Obama For Mosque at Ground Zero

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

The idea of erecting anything resembling Islam near the WTC grounds maybe difficult to swallow, but what would be the legal and constitutional argument against what President Obama said?

As the article stated, there is no legal argument. It's a moral argument.

In fact I think this should portrait in the minds of all Americans the bigger picture of Islam, that they know full well the sentiment of Americans on this issue and yet they continue to move forward with this "in your face" move and Obama took sides. He would be better to serve the interests of Americans to have not taken sides.

[Blubayou]

Why did he feel the need to comment on it? Freedom of religion is not the issue, the issue is it is a place where thousands lost their lives to an attack from Muslim radicals. Would we allow the Japanese to build a Buddhist Temple at Pearl Harbor?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Blubayou

Why did he feel the need to comment on it? Freedom of religion is not the issue, the issue is it is a place where thousands lost their lives to an attack from Muslim radicals. Would we allow the Japanese to build a Buddhist Temple at Pearl Harbor?

There are a number of colorful euphemisms for why, but the least offensive is he was cowing to the Muslims

[smurfette]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

he might as well proclaim he is a muslim...

There you go!

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

As the article stated, there is no legal argument. It's a moral argument.

In fact I think this should portrait in the minds of all Americans the bigger picture of Islam, that they know full well the sentiment of Americans on this issue and yet they continue to move forward with this "in your face" move and Obama took sides. He would be better to serve the interests of Americans to have not taken sides.

So then, is it plausible or wise to prohibit this project because of an objection outside the lines of law? Law provides principle that may not feel good in one case but supports the overall picture. What if the next "Moral argument" is the city of Salt Lake City stopping the building of your church because they have a "Moral objection" to your denomination?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

So then, is it plausible or wise to prohibit this project because of an objection outside the lines of law? Law provides principle that may not feel good in one case but supports the overall picture. What if the next "Moral argument" is the city of Salt Lake City stopping the building of your church because they have a "Moral objection" to your denomination?

This is irrelevant. The thread is not about legalities.

Muslims are not being prevented or even asked NOT to build a mosque in New York. They are being asked NOT to at ground zero of the worst terrorist attack against Americans ON American soil.

It's NOT a matter of "we have a moral objection to Islam the religion" as per your argument. That's apples and oranges

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

So then, is it plausible or wise to prohibit this project because of an objection outside the lines of law? Law provides principle that may not feel good in one case but supports the overall picture. What if the next "Moral argument" is the city of Salt Lake City stopping the building of your church because they have a "Moral objection" to your denomination?

If they had a "moral objection" to that denomination because said denomination was involved in a massive slaughter 9 years ago.... Yes, I would say they would have the right.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is irrelevant. The thread is not about legalities.

Muslims are not being prevented or even asked NOT to build a mosque in New York. They are being asked NOT to at ground zero of the worst terrorist attack against Americans ON American soil.

It's NOT a matter of "we have a moral objection to Islam the religion" as per your argument. That's apples and oranges

Technically, it's not AT Ground Zero.

And technically, Muslims are not under a moral indictment as a mass group... or at least shouldn't be.

I think it's a provocative move, and becomes even more provocative that the Imam of the temple refuses to denounce terrorism.... but the fact that Muslims want to erect a community center and temple down the street from Ground Zero (by itself) is not a problem.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Technically, it's not AT Ground Zero.

And technically, Muslims are not under a moral indictment as a mass group... or at least shouldn't be.

I think it's a provocative move, and becomes even more provocative that the Imam of the temple refuses to denounce terrorism.... but the fact that Muslims want to erect a community center and temple down the street from Ground Zero (by itself) is not a problem.

It's close enough for New Yorkers to be upset about it. To many of them it's an "in your face" statement by these Muslims

The fact of the Imam in charge just reinforces the feelings that this is a "in your face" facet of "Silent Jihad" many are concerned about besides the NYorkers and family members of those that lost their lives just being reminded of the "Violant Jihad" that occured on 9/11

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's close enough for New Yorkers to be upset about it. To many of them it's an "in your face" statement by these Muslims

The fact of the Imam in charge just reinforces the feelings that this is a "in your face" facet of "Silent Jihad" many are concerned about besides the NYorkers and family members of those that lost their lives just being reminded of the "Violant Jihad" that occured on 9/11

Prax, the up-in-arms tizzy started wayyyyyy before any of them knew the Imam, knew his thoughts, etc.... It's fair for those who withheld judgement until knowing all the info, but many people just had a knee jerk emotional reaction that grouped all Muslims into the 9/11 suspects. Unfair and is more of an indictment on them.