Plan for Mosque III...

[BSmith1068]

If you merely pressure someone into something, rather than forcing them, you can claim that you didn't deny them their rights, as it was "their" decision.

Which is why it is good backdoor way to deny someone their rights. It has a nice aura of plausible deniability, yet still gets the job done.

 

[MobBoss]

If you merely pressure someone into something, rather than forcing them, you can claim that you didn't deny them their rights, as it was "their" decision.

Isnt that the entire point of lawful dissent?

No one is denying that anyone has freedom of speech - but the right to say whatever you want doesn't lead to the right to have whatever you say turn into action. That's not in the Constitution . . .

Wake me when you actually see some unconstitutional action then.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Isnt that the entire point of lawful dissent?

Yes, but the split is in the fact that dissent for the sake of social progress will be seen down the line of history as good, dissent for the sake of social hindrance will be seen far less favorably.

 

[BSmith1068]

I wonder if that is enough to make a trend?

We are a nation of well over 300 million people with untold thousands of communities. 18 incidents out of literally tens if not hundreds of thousands isnt exatly proof of anything.

I guess not.

I guess you didn’t see the part about there only being 2500 mosques in the USA (only 200 of which are purpose built). Makes that 18 seem a bit bigger now, doesn’t it?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Isnt that the entire point of lawful dissent?

To prevent something legal from happening

Wake me when you actually see some unconstitutional action then.

Well, apparently by your definition "legal dissent" can deny 1st Amendment rights, but in a way that allows people to avoid having to admit that's what they are doing.

 

[MobBoss]

Which is why it is good backdoor way to deny someone their rights. It has a nice aura of plausible deniability, yet still gets the job done.

This comment is literally dripping with hypocrisy. Seriously, lawful (and often not-so-lawful) dissent is used by the left as one of its primary tools of objection.

But when the right uses it....oh my God....the outrage!!

Amazing.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

This comment is literally dripping with hypocrisy. Seriously, lawful (and often not-so-lawful) dissent is used by the left as one of its primary tools of objection.

But when the right uses it....oh my God....the outrage!!

Amazing.

Why do you consistently use the rhetoric of the victim?

also, since you appear to have missed it.

Zooming out from the Manhattan mosque, I assume then that you would support opposition to mosques anywhere in the United States if the community was against it?

 

[MobBoss]

To prevent something legal from happening

Absolutely. Its done all the time in this country by people of all political and religious beliefs.

Well, apparently by your definition "legal dissent" can deny 1st Amendment rights

No, it doesnt. And again, please dont misrepresent me. I, in no way advocate that anyones rights be violated.

but in a way that allows people to avoid having to admit that's what they are doing.

Again, thats exactly how legal dissent works, whether done by the left or the right.

 

[MobBoss]

Why do you consistently use the rhetoric of the victim?

Because the allegation of someone being denied their rights is utterly false. Protest is legal in this nation as we have freedom of speech. People need to deal with it. However, such protest is in no way equitable with actual action that is unconstitutional. No one is advocating violence, or illegal action against anyone.

Originally Posted by Mr. Dictator
Zooming out from the Manhattan mosque, I assume then that you would support opposition to mosques anywhere in the United States if the community was against it?

I think it depends on the individual situation. I happen to think the concern and issue as to proximity to ground zero to be legitimate. Just to object to a mosque because you dont like muslims...no, that wouldnt be legitimate.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Because the allegation of someone being denied their rights is utterly false. Protest is legal in this nation as we have freedom of speech. People need to deal with it. However, such protest is in no way equitable with actual action that is unconstitutional. No one is advocating violence, or illegal action against anyone.

Constitutionality aside, don't you find it a bit off to say, "now they do have the right, but should they use it?"

I think it depends on the individual situation. I happen to think the concern and issue as to proximity to ground zero to be legitimate. Just to object to a mosque because you dont like muslims...no, that wouldnt be legitimate.

Well to give the example of my hometown, they're framing it as a "zoning" issue, though from the comments made by members of the community at the town meetings, it is pure bigotry. The leader of the largest church in town said he feared it would be a "Terrorist training camp".

Keep in mind, no one bats an eye when a new McChurch is built in this area, and the zoning laws have only been read into for this mosque.

No one in these communities will come out and say, "I just don't like muslims", just like they arent in regards to the mosque in New York.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes, there are people who don't want this mosque to be built; if, as a result of their actions, this mosque doesn't get built, over the objections of the builder (or even because he feels that he has no choice but to give in), then yeah, people's rights have been violated.

 

[BSmith1068]

This comment is literally dripping with hypocrisy. Seriously, lawful (and often not-so-lawful) dissent is used by the left as one of its primary tools of objection.

But when the right uses it....oh my God....the outrage!!

Amazing.

Show me where "the left" has used dissent to deny someone their rights. Then show me where I did it.

 

[say1988]

I remind you, I have said for awhile now that the plans for this mosque arent improving muslim/non-muslim relations. What you describe would simply be a vindcation that I was correct in my opinion.

But why is this the builder's fault? And not the people reacting with irrational fears. Why should we not be blaming these people for inciting the animosity rather than the builders? There are entirely rational reasons to build the mosque there (and note the site was chosen by a non-muslim), and no rational reasons for teh opposition, why side with irrationality?

If you merely pressure someone into something, rather than forcing them, you can claim that you didn't deny them their rights, as it was "their" decision.

Except courts of law have determined that undue pressure can be equated to forcing something upon someone.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, there are people who don't want this mosque to be built; if, as a result of their actions, this mosque doesn't get built, over the objections of the builder (or even because he feels that he has no choice but to give in), then yeah, people's rights have been violated.

Huh, I don't agree. If they're merely giving into peer pressure, I don't think their rights have been violated. They've merely been treated rudely, and have given in to emotional bullying.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, if the opposers are able to prevent the building of the mosque, it will only be through pressure that is a lot worse than simple rudeness or bullying.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, as soon as any type of government pressure is brought to bear, then it would be a rights issue. I might have misunderstood.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Public pressure may lead to government pressure, that's my worry . . .

And if Park51 gives in to mere public pressure, it may not be a violation of rights, but it would still be lamentable.

 

[illram]

Man, I have a great distaste for Islam. I really don't like it, and am probably quite biased against Muslims (though I obviously try not to be). And I cannot lend any credence to the objections to the building. Even if it were a full blown mosque, I wouldn't care.

Come, build mosques. Move in. Welcome to the neighborhood. Bring your people. Bring your culture. Welcome to the best melting pot on the planet. Or, at least it used to be.
Sheesh. We're a free liberal society: you cannot protect a free liberal society by whenever a church goes up. Or a community center. Or whatever.

If you want to defang Islam, just help encourage critical thinking and proper historical knowledge. You can't outmilitant a militant religion, you're going to fail. All you can do is culturally outcompete it.

Good point. Marketplace of ideas, etc.

 

[JerichoHill]

So far, on CFC, I count 1 person who in my opinion SHOULD be a backer of their constitutional right to built a place of worship on private property who is worried about the opinions of other's and people's feelings being hurt (and using that to justify not building it) and a whole lot of people who rarely agree on anything posting "But they have a constitutional right to build this"

 

[nonconformist]

http://unlinitedtravel.blogspot.com/

This place appears to opeerate opposite the old World Trade Centre place.

They appear tyo book people onto planes. PLANES.


TOO SOON