• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

Ikari said:
Nope, just asking if you could answer the question. Which apparently the answer to that is "no".
Click to expand...

I wasnt much interested in your questions after seeing you throw out another of your tantrums. Sorry, but any point you were attempting to make was lost in your display of derangement. :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
I asked you a question,
Click to expand...

And? Your question was irrelevant to the post I made. I don't give a rat's ass what deranged rants you were making at other people.

There's your ****ing answer.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Final warning. Cool down the baiting rhetoric and return to civil debate on the topic. Lets keep this thread on track rather than letting it spiral into personal vollys.
 
Zyphlin said:
See, weird thing on this...

I agree with her that its unnecessary provocation. As I've said before, these people building the mosque are either needed to be nominated for the biggest douchebag in the universe award OR are the most obtuse dumbasses this side of Washington and regardless of which of those two things they are they are unquestionably lacking in tact.

I have no issue with her having a problem with it either. I laugh when people are saying essentially "Shut up Palin, you're not FROM New York, its not your business!" when many of those people are the type to get angry when a European or Canadian poster is dismissed for having an opinion on something going on in America. At least in this case its actually something affecting her country. Many of these people seem to also be ones that have zero issue having an opinion on Arizona without living there. Nothing says American's can't have opinions on things going on in other states.

That said, there's nothing New York can or really should do as a government. If the people buy the land and want to build something that's legally zoned to be built there then more power to them. The only way this should, and could, be stopped imho would be from the citizens themselves protesting and doing legal actions that cause such bad publicity that it makes it useless to build if the intent REALLY is to "build bridges" and do "outreach". People protesting this would be no worse or more wrong then those protesting for amnesty or were protesting the wars.

In regards to the comparisons, the KKK one is crappy and is a poor one all together. A better example would be buying up the land and building a bar on the site of a wreck caused by drunk driving that killed 13 people from the town. Is all alcohol to blame for that car crash? No. But that car crash happened in large part due to alcohol and thus for those in the town affected by it seeing a building dedicated to the thing that helped cause those deaths would be inflamatory. Similarly, while Islam as a whole is not to blame for 9/11, its undeniable to suggest that Islam did not have a large part in the why and the how that it was carried out.

Or opening up a "History of Japan" museum next to Pearl Harbor 10 years after WWII ended. 10 years later was ALL Japanese people in general our enemies? No. Were the individual citizens, who at that time were hardly a democratic country, directly responsable for the attacks on Pearl Harbor or even to a man agreed with it? No. Yet despite that, only 10 years after the fact, would something like that so close to wreckage not be inflammatory for many?

I've said it before and I have yet to see a reason to leave from this thought process. If their goal was HONESTLY to build bridges then they'd have bought land farther away from ground zero and advertise it from there. You don't have to "build bridges" to people that don't have an issue with you, your religion, or what happened with 9/11 because those bridges already exist. You don't "build bridges" to places you're already connected to. The whole point of "building bridges" is to connect to people who are apart from you...people who have a negative view, distrusting view, or outright oppositional view towards Islam. Those are the type of people that if someone is "building bridges" that they'd be reaching out to. And those are the people that are most being bothered/annoyed, upset, or pissed off about the location of this mosque.

To equate it with something elses, this is like trying to "make friends" with someone who you've generally not gotten along with and for your initial action in trying to do that you flick them off.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I've always liked your posts even though I sometimes disagree with you. But in general, do you think it is ok to use societal or political pressure to infringe or prevent someone from exercising a right when no legal options are left? I think this is an interesting question, and one which was born naturally from the topic at hand.
 
Zyphlin said:
I've said it before and I have yet to see a reason to leave from this thought process. If their goal was HONESTLY to build bridges then they'd have bought land farther away from ground zero and advertise it from there. You don't have to "build bridges" to people that don't have an issue with you, your religion, or what happened with 9/11 because those bridges already exist. You don't "build bridges" to places you're already connected to. The whole point of "building bridges" is to connect to people who are apart from you...people who have a negative view, distrusting view, or outright oppositional view towards Islam. Those are the type of people that if someone is "building bridges" that they'd be reaching out to. And those are the people that are most being bothered/annoyed, upset, or pissed off about the location of this mosque.

To equate it with something elses, this is like trying to "make friends" with someone who you've generally not gotten along with and for your initial action in trying to do that you flick them off.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, though, the mosque is 2 blocks away from the WTC. That's hardly right next door.
 
Ikari said:
Fair enough. I've always liked your posts even though I sometimes disagree with you. But in general, do you think it is ok to use societal or political pressure to infringe or prevent someone from exercising a right when no legal options are left? I think this is an interesting question, and one which was born naturally from the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing...

I don't think you have a "Right" to build your church wherever you like. You have a right, as does every other citizen, to build a building that fits within the legal zoning codes. People have a right to protest that if they wish.

Building a mosque or a church is not free exercising the right in regards to freedom of worship.

So for me the question would be this. If a pizza place was being built, would it be able to be protested? Yes. If it was a gun range being built, would it be able to be protested? Yes. If it was an apartment complex being built, would it be able to be protested? Yes. If it was a pool, a YMCA, or a homeless shelter could it be protested? Yes. Then I see no reason why a church or mosque can't be protested.

Unless these people are somehow keeping these individuals from attending another mosque, praying at their home, etc, to me its not infringing on anyones right to worship.
 
Ikari said:
Fair enough. I've always liked your posts even though I sometimes disagree with you. But in general, do you think it is ok to use societal or political pressure to infringe or prevent someone from exercising a right when no legal options are left? I think this is an interesting question, and one which was born naturally from the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Yeah its called free speech. And public outcry against and social maneuvering to attempt to reverse a really provocative decision is perfectly acceptable. If society has a certain synergy over a topic that leads it to organized use of the market, protest, and public displays of outrage without breaking the law or infringing on the Constitution, it shows a certain cohesion that I find promising for America.
 
Zyphlin said:
Here's the thing...

I don't think you have a "Right" to build your church wherever you like. You have a right, as does every other citizen, to build a building that fits within the legal zoning codes. People have a right to protest that if they wish.

Building a mosque or a church is not free exercising the right in regards to freedom of worship.
Click to expand...

But it is in terms of Freedom of Religion which includes expression and the ability to build houses of worship. It's also well in accordance to property rights as well. But as a taken, let's just go with property and making a building within the letter of the law.

Zyphlin said:
So for me the question would be this. If a pizza place was being built, would it be able to be protested? Yes. If it was a gun range being built, would it be able to be protested? Yes. If it was an apartment complex being built, would it be able to be protested? Yes. If it was a pool, a YMCA, or a homeless shelter could it be protested? Yes. Then I see no reason why a church or mosque can't be protested.

Unless these people are somehow keeping these individuals from attending another mosque, praying at their home, etc, to me its not infringing on anyones right to worship.
Click to expand...

Protest is protest, it's fine. But the question went beyond protest to actual action. Is it ok to use societal and/or political pressures to prevent an individual from exercising a right where there is no legal recourse to infringe upon said exercise.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
So is the entire island of Manhattan off-limits to mosques now, or just the financial district?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was off limits. But it should not be downplayed as being a hike away from what was a smoldering pile of rubble. It's practically on top of it and shows a little insensitivity on the parts of these Muslim groups building it.
 
Ikari said:
But it is in terms of Freedom of Religion which includes expression and the ability to build houses of worship.
Click to expand...

No it's not. There's no right to build freely anywhere in the Constitution.
 
jallman said:
No it's not. There's no right to build freely anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The constitution A) Doesn't limit the People, it limits the government. B) Doesn't list all the rights an individual has, C) this falls completely under property rights.
 
Ikari said:
Those are forms of social and political intimidation. And you damned well seem to be supporting it. Reality or no, it's not a practice which can be endorsed. Just because it happens doesn't mean we say "oh well". If we believe in the foundation of this country and the purpose of government as the founders envisioned, then we cannot accept this type of intimidation. We are meant to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual, not infringe and curtail them. There is nothing legitimate anyone can do to stop them. There is nothing just that anyone can do to stop them. Those trying to stop them do so unjustly and illegitimately.
Click to expand...
You're accusations about me personally are tiring and boring. Legitimate in your view or not, intimidation ornot, infringement or not - it's always been this way. This is who humans are. You don't like something, you rally support, get petitions, call your congressman, show up at local town hall meetings. What you call "infringement" and "intimidation" I call Democracy and society.

Ikari said:
Where does it say anywhere I have to respect anything or anyone? I don't. I don't have to respect the community.
Click to expand...
That's totally up to you.

Ikari said:
The community MUST acknowledge my rights and liberties; that's the way it goes. Communities don't have rights, only individuals possess rights. It's not the individual which must respect the community, it's the other way around.
Click to expand...
Until that community makes your life a living hell and force you to move away. You might be in the "right" but miserable in the process. Again, that's your choice. There's a balance off societal and political freedoms. Claiming and forcing society to conform to you is obtuse and naive. Society does not have to respect you either. Setting yourself or your views as "me vs. them" will inevitably make you the loser. This mosque may be built --- that does not mean it will be occupied or stay there very long. Win the battle - lose the war. :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
The constitution A) Doesn't limit the People, it limits the government. B) Doesn't list all the rights an individual has, C) this falls completely under property rights.
Click to expand...

A) I understand that entirely so you don't need to keep repeating this line. And thank you for not calling me a fascist, at least.

B) It lists enough of them positively to support the fact that there is NO right to build freely anywhere you want.

C) Then stop making an argument about freedom of religion if you want to make an argument about property rights.
 
jallman said:
A) I understand that entirely so you don't need to keep repeating this line. And thank you for not calling me a fascist, at least.

B) It lists enough of them positively to support the fact that there is NO right to build freely anywhere you want.

C) Then stop making an argument about freedom of religion if you want to make an argument about property rights.
Click to expand...

If you had read that post, you'd see that while Churches and dress are forms of expression, I had stated that we'd take it solely on the property issue in which a building is constructed by the letter of the law. Thanks for playing, but try being a bit more careful next time.

Also, if you understood point A, you'd stop saying "where in the Constitution does it say the individual can....blah blah blah".
 
Ockham said:
Until that community makes your life a living hell and force you to move away.
Click to expand...

But are you saying this is proper and just action by the community?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
In all fairness, though, the mosque is 2 blocks away from the WTC. That's hardly right next door.
Click to expand...

In New York? Yeah, I consider that pretty much next door. Hell in DC which is far smaller I'd say two blocks is essentially next door. Even my tiny city I'm from, our downtown area which is generally thought of as one large section is 4 blocks by 3 blocks and generally the surrounding block or so around that is still considered part of that section. When your main metro service line to it is even reffered to as "World Trade Center Station" I'd say its generally in the same immediete vicinity.

If it was out past the next major road on that side, Chamber's St, at that point I'd say the fuss would be way over the top. At that point it'd be 2 major roads beyond it (Barclay St runs right along where the WTC was on that side of it, and then there's some minor streets which Park is one of, followed by Chamber's being the next big one). You'd be 5 blocks away, as well as being in a different metro section, suggesting its not in what I'd consider as the "general vicinity".

Just my view on it
 
Zyphlin said:
In New York? Yeah, I consider that pretty much next door. Hell in DC which is far smaller I'd say two blocks is essentially next door. Even my tiny city I'm from, our downtown area which is generally thought of as one large section is 4 blocks by 3 blocks and generally the surrounding block or so around that is still considered part of that section. When your main metro service line to it is even reffered to as "World Trade Center Station" I'd say its generally in the same immediete vicinity.
Click to expand...

That's a bit interesting for I would have thought the opposite. I live in a lot of wide open areas, for us two blocks, a few miles, it's "right next door" sort of thing. I would have thought in crowded, big cities that the scales become much smaller. But whatever. Either or, while people are free to protest I do not think they have the rightful power to actually do anything about it.
 
Zyphlin said:
In New York? Yeah, I consider that pretty much next door. Hell in DC which is far smaller I'd say two blocks is essentially next door. Even my tiny city I'm from, our downtown area which is generally thought of as one large section is 4 blocks by 3 blocks and generally the surrounding block or so around that is still considered part of that section. When your main metro service line to it is even reffered to as "World Trade Center Station" I'd say its generally in the same immediete vicinity.

If it was out past the next major road on that side, Chamber's St, at that point I'd say the fuss would be way over the top. At that point it'd be 2 major roads beyond it (Barclay St runs right along where the WTC was on that side of it, and then there's some minor streets which Park is one of, followed by Chamber's being the next big one). You'd be 5 blocks away, as well as being in a different metro section, suggesting its not in what I'd consider as the "general vicinity".

Just my view on it
Click to expand...

Which begs the question how many blocks should a "no mosque zone" be for people to be comfortable. 2 apparently is too close for many. 5? 10? Should we let the states decide how big these zones are or do it federally?
 
Deuce said:
Which begs the question how many blocks should a "no mosque zone" be for people to be comfortable. 2 apparently is too close for many. 5? 10? Should we let the states decide how big these zones are or do it federally?
Click to expand...

I do not think there is anything anyone can legitimately do about it. Some may be uncomfortable with 2 blocks, but that's their problem. So long as the Mosque is established in compliance with all the rules; there's nothing anyone can legitimately or justly do to stop it.
 
Deuce said:
Which begs the question how many blocks should a "no mosque zone" be for people to be comfortable. 2 apparently is too close for many. 5? 10? Should we let the states decide how big these zones are or do it federally?
Click to expand...

Further, will this apply to ALL religious buildings, or just Islamic ones?
 
Zyphlin said:
In New York? Yeah, I consider that pretty much next door. Hell in DC which is far smaller I'd say two blocks is essentially next door. Even my tiny city I'm from, our downtown area which is generally thought of as one large section is 4 blocks by 3 blocks and generally the surrounding block or so around that is still considered part of that section. When your main metro service line to it is even reffered to as "World Trade Center Station" I'd say its generally in the same immediete vicinity.

If it was out past the next major road on that side, Chamber's St, at that point I'd say the fuss would be way over the top. At that point it'd be 2 major roads beyond it (Barclay St runs right along where the WTC was on that side of it, and then there's some minor streets which Park is one of, followed by Chamber's being the next big one). You'd be 5 blocks away, as well as being in a different metro section, suggesting its not in what I'd consider as the "general vicinity".

Just my view on it
Click to expand...

And I think this is the whole thing here...it doesn't have to be that close to, basically, where zealots of one religion perpetrated a massacre and act of war on another society. It smacks of insensitivity and a lack of respect, especially being so soon. If it were, as you said, further distanced by some of the evident boundaries a city forms in terms of intersections and major avenues, no one would have even thought about it. I dont think construction of a mosque would really raise any eyebrows in New York. But construction of a mosque practically on top of the site of a massacre perpetrated by "lalalalalalala kill the infidels" adherents of Islam...yeah I can see how there's a reaction of "oh hell naw!!!"
 
Ikari said:
I do not think there is anything anyone can legitimately do about it. Some may be uncomfortable with 2 blocks, but that's their problem. So long as the Mosque is established in compliance with all the rules; there's nothing anyone can legitimately or justly do to stop it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they can tie up construction of it with law suits and petitions, various permit blocks, and attempts to use the zoning laws to take issue with every nit-picky thing possible. Perhaps delaying construction to the point of it no longer being financially worth it to the builders or so long that the outcry dies down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom