by Aldin

I'm having some difficulty parsing all that. First, I'm not convinced that there is such a wholistic thing as "our values" which exists and is available to be abandoned. Second, were there such a thing and if a temporary abandonmentment of them could theoretically eliminate all terrorists then whether or not the victory was pyrrhic, we would win and they would lose. Third, my recognition of that apparently makes you ashamed for reasons I cannot fathom. Lastly, I find myself wondering who you know that is terrified they will be killed by a terrorist (I personally don't know anyone terrified of being killed by a terrorist).

Since I agree that the center should be allowed (though I note my belief that it would be unwise), I'm not exactly arguing against your basic position. It just seems that you had a bit of a burst of rhetoric there

~Aldin, loquaciously

Ok, perhaps I should have substituted "values" for "our Nation's Laws".

Since it is illegal to torture, etc, we should not do it, period.

Second, saying that a one time abandonment of our laws to eliminate the terrorists is a false choice. No single action or even dozens of actions will do that, so it is irrelevant. Life isn't 24. The ticking time bomb so torture the terrorist isn't a real life event. In fact, most interrogators have said the info gotten from torture is not reliable and there are far more effective methods to get the info without tossing out our laws whenever they become inconvineient.

And if no one is afraid of Muslim terrorists, then why, across our nation, are so many people raising stinks about mosques? Just having fun I guess, I mean, since you don't know anyone, there isn't anyone scared of them I guess?

[Aldin]

*chuckle*

So I have to accept your completely unsupported assertion that there are many people who are more terrified of terrorists than of other more likely threats simply because they might exist? Come on, jschild, the burden of proof is on you there.

Laws vary from country to country and change constantly even within countries, if our laws allowed torture would that make it okay? Obviously not, so "law" can't be the right answer there either.

Mostly though, I'm just having fun arguing with you so feel free to tell me to shove it

~Aldin, who should probably go find something more constructive to do

[AMIS]

I have all sorts of issues with this entire issue. I think it should be allowed but...

Should people the have the right to build whatever they want wherever they want - maybe. I'm pretty sure no one wants to try building a treefort on the Whitehouse lawn (even though that's property that rightfully belongs to the American people). And no I'm not trying to make light of this.

For me, as a non-american might I note, This is less about absolute rights and more about should they be allowed to do this.

I think the issue should be asked in the form of this question; Will it bring people closer together as a nation or seperate them even further than 9/11?

Scotland, for instance (where I'm originally from), had an issue with an apparantly dying man in prison. Surely the compassionate and understandable thing to do was release him and let him spend his last few days in his home country. What harm could that possibly do?
They released the Lockerbie bomber to a Heroes welcome in Lybia and he is thriving. Do you think that brought the nation closer together?

I don't know if there is a correct answer to this. But I know if I lived in NYC, I'd have a tough time with the eventual outcome - whatever it may be.

[jschild]

Why do you think there are thousands of people protesting mosques across our nation. Because they think they are going to give them tummy tickles?

Second, laws do vary from country to country. That has NOTHING to do with what is being talked about. Our laws clearly say torture is a no-no. We have signed treaties saying we won't torture. We have sentenced people who do torture. So lets see. Our laws are against it, and it's a no no anyway morally to most people (at least if they were involved, if it's that nebulous "other" then they might change their mind).

If you are going to argue, then at least put forth a worthwhile one instead of saying silly stuff about other countries (who are you, Newt Gengrich? )

[jschild]

Originally Posted by AMIS

I have all sorts of issues with this entire issue. I think it should be allowed but...

Should people the have the right to build whatever they want wherever they want - maybe. I'm pretty sure no one wants to try building a treefort on the Whitehouse lawn (even though that's property that rightfully belongs to the American people). And no I'm not trying to make light of this.

For me, as a non-american might I note, This is less about absolute rights and more about should they be allowed to do this.

I think the issue should be asked in the form of this question; Will it bring people closer together as a nation or seperate them even further than 9/11?

Scotland, for instance (where I'm originally from), had an issue with an apparantly dying man in prison. Surely the compassionate and understandable thing to do was release him and let him spend his last few days in his home country. What harm could that possibly do?
They released the Lockerbie bomber to a Heroes welcome in Lybia and he is thriving. Do you think that brought the nation closer together?

I don't know if there is a correct answer to this. But I know if I lived in NYC, I'd have a tough time with the eventual outcome - whatever it may be.

AMIS, people are not allowed to build anything wherever they want. There are zoning laws that regulate this in cities. And New York's zoning laws do not prohibit this in any way.

The second you say someone doesn't have an absolute right, then they effectively become less than anyone else in the eyes of the law. If Jews and Christians can build there, but not Muslims, then Muslims are not equal under the eyes of the law. You cannot control how people feel about something, nor should you. However, you can do your damnedest to make sure that the law treats them as equals.

You are confusing issues with the Lockerbie thing. The man was sentenced for crimes but was released due solely to political and compassion based merits. The non Mosque in New York is completely and 100% legal under the law, no special considerations are being made in any form.

There is a right way clearly under the law, respect all religious organizations who follow the law as equals. Just because it makes some people uncomfortable does not give them the right to take away rights.

EDIT: The issue comes down to this. Should a group or majority have the right to take away the rights of another group simply because they do not like that group?

My answer is easy. No, they don't have that right.

[Balantai]

"75% of Americans think a foreigner could stage a terrorist attack on U.S. soil this year."

From a poll taken in May of this year.

I would venture to guess that a small portion is legitimately scared to be directly effected. Especially if you live in NYC or DC.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Balantai

"75% of Americans think a foreigner could stage a terrorist attack on U.S. soil this year."

From a poll taken in May of this year.

I would venture to guess that a small portion is legitimately scared to be directly effected. Especially if you live in NYC or DC.

Frankly, I'm shocked that number isn't closer to 100%. What in the world would prevent it? The issue isn't so much whether or not it is possible, but whether or not the terrorists believe it would worth the resources to achieve whatever effect they could get within their budget (their resources not being infinite, it looks like most of them are being spent in Afghanistan at the moment). And I have no problem believing that there are some people, especially living near "high profile targets" that are scared they could get hit. But that doesn't mean they're more afraid of terrorists than gangs or flying or snakes or car accidents or boating or whatever.

jschild,

You have me even more confused now than when you started. Do they win if we torture them? Is that what you're saying? Do they win if we go 90 mph on the Interstate? I'm not sure how to follow your point (assuming there is one )

~Aldin, outrageously

[jschild]

We lose every time we let an opposing force to dictate how we act in regards to our laws. Should we ignore our laws because it's inconvenient or are they supposed to mean something. This isn't something hard to follow. Do we give up liberties, abuse our own laws in the name of "protection" or do these laws mean something.

Can you stand for something if you abandon it when it gets hard?

[Onacara]

Originally Posted by jschild

EDIT: The issue comes down to this. Should a group or majority have the right to take away the rights of another group simply because they do not like that group?

My answer is easy. No, they don't have that right.

Are we talking about how they passed a healtcare bill that people didnt want again?

[jschild]

Originally Posted by Onacara

Are we talking about how they passed a healtcare bill that people didnt want again?

Let's at least stay on topic.