WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[Eran of Arcadia]

People have been merely exercising their right to free speech. How has the constitution been violated?

Answer: it hasnt.

As long as none of the protests succeed in their stated purpose, then no, the Constitution hasn't been violated. But what is the point of trying something that if it succeeds is clearly wrong?

Besides, I was merely pointing out the Constitution to show that the protesters are wrong, not that they are doing anything illegal.

 

[MobBoss]

As long as none of the protests succeed in their stated purpose, then no

Uh, for them to 'succeed' it would take voluntary action by the mosque planners. Such voluntary action is, well, voluntary is it not?

the Constitution hasn't been violated. But what is the point of trying something that if it succeeds is clearly wrong?

I disagree with you that its clearly wrong. Again, lawful voluntary action is voluntary.

Isnt that what such lawful protest is about?

Besides, I was merely pointing out the Constitution to show that the protesters are wrong, not that they are doing anything illegal.

So they are indeed acting constitutionally? And if they are, by what standard are they wrong? Thats not what you seemed to imply in your comment.....especially since we all know Forms opinion about it.

 

[JollyRoger]

What makes you think they were christians?

All the Bibles that burned along with them would be a hint.

 

[MobBoss]

All the Bibles that burned along with them would be a hint.

Not a very good one. You are an atheist, yet I would wager you have a bible in your house. Or are you going to suggest that mere ownership of a bible now makes one a christian?

 

[Traitorfish]

So they are indeed acting constitutionally? And if they are, by what standard are they wrong?

Using your constitutionally-guaranteed right to free expression to try and suppress the constitutionally-guaranteed right to free expression of others seems pretty self-evidently "wrong" to me.

So they are indeed acting constitutionally? And if they are, by what standard are they wrong?

That depends entirely on whether one considers harassment a legitimate tool for change.

Edit: Re-inserted first part.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not a very good one. You are an atheist, yet I would wager you have a bible in your house. Or are you going to suggest that mere ownership of a bible now makes one a christian?

What does make one a Christian? I will concede that mere possession of the Bible is not enough.

 

[MobBoss]

Using your constitutionally-guaranteed right to free expression to try and suppress the constitutionally-guaranteed right to free expression of others seems pretty self-evidently "wrong" to me.

No one is trying to suppress anyone, but to merely convince them that going forward with their idea isnt that great of an idea, albeit a perfectly legal action. Its what peaceful protest is all about.

For example, if your going to do something, perfectly legal, but maybe not the best idea in the world, and I try to talk you out of doing it, I am not suppressing your consitutional rights to anything, I am merely offering you wisdom. You are free to take it or not as you choose.

The mosque builders are free to do with as they will, but they have at least been afforded what the nation thinks about their project. Its up to them if they choose to recognize those feelings as valid or not.

But lets be real...no ones consitutional rights are being trampled here. Thats just simply a wrong accusation to make in light of the facts of the situation.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The only reason it could be considered "not a good idea" is because people are opposed to it; so the people who are opposed to it are basically arguing that an opinion is worth considering simply because it is held.

I have yet to hear a better reason than "people are opposed to it" to oppose park51.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The only reason it could be considered "not a good idea" is because people are opposed to it; so the people who are opposed to it are basically arguing that an opinion is worth considering simply because it is held.

I have yet to hear a better reason than "people are opposed to it" to oppose park51.

People are opposed to providing a better reason.

 

[JollyRoger]

The real reasons were killed on 9/11. To trot them out now would revictimize them.

 

[MobBoss]

That depends entirely on whether one considers harassment a legitimate tool for change.

So, legal protest is considered harassment?

You think that would hold up as a standard in a court of law?

What does make one a Christian? I will concede that mere possession of the Bible is not enough.

Try reading the bible you have. It will tell you. But I am sure there's been a thread or two on that already. Perhaps use the forum search option...

 

[Traitorfish]

No one is trying to suppress anyone, but to merely convince them that going forward with their idea isnt that great of an idea, albeit a perfectly legal action. Its what peaceful protest is all about.

I suppose that depends on whether or not you view those opposed to the mosque as possessing of a legitimate case. For those of us struggling to find much more the opposition than "Shut up because I say so!", it seems a bit iffy.

So, legal protest is considered harassment?

You think that would hold up as a standard in a court of law?

It was a flippant comment. The mischief smiley was there for a reason.

 

[MobBoss]

I suppose that depends on whether or not you view those opposed to the mosque as possessing of a legitimate case.

Thats not part of the criteria for determining harassment.

Try again. You alleged harassment....now justify your allegation.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thats not part of the criteria for determining harassment.

Try again. You alleged harassment....now justify your allegation.

That was actually in reference to the "suppression" comment, not the "harassment" one. The latter was facetious, nothing more.

 

[JollyRoger]

Try reading the bible you have. It will tell you. But I am sure there's been a thread or two on that already. Perhaps use the forum search option...

Why do you think the Koresh group failed to qualify?

 

[civver_764]

Really? The UK suffers from imperialism? The USA?

'Cause some of those islamic terrorists are indeed 'home-grown'.

Or didnt you know that?

How many of them are doing it because of America's domestic policies?

HMM...

If these men did it in the name of "men", had a history of committing terrorist acts in the name of men, planned to commit terrorist acts in the name of men in the future, and viewed the West and the US in particular as enemies who should be killed without prejudice, yes I can see opposition to the store.

Short answer: your analogy is as flawed as the "McVeigh is a christian terrorist" analogy a lot of idiots (not you, just in general) like to use.

They didn't do it in the name of Islam. They did it in the name of "america sucks" and Islam happened to be their religion. They used to it to gain sympathy of course, but I guarantee they could have and would have done the same thing if Christianity was the major religion there. It makes no difference.

 

[Gruekiller]

Are people still arguing about this? I'm pretty sure it's clear that it's technically not a mosque, isn't at Ground Zero (as some might have you believe), and that the Muslims who want it built had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The only reason I could think of not to build it is to keep these debates from popping up.

 

[Tee Kay]

Are people still arguing about this? I'm pretty sure it's clear that it's technically not a mosque, isn't at Ground Zero (as some might have you believe), and that the Muslims who want it built had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The only reason I could think of not to build it is to keep these debates from popping up.

But they're Muslims! MUSLIMS! MUSLIMS!!!

 

[FriendlyFire]

But they're Muslims! MUSLIMS! MUSLIMS!!!

Lets not forget the biggest muslim of them all G.W. Bush i mean Obama

 

[warpus]

The only reason it could be considered "not a good idea" is because people are opposed to it; so the people who are opposed to it are basically arguing that an opinion is worth considering simply because it is held.

I have yet to hear a better reason than "people are opposed to it" to oppose park51.

That's the best point I've read on this page (haven't read the last couple pages)

and I see that MobBoss has no response for it.