• 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

But are you saying this is proper and just action by the community?

Depends on what it is... in this case, I think it's legitimate that some New Yorkers don't want this building there and they are perfectly within their perview and rights to use their influence to dissuade the building from being built. If an adult shop tried to move in 2 blocks from my house I'd protest the hell out of it too because I don't want that building near my property for a multitude of reasons - and I would try to influence the board, my town, politicians and gather my community together to fight such a place being built -yes. The community is not acting improper by disagreeing here.
 
You have no rights to build anywhere you want.

That is quite irrelevant to the entire issue. If they can legally obtain the right to build wherever they want then there is really no issue here. They can't be deprived of it.

The whole wear a red shirt on Sunday thing is stupid because it doesn't take into account our right to free expression and the need for the State to show why it would have an interest in changing the color you wear on Sundays.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You can't deprive these people of property.
 
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.

See, my issue is “societal and/or political pressure” is extremely broad. For example, I see protests as a “societal pressure”. I have no issues with that. I would see a politician ASKING them not to build there being political pressure, but again I see no problem with that. The only thing I would have issue with is if they actually passed a LAW barring them from acquiring that land or barring them the ability to make a religious site on that ground, specific to Islam. In that case they’re actually exerting legislative pressure against it, which I think is wrong.

But having a politician ask them not to? Protesting it? Attempting to cause the general public to be upset about it through word of mouth? Etc? Yeah, no issue with that.
 
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?

First, I'm going to assume you mean a self imposed "no mosque zone" since I've never once advocated that this should be law but more social pressure and something they should've had the forethought and tact to do if they are HONEST about their goal being outreach.

Hard to say. However if someone goal was TRULY outreach you think they’d take a little bit of time to potential focus group this. Get some opinions. Ask a few people in the groups they’re hoping to “reach out” to? I imagine you’d find that there’d be an equilibrium where you’d find a generalized distance that most of those that are upset with this would be okay with. Are you going to find a place where 100% everyone is happy with? No, they easily could’ve found a distance that would’ve negatively affected a FAR smaller portion of the group they’re supposedly trying to “reach out” to.

Again, I’m not proposing a “No mosque zone”. I’m proposing a “don’t be a tactless douche and build it a bit farther away by your own choice” zone. I’m proposing a point I feel would’ve been far enough to where my view on them and their douchyness would change from one of “You have no tact and/or are an idiot” to “That’s an interesting idea and I hope it works”.
 
Last edited:
Further, will this apply to ALL religious buildings, or just Islamic ones?

Well, considering this line of back and forth between you two was in reference to a post I made about the distance I think that would’ve helped them alleviate some of the unrest I’ll imagine you’re talking about what I was actually suggesting, which is that they should’ve voluntarily looked into such and not a law, rather than acting like I was suggesting a “no mosque zone" in a legal sense.

So, assuming that….nope, I’d understand and personally condone people exerting social pressure through protests, boycotts, and other things towards an Islamic focused building that close to the place where 19 individuals motivated and spurred by their extreme Islamic views perpetrated an attack planned by individuals motivated by their extreme Islamic that was the biggest in American history. Due to the undisputable fact that their religion was at the very least a significant factor in the attack that occurred, and due to the still sensitive nature of that day and that attack to many people, I can fully understand displeasure and unrest towards a building dedicated to said religion being put up near by it due to the emotions and reactions it causes in many of those that may be visiting or wish to visit the location. I could not understand such a feeling towards other religious buildings be it catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist, or any other because their particular religions isn’t intricately and undeniably tied to the attacks that day in a negative way.
 
Last edited:
Because Muslims want to reach out and repair the damage caused to our relationship, and this building helps do that. (it's not a mosque. It's a community center with a mosque in it)

Which if that’s their purpose, which they keep saying it in part is, they’re again either ****ing idiots of the highest degree, disingenuous douche bags, or the most obliviously tactless people I’ve ever seen.

They’re attempting to “repair damage” and “reach out” to people and their first move is the equivalent of mooning the individuals whose views they’re attempting to “repair”.

Because Muslims aren't responsible for what happened. I'm German, should I stay away from anywhere where Jews worship?

No, but 10 years after WWII concluded I’d think attempting to open a German Restaurant whose interior is akin to a small museum celebrating the history and culture of Germany right in the heart of Jerusalem would be extremely tactless and a rather douchy move.
 
BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LAND THERE. There are a **** ton of churches building new buildings in my neighborhood. If it were up to me, I'd say we need another church in our neighborhood like we need a hole in the head. However, their buildings meet the conditions of zoning laws, and they have every right to build a new building on their property. I don't understand why this is so hard for people.

i have never said it wasn't their right. i just don't like it one bit.
 
That is quite irrelevant to the entire issue. If they can legally obtain the right to build wherever they want then there is really no issue here. They can't be deprived of it.



FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment



You can't deprive these people of property.

Once more, and stay with me now, I HAVE NOT MADE ANY ARGUMENT TOWARD LEGALLY RESTRICTING THEM FROM DOING ANYTHING. Do we understand that or are we going to need to go over it again?
 
So the people building the community center/mosque are douchebags because they don't consider the sensitivities of people who equate Islam with terrorism?

To me, that's what it looks like here. Sure people have a right to protest, but I think they are "slaying dragons". Yes, the terrorists were all Muslim. That doesn't mean mean that all Muslims are terrorists.

Pearl Harbor was attacked by a nation, not a fringe minority of a religion. The only way to be upset about this is to link this mosque to terrorism.
 
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.

As I said, nothing legitimate or just one could do to stop it. There are other ways of using societal or political force to infringe upon the rights of the individual, but these are not legitimate or just actions.
 
You know I remember alot of Conservatives saying on this website "Don't make arguments based on Emotionality" but yet that's exactly whats happening with some of you.

Even conservapedia claims that one point of "Liberal Style" Is:

43.using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.

But I'm seeing a lot of conservatives doing that in here.

If America begins to deny people their rights because of emotion, or innocent assocations or blood lines. Then you will become the very thing you were fighting against.

"With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably, the first time any mans freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." - Jean Luc Picard
 
As I said, nothing legitimate or just one could do to stop it. There are other ways of using societal or political force to infringe upon the rights of the individual, but these are not legitimate or just actions.

And I don't think it's a legitimate or just action to show such insensitivity to the nation by building a mosque so close to the site where muslims massacred Americans. :shrug:

But guess what? It's legal for them to try and it's perfectly legal for those opposed to use the methods I described. Good for the goose and all that. ;)
 
Well clearly, according to Ikari we are fascists and the resident menopause hormones ad, we're illogical. But whatever. Glad we are in agreement.

Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...chances are, it's a duck. If you don't want to be labeled a fascist don't support or put forward fascist notions such as societal or political intimidation to force your way over the free exercise of rights when legally there is nothing legitimate or just you can do about it. But if you're done with these little outbursts now, perhaps we can move forward.
 
And I don't think it's a legitimate or just action to show such insensitivity to the nation by building a mosque so close to the site where muslims massacred Americans. :shrug:

But guess what? It's legal for them to try and it's perfectly legal for those opposed to use the methods I described. Good for the goose and all that. ;)

I don't know if all that should actually be "legal". Societal or political intimidation should be watched because it can go too far. If someone wants to build a mosque and has purchased everything legally and passed inspection or whatever, then that's that. Sure you can try to do something about it, but as soon as you do you've infringed upon the rights of others and that action is justly punished by the use of government force. We shouldn't excuse or allow these intimidation techniques to infringe upon the exercise of our rights; as our rights are what is ultimately the most important. There's no right against being offended, in fact it's going to happen. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. But there are rights to religion and property, those need to be enforced.
 
Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...chances are, it's a duck. If you don't want to be labeled a fascist don't support or put forward fascist notions such as societal or political intimidation to force your way over the free exercise of rights when legally there is nothing legitimate or just you can do about it. But if you're done with these little outbursts now, perhaps we can move forward.

Move forward then. However, as long as you continue to attribute false labels as a means of deflecting from your weak mind which leads you to do so in a debate, then I will continue you call you on it. Now you may withdraw your idiotic assertions and prove yourself to be a little more mature than you have been with your name calling so far or you can continue to expose your personal flaws for all to see.

I don't have much faith that you will make the right decision, however.
 
I don't know if all that should actually be "legal". Societal or political intimidation should be watched because it can go too far. If someone wants to build a mosque and has purchased everything legally and passed inspection or whatever, then that's that. Sure you can try to do something about it, but as soon as you do you've infringed upon the rights of others and that action is justly punished by the use of government force. We shouldn't excuse or allow these intimidation techniques to infringe upon the exercise of our rights; as our rights are what is ultimately the most important. There's no right against being offended, in fact it's going to happen. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. But there are rights to religion and property, those need to be enforced.

And there are social values that need to be enforced. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. The mosque in that location is inflammatory and a provocation to our sense of national pride. Sorry your spine doesn't congeal enough to lead you to take exception to the insult. :shrug:

And there's nothing illegal about using the court system to delay said insult. :shrug:
 
So the people building the community center/mosque are douchebags because they don't consider the sensitivities of people who equate Islam with terrorism?

To me, that's what it looks like here. Sure people have a right to protest, but I think they are "slaying dragons". Yes, the terrorists were all Muslim. That doesn't mean mean that all Muslims are terrorists.

Pearl Harbor was attacked by a nation, not a fringe minority of a religion. The only way to be upset about this is to link this mosque to terrorism.

it's a gut feeling. i can't apologize for that. and of course i don't think for one second that all muslims are terrorists.
 
You know I remember alot of Conservatives saying on this website "Don't make arguments based on Emotionality" but yet that's exactly whats happening with some of you.

Even conservapedia claims that one point of "Liberal Style" Is:



But I'm seeing a lot of conservatives doing that in here.

If America begins to deny people their rights because of emotion, or innocent assocations or blood lines. Then you will become the very thing you were fighting against.

While you are correct there is an emotional argument being made I would also say there are factual conscerns as well.

The comments about 9.11 made by the imam who would run this Mosque and the lack of clarity on who is funding this project.
 
And there are social values that need to be enforced. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. The mosque in that location is inflammatory and a provocation to our sense of national pride. Sorry your spine doesn't congeal enough to lead you to take exception to the insult. :shrug:

And there's nothing illegal about using the court system to delay said insult. :shrug:

Except that you have no right against being insulted and society and its values have no rights. Only individuals possess rights. As such, it is nothing more than unjustified actions against the free exercise of rights. They could have picked a better spot, true; but they don't have to. And no one has the right to infringe on someone's right to religious belief/expression/practice or property if said person has not infringed upon the rights of others. It's time to grow up and quit acting like a bunch of spoiled babies whining and crying about everything. It's like to say that Chicago's gun ban was fine because there they didn't want guns. But of course it wasn't because the ban infringed upon the rights of others. And sure, they could and did tie things up in courts as much as possible, but those were not just actions since they innately moved against the rights of others whom had not acted out against anybody else's rights.
 
So the people building the community center/mosque are douchebags because they don't consider the sensitivities of people who equate Islam with terrorism?

No, people building a muslim community center/mosque in extremely close vicinity of a place that was destroyed by muslim extremists in an attack backed by a muslim extremist in which people come to visit are, in my opinion, tactless douchebags.

As I've explained in another thread. Its not JUST people who equate Islam with Terrorism Its about emotional responses, many of which are natural.

When I say "Fireman" I don't have a giant swelling of pride and admiration, I just think of the guys that put out fires. When I say "Fireman and WTC" I immediately have an uplifting feeling and have the notion of heroism in my head as those two triggers bring me back to the day of 9/11. If I saw a giant fire truck monument with a statue of a fireman walking out of rubble 2 blocks from Ground Zero those two triggers (Being near Ground Zero and seeing the fireman monument) would summon forth that similar emotion.

Likewise when I say "Islam" or "Muslim" I don't suddenly have anger or hatred or think "TERRORISTS!". When I say "Islam and the WTC" then yes, I do have sudden feelings of anger and sadness as those two words act as triggers against each other to cause me to recall emotions from that specific day. If I see a giant building dedicated to Islam while heading or leaving hte WTC then again, those two triggers (being near ground Zero and seeing a big islamic center) would summon forth that similar emotion.

While I agree the notion of thinking all muslims are terrorist is ridiculous, I find it also absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somehow its impossible or unreasonable to have negative emotions or negative views or negative thoughts when you combine both the notion of Islam with the time/place of Ground Zero. I find it COMPLETELY absurd that people are acting like its unreasonable to even ATTACH Islam to 9/11, as if it had nothing to do with it.

To me, that's what it looks like here. Sure people have a right to protest, but I think they are "slaying dragons". Yes, the terrorists were all Muslim. That doesn't mean mean that all Muslims are terrorists.

Show me the people in this thread saying all Muslims are Terrorists?

All Japanese people didn't believe that Pearl Harbor needed to happen, I wouldn't want a Japanese Culture Center opening up right outside the Arizona 10 years after Pearl Harbor either.

Pearl Harbor was attacked by a nation, not a fringe minority of a religion. The only way to be upset about this is to link this mosque to terrorism.

They were attacked by a nation who was not ruled by a democratically elected head of state and whose people were from a culture of simply doing what their leaders told them. One could equate that to the rather extremely tacit response by the Muslim world in regards to terrorist attacks, such as disagreeing with the attacks on civilians but turning around and stating they support the goals and endeavors of the groups that conduct said attacks. Joe Random Japanese guy had no more hand or affect in regards to the attacking of Pearl Harbor then these people building the Mosque did, but it wouldn't make it any less douchey.

As I've said, my stance is one of four things:

1. Douchebags that know its going to piss people off and don't care, and who are throwing the "out reach" comments out as an abject lie and bull****ting. Mind you, no one says its illegal to be a douche bag.
2. Complete idiots that realize this is going to piss people off, specifically those that are anywhere from relatively neutral to full out negative on Islam, but still build it while telling us that its to "Build bridges" and be "out reach". Meaning they're attempting to "Reach out" to people by doing something right off the bat that's going to piss them off and start them on a worse footing
3. Absolute dullards who are more oblivious than Mr. Magoo and somehow had absolutely zero clue what so ever that this response would happen, and then IS happening, and are continuing on with the project thinking that no one is bothered or upset about it and it will work wonders in "out reach" and "building bridges".

So, please, excuse me and let me restate my comment earlier. They're not douche bags. They may be douche bags, idiots, or dullards...which of those three, I'm sure. What I do know however without a doubt is they severely lack tact.
 
You know I remember alot of Conservatives saying on this website "Don't make arguments based on Emotionality" but yet that's exactly whats happening with some of you.

Even conservapedia claims that one point of "Liberal Style" Is:



But I'm seeing a lot of conservatives doing that in here.

If America begins to deny people their rights because of emotion, or innocent assocations or blood lines. Then you will become the very thing you were fighting against.

Did you seriously try to just quote a site that's as abysmally credible as Conservapedia and whose entries have been acknowledged to have had many of them edited or created in full by liberals attempting to do parody or insult?

Also, in regards to the emotional argument thing in general. No where in conservative philosophy does it say that one must ignore the fact that emotions exist, they do.

My argument for example is not "OMG Muslims being near ground zero make me angry and mad and they should go".

My argument is that that location, regardless of peoples opinions about nationalism and other such stuff, is essentially a national landmark at this point much like the Arizona has been since Pearl Harbor. It is, forever from this point forward in America's history, going to be a place people go to remember the history that happened there that day and for those that lived and experienced it to grieve and remember the loss and the feelings that went over us that day. While it is in New York I feel that, much like the Arizona or the D-Day memorial here in Virginia or even happier things like the Washington Monument or Lincoln Monument, are things that the entire country in some way shape or form can lay claim to as it is of historical importance to all Americans and is intertwined with our society and culture now.

As such, one must be mindful of that fact and the fact humans ARE emotional beings. They just are. Nothing in conservatism says you have to ignore that. There is no good reason, at all, for the mosque to HAVE to be there rather than somewhere a few blocks farther away. It can't be out reach, its location makes out reach harder. It can't be difficulty to travel to it, there's no many people who live in that area that would be simply walking to it anyways and they could easily move it within a metro stop or so away so it'd still be easy to get to. There's just no reasonable, good reason to have it there when compared to the potential emotional whirlwind it can potentially cause in a large amount of people visiting this site.

This is an argument with a reason (Wanting to allow people to be able to visit what is essentially a national "monument" of sorts in peace without obvious and large external stimuli that will invoke unwanted additional emotions or feelings) that takes into account that people do have feelings. I am also not suggesting any laws be made against it or any rights be revoked from people. If I was confronted with some kind of factual evidence to counter all I have (which is currently anecdotal) that somehow a majority of people do not have negative emotions occur when the triggers of "Islam" and "9/11" are placed together I'd happily rescind my stance unless I had further hard evidence.

This is different than what conservatives talk about when saying "Debating emotions rather than issues". A situation like that would be stating "We need to ban violent video games because its bad for children!" and continuing to do so even after studies showing that violent video games does not have a significant effect on making kids violent. In that particular instance ONLY the appeal to emotion "Its bad for Children" is at play in attempting to make a LAW that would restrict civil liberties (Free speech) despite the lack of hard evidence to support it.
 
Last edited:
Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...chances are, it's a duck. If you don't want to be labeled a fascist don't support or put forward fascist notions such as societal or political intimidation to force your way over the free exercise of rights when legally there is nothing legitimate or just you can do about it. But if you're done with these little outbursts now, perhaps we can move forward.

Okay, getting tired of this.

You keep throwing it out, but you've not defined it, so lets have it.

Give us what you think "Political and societal intimidation" or "force" is, and provide us some examples.

Because there's obviously a disconnect in what you're saying and suggesting with those words and what others are saying.
 
it's a gut feeling. i can't apologize for that. and of course i don't think for one second that all muslims are terrorists.

That "gut feeling" is emotion, not reason. It happens. We are emotional beings.
 
It's easy. You don't want certain folk in some place. Certain folk buy a piece of land and do something that is well within their rights to do. You either make it completely hostile so that they cannot practice their rights, or you use backdoor methods to prevent their exercise of their rights. There's always going to be some amount of bitching or protest, fine. But there's nothing one can legitimately do until the original person does something which infringes upon the rights of others. Thus saying that society has values and if someone doesn't hold those values it's fine to do whatever it takes to ensure said person doesn't do anything against those values even if what that person wanted to do was completely within their rights to do.

A good example of such is the initial use of the marriage license, which was created to prevent interracial marriage. Society had "values", these other folk wanted to marry but society didn't want them to marry. So they created instead, and enforced through government force, a system which would actively prevent the act; in this case interracial marriage. It was an unjust act and one of tyranny against the individual as it, without warrant or charge or proof acted against the free exercise of someone's rights.
 
It's easy. You don't want certain folk in some place. Certain folk buy a piece of land and do something that is well within their rights to do. You either make it completely hostile so that they cannot practice their rights, or you use backdoor methods to prevent their exercise of their rights. There's always going to be some amount of bitching or protest, fine. But there's nothing one can legitimately do until the original person does something which infringes upon the rights of others. Thus saying that society has values and if someone doesn't hold those values it's fine to do whatever it takes to ensure said person doesn't do anything against those values even if what that person wanted to do was completely within their rights to do.

A good example of such is the initial use of the marriage license, which was created to prevent interracial marriage. Society had "values", these other folk wanted to marry but society didn't want them to marry. So they created instead, and enforced through government force, a system which would actively prevent the act; in this case interracial marriage. It was an unjust act and one of tyranny against the individual as it, without warrant or charge or proof acted against the free exercise of someone's rights.

Are you honestly pretending this is equivalent to run of the mill prejudice? Did you miss 9.11 or the war we are in and the obvious scars it created?
 
Back
Top Bottom