• 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!

President Obama comes out in support of Ground Zero mosque

RightinNYC said:
My understanding is that few have actually challenged the right of the mosque to build there, which is the only thing that Obama has claimed to have defended. I'm not sure how he's defending an American value if that value wasn't seriously questioned.

The question of whether it's smart or sensitive to build there is an entirely different one, one which doesn't involve American values and one which wasn't addressed by Obama.
Click to expand...

I think he is supporting a strong American value here when he upholds the right for this Mosque to built even on the grounds of freedom of religion. In a twisted sort of way, we're just as fanatical about our right to practise whatever religion we see fit as Muslim extremist are to claim the right to Jihad. The only difference is in America we limit one's right to their religious views and/or practises to doing no harm one upon another, whereas, Islam from an extreme point of view allows the Muslim government (or governing body) to declare a holy war against pretty much anyone they believe does not support their religious views. Both are based on religious believe systems, but ours allows one the fundamental right to denounce (or bow out) of one religion for another, whereas, most governing Muslim bodies won't allow anyone to leave Islam. But both are values based on that nation's overall belief systems.

Does that make sense?
 
RightinNYC said:
Using this logic, Japan was actually responsible because they took the actions that forced us to take the actions that led them to bomb us.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
Sure, in order to curtail their brutalization of China. If you think someone is "responsible" for something bad, you mean that it's their fault, that they did something wrong to bring it about. Was trying to stop Japan from brutalizing China an evil for which they rightly smited us? You seem to be saying it was.
Click to expand...

Good questions and great arguments, but like I said, we'll have to save this for another debate. :)
 
Objective Voice said:
I think he is supporting a strong American value here when he upholds the right for this Mosque to built even on the grounds of freedom of religion. In a twisted sort of way, we're just as fanatical about our right to practise whatever religion we see fit as Muslim extremist are to claim the right to Jihad. The only difference is in America we limit one's right to their religious views and/or practises to doing no harm one upon another, whereas, Islam from an extreme point of view allows the Muslim government (or governing body) to declare a holy war against pretty much anyone they believe does not support their religious views. Both are based on religious believe systems, but ours allows one the fundamental right to denounce (or bow out) of one religion for another, whereas, most governing Muslim bodies won't allow anyone to leave Islam. But both are values based on that nation's overall belief systems.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Oh, I completely agree that the right he was defending was an important one, my point is just that I don't think it was one that was really in dispute. I could be wrong, but my impression is that most everyone agrees that they have the right to build there, but most just object on grounds of sensitivity or appropriateness. If Obama didn't address that, then I don't know that his speech really did much.
 
No, he just did what a lot of people do when someone says something they're being criticized for -- "he has the right to say what he wants." Well, no ****. That was never the point. The point was what he said, not the right to say it.

There was no particular reason Obama needed to weigh in at all, though. Especially after he (well, Gibbs) said the White House considered it a local matter.
 
Redress said:
Really quickly, since this is way off topic, but the Baptist church threw my mother out, publicly, and referenced doing so, and her being damned to hell, in front of my sister and I(aged 7 and 5). I have personal reasons for disliking the baptist church, and freely admit it is not an entirely rational emotion. This is also off the point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I didn't know and I apologize if I rubbed an old wound. It's enough for me to know that you realize, underneath it all, it is not a rational emotion (I would also add "or opinion," but I digress.)

You never know until you walked a mile in someone's shoes. But just know this. Even though I am not a religious person, I was raised in a southern baptist environment and aside from their quirky belief's, they were the salt of the earth, most loving, caring people I can point to. I am certain they have their freaks too. As you seem to have encountered some. I think what those baptists did to you and your family deserves to be tarred and feathered. I can't imagine anyone from my past "baptist" background thinking anything otherwise, either.

I had a Chinese Catholic Priest, at methodist Hospital, in Houston, TX, in 1975, try to feel me up once in a circle-electric hospital bed I was tethered to. That kinda skewed my view towards Catholics. So it's not like I don't understand. I just hope I don't go to hell for bitch-slapping a perverted priest.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
No, he just did what a lot of people do when someone says something they're being criticized for -- "he has the right to say what he wants." Well, no ****. That was never the point. The point was what he said, not the right to say it.

There was no particular reason Obama needed to weigh in at all, though. Especially after he (well, Gibbs) said the White House considered it a local matter.
Click to expand...

This is no longer a local matter. It's become a national matter.

Therefore I believe the President was correct in standing up for RIGHTS.

Not nessecarily what is RIGHT.

Personally I think it wasn't the brightest idea, but they do have the right. If we wish to start ignoring those rights, then so be it, but we better start changing our constitutions to include Anti-Islam clauses...

Until then. I believe we must put up or shut up.
 
Ockham said:
I conclude your view point is very apologetic to Islam and is a borderline "excuse".

Using your view of things, everything can be blamed on everything - therefore, no group or individual is ever at fault or responsible and everyone can play "victim". :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is we may have been fully justified in keeping those Muslim nations that hold such radically extreme views from the world policy table, but in doing so we should try to be as forward thinking as possible to see what may be the likely retaliatory consequence of our actions. As the 9/11 report said, "we lacked imagination to connect the dots" and all the clues were there long before the attack occured. Same has been proven correct where events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor is concerned. But again, let's leave this for another debate thread, please.
 
Objective Voice said:
But the building of this Mosque so close to Ground Zero isn't just a local NYC or NY State issue. As I said in one of my previous posts, the decision to build it within such close proximity to Ground Zero affects many Americans on both an emotional and psychological level. As such, I understand why so many people are opposed to its construction at the specific location. However, I've also said that what's at stake goes so much deeper than our emotional, psychological or even political preferences or viewpoints. The deeper issue is "Who are we as Americans and will we adhere to our founding priciples or will we abandon those priciples just because they may make us uncomfortable from time to time?" That is what's truly at stake here. To that, I believe the President said the right thing here. He is upholding our American values by protecting and preserving basic human rights - freedom of religion, freedom of choice and upholding the rule of law at all levels. That to me is more important that the politics of the day. And it should be just as important for you, too.

Let me put it to you this way...

Had the President stood up and said it was wrong for this Mosque to be built, I believe the message Muslims around the world would have taken from this is "Americans ARE hypocrits! They truly don't believe in freedom of religion or democracy as they claim they do." And in taking such a stance, the President would have been sending a message to Muslim extremist that they were fully justified in attacking us not only on 9/11 but anywhere around the world. You have to remember, the guiding reason behind their hatred of America and Americans is U.S. Foreign Policy. Part of what guides said policy is how we abide by or subvert the very document that guides our fundamental priciples - the U.S. Constitution. Is this the message you want to send to the world? That America, for all of our talk on fairness and religious freedom is a smoke screen? That's it's just BS?

THINK IT THROUGH, PEOPLE!!!! There's so much more to this issue than your own emotional or political point of view.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion, and you certainly state it in an elegant, thoughtful manner, making some good points.

That said, since I liken islam to a totalitarian cult akin to communism, the effort by the US in the '50s, while heavy handed at times, did successfully keep communism at bay from taking a stronger hold here than say, Italy or Greece. When you operate from that perspective, the US authorities are well within their oaths to protect the public at large from it, and the public at large is not violating the concepts of liberty and freedom of speech and religion by shunning it. Since it is a cult and not a religion, the authorities and public cannot be accused of hypocracy, except by those hiding behind the fig leaf of freedom while trying to subjugate it; i.e, muslim fascists.

See here:

Dorothy Rabinowitz: Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11 - WSJ.com

"Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy—says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes "It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam.""
 
RightinNYC said:
Oh, I completely agree that the right he was defending was an important one, my point is just that I don't think it was one that was really in dispute. I could be wrong, but my impression is that most everyone agrees that they have the right to build there, but most just object on grounds of sensitivity or appropriateness. If Obama didn't address that, then I don't know that his speech really did much.
Click to expand...

Good point...I agree.
 
Jetboogieman said:
This is no longer a local matter. It's become a national matter.
Click to expand...

That's not what he (well, Gibbs) said the day before. Or two days. Or whatever. Well after it had become a "national matter," in any case.

It's not like the President has to get involved in every national matter, anyway. He ain't our papa.

Therefore I believe the President was correct in standing up for RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

:shrug: And as was pointed out, no one was ever challenging that right.
 
I wonder if a religion developed here in the US, that practiced and preached rampant sexual behavior, psychedelic drug communions demonic evil and blood sacrifice, would the government step in?

I still remember the hari krishnas. LOL!
 
Harshaw said:
That's not what he said the day before.

It's not like the President has to get involved in every national matter, anyway. He ain't our papa.
Click to expand...

But he must. This issue, could be the first step in either a right or wrong direction. If a precedence was reached, in which, they could stop this mosque from being built. It is possible, that, that precidence could reach to any city or town in America.

What if towns simply decided:

"HEY! We don't want them dirty Muslims here opening a mosque, see they stopped them in New York, so will we!"

:shrug: And as was pointed out, no one was ever challenging that right.
Click to expand...

But they are. Mob rule doesn't often turn out well.

Again. Do I think it's a good idea... no. But if we begin subverting rights as we have already done out of fear... where do we stop it?
 
joergan said:
I respect your opinion, and you certainly state it in an elegant, thoughtful manner, making some good points.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Just trying to get people to take a breath, step back from the situation for just a moment, put their emotions aside and see the larger picture here.

Dorothy Rabinowitz: Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11 - WSJ.com

"Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy—says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes "It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam.""
Click to expand...

This I also agree with. And if it's proven after following the money trail that funding did, in fact, come from Muslim extremist, the Mosque's owner should either return said funding, allow same to be confiscated by the Dept. of Homeland Security or halt the construction of the Mosque - period!
 
politico's perspective, 24 hours later:

With criticism mounting of his support for the construction of an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan, President Obama on Saturday defended his decision to wade into the controversy the night before, but backed off from his previous stance.
Click to expand...

(42 words)

DEFENDED but BACKED OFF?

that's one loopy prez, huh?

kinda worst of both worlds, no?

what an idiot
 
Jetboogieman said:
But he must. This issue, could be the first step in either a right or wrong direction. If a precedence was reached, in which, they could stop this mosque from being built. It is possible, that, that precidence could reach to any city or town in America.

What if towns simply decided:

"HEY! We don't want them dirty Muslims here opening a mosque, see they stopped them in New York, so will we!"



But they are. Mob rule doesn't often turn out well.

Again. Do I think it's a good idea... no. But if we begin subverting rights as we have already done out of fear... where do we stop it?
Click to expand...

No one was challenging their religious freedom. They were criticizing what they were choosing to do with their religious freedom. Just as people challenge what others choose to do with their freedom of speech.

I brought this up in another thread -- the protests were along the same lines as those protesting the NRA for holding their convention in Denver a few weeks after the Columbine shootings. Almost no one was protesting their right to hold a convention or even their right to bear arms. (Maybe a few were, but it wasn't the point of the protests.) Of course, a difference in THAT case was that the convention had been planned long in advance and the location was entirely coincidental.

CNN - Mass student protests expected over NRA meeting in Denver - May 1, 1999

The protests had exactly the same motivation as these protests in NY. Funny, the President didn't see the need to get involved then.

By the way, are you challenging the freedom of speech of the people protesting the mosque? By your reasoning, you must be.
 
MaggieD said:
Yes, I get the point. But you're wrong. I do get it that it's YHO, though.
Click to expand...

This is getting rather frustrating.

So far, 3 posters, all of whom happen to label themselves as "liberal", one of whom is a mod no less, has responded with "you're wrong," or something similar in about 5-7 posts. Either come up with a thoughtful, defendable response, or I will have to consider you trolling and will report the post to CC.
 
Harshaw said:
No one was challenging their religious freedom. They were criticizing what they were choosing to do with their religious freedom. Just as people challenge what others choose to do with their freedom of speech.

I brought this up in another thread -- the protests were along the same lines as those protesting the NRA for holding their convention in Denver a few weeks after the Columbine shootings. Almost no one was protesting their right to hold a convention or even their right to bear arms. (Maybe a few were, but it wasn't the point of the protests.) Of course, a difference in THAT case was that the convention had been planned long in advance and the location was entirely coincidental.

CNN - Mass student protests expected over NRA meeting in Denver - May 1, 1999

The protests had exactly the same motivation as these protests in NY. Funny, the President didn't see the need to get involved then.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly.

You are absolutely right.

But this carries far more weight. A national opinion has been formed, and a fire exists under it, fuel coming from the national media on both sides.

And there are those who DO challenge their religious freedom and what they choose to do with it. There are. Scan the posts on this subject, believe me there are.

Personally I think the solution is this: Sell the land for a tidy profit (which they could do), and build a bigger and better community centre/mosque elsewhere.

Otherwise. Can't we all just... get along? Having that mosque there won't change a goddam thing.
 
BDBoop said:
Some things are just common knowledge. Which apparently you lack? Sorry.
Click to expand...

You are failing in this thread miserably, and I'm not sure why you're even in it. In about 7 posts we've gotten little of value, would placing you on ignore be your goal?
 
Jetboogieman said:
I agree whole heartedly.

You are absolutely right.

But this carries far more weight. A national opinion has been formed, and a fire exists under it, fuel coming from the national media on both sides.

And there are those who DO challenge their religious freedom and what they choose to do with it. There are. Scan the posts on this subject, believe me there are.

Personally I think the solution is this: Sell the land for a tidy profit (which they could do), and build a bigger and better community centre/mosque elsewhere.

Otherwise. Can't we all just... get along? Having that mosque there won't change a goddam thing.
Click to expand...

If you think this is a bigger deal than Columbine was, it's because you weren't around for Columbine.

But my personal opinion on this particular matter is that it wouldn't mean a thing if the WTC had been rebuilt and there wasn't still a gaping hole at Ground Zero.
 
Objective Voice said:
But ultimate WE were responsible. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but WE did cut off Japan's access to natural resources, in this case, oil. WE backed them in a corner. WE were the leading discenting voice in imposing an oil embargo upon them. As such, the Japanesse Empire fought back. End result = the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Do yourself a favor, go back and read WWII history then come back and maybe we can discuss this matter futher. But for the sake of this issue where U.S. policy may have foster Muslim extremist angst, I think WE repeated the same mistake. Again, I'm not saying that we weren't justified, but you have to see things in their proper historical content to gain a full understanding of what led to certain events.
Click to expand...

Uh, Japan was already in China in 1931, long before the US got involved...I'm not sure whether you should be demanding others read history before posting... :rolleyes:
 
Speech on mosque was Obama's call - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

dang, now even backstabbers INSIDE THE ADMIN are throwing him under

the call was "purely his own," said an "administration official"

(in other words, we staffers, being professionals, had NOTHING to do with this)

obama did not, says the source, "delve deeply into the details of the plan for the site"

you mean, he just goes off half cocked?

why was gibbs' line all along, local matter?

saturday he appeared to "back away," which only "further stoked" the "national firestorm" he "tipped off"

it was all "off the cuff"

hey, a prez must bespeak his soul

he actually, we learn, released the iftar address in advance to "maximize its impact"

where're the results from the outreach, mr president?

when are you gonna talk to the leaders of iran, close gitmo, prosecute the cia, move ksm downtown and change the world?

his answer, evidently---it all starts at iftar

our secret source, via ms lee---the president is "absolutely not walking back"

the msm don't seem to be buying it, do they?

professional left, anyone?

(34 words cited from source)
 
Last edited:
Prof, may we assume that your tenure was not acquired in the language arts department? LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom