President Obama Backs Mosque Near Ground Zero

[JLO]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4503228#4503305

Isn't AP suing everyone for posting the full articles from their site?

[Chris_]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4503228#4503305

Isn't AP suing everyone for posting the full articles from their site?

Not the Associated Press, it's the Las Vegas Journal Review and their new attack dogs, RightHaven.  The AP merely wanted to charge ridiculous amounts of money for any use of their content.

[JLO]

Not the Associated Press, it's the Las Vegas Journal Review and their new attack dogs, RightHaven.  The AP merely wanted to charge ridiculous amounts of money for any use of their content.

Weren't they fussing & suing FR for posting full articles?

[Texacon]

Wonder how this jibes;

"This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

with this;

Students ordered to stop praying outside the Supreme Court

Well now .... that doesn't look very good at all now does it?

The DUmmies are cheering the first .... wonder how they feel about the second?

KC

[Chris_]

Possibly.  You would have to go to FR for that information.

[Texacon]

And if it is just about free speech and not religion .... what about this;

Students told to stop singing the National Anthem at the Lincoln Memorial

KC

[Freeper]

I really hate to say this but, I agree that they have the right to build this atrocity.
I totally agree that it is a slap in the face to those who died and the families of those victims.
However it is a slippery slope if we can start denying building permits to religious organizations.

I know a lot of people will think I am nuts on this. In my view if we have freedom then sometimes we have to put up with offensive things happening.

[dandi]

I really hate to say this but, I agree that they have the right to build this atrocity.
I totally agree that it is a slap in the face to those who died and the families of those victims.
However it is a slippery slope if we can start denying building permits to religious organizations.

I know a lot of people will think I am nuts on this. In my view if we have freedom then sometimes we have to put up with offensive things happening.

I don't think you're nuts, Freep. I think most of us would agree that they have a right to do so under the law. It's their judgment and sensitivity in question.

That's one of the things that separate us from the DUmmies. We're consistent in our acknowledgment of those freedoms. They on the other hand would have no qualms whatsoever about having laws passed restricting religious practices that offend them, which would be pretty much everything Christian-related.

[BlueStateSaint]

Freep and dandi, I have to agree with the both of you.  Having said that, I like Greg Gutfeld's idea, too.

[Carl]

I am not going to pretend to like the idea but as long as all the normal processes were done it is on private property.

I do think it is fair to ask political questions such as "Were all the permit procedures followed in the same fashion and time frame as they would be with any other religious or private group wishing to build?"
"What has been the historical pattern for allowing building particularly by any group that will ask for a tax exemption on the property?"

If it was found that this was fast tracked then a political issue should be raised on that point and the reasons for it demanded.

[true_blood]

I really hate to say this but, I agree that they have the right to build this atrocity.

I do agree fully. They do have the right.
But, it would be nice if this atrocity caught fire and burnt to the ground!

[USA4ME]

I don't think you're nuts, Freep. I think most of us would agree that they have a right to do so under the law. It's their judgment and sensitivity in question.

I agree.  They have every right to build, but it isn't prudent, especially if you're looking to build relations within the community.  What kind of religious body would make its first act in a new area one that would piss off the neighborhood?  Rhetorical question, I know.

.

[RobJohnson]

A mosque at ground zero would be sign of victory for Islam.

[Randy]

A mosque at ground zero would be sign of victory for Islam.

And that's exactly why all the appeasers are pushing so hard for it.

[AllosaursRus]

I really hate to say this but, I agree that they have the right to build this atrocity.
I totally agree that it is a slap in the face to those who died and the families of those victims.
However it is a slippery slope if we can start denying building permits to religious organizations.

I know a lot of people will think I am nuts on this. In my view if we have freedom then sometimes we have to put up with offensive things happening.

Freep, we don't want to deny them there building, far from it, just put the damn thing somewhere else! There are already 23 Mosques in NYC, none of which we have a problem with! The only reason they want to build across from the worst terrorist attack on American soil, is to deepen the divide and declare their reign over us! BTW, they want to open it on the anniversary of the attack! Tell me they aren't intending to flip us the bird!!

If they're so damned interested in bridging the gap between our different philosophies, you'd think they would understand the request of near 90% of Americans when we ask they build it a block or two away instead of ground zero where Americans have lost loved ones due to the radical criminals of their religion.

Sorry, I don't find that in the least to much to ask!

You think they would be as understanding if the tables were turned? Of course not!

[JLO]

A mosque at ground zero would be sign of victory for Islam.

Indeed!

[debk]

By law, building the mosque is not the issue, as we all agree.

It's the acceptance of the lack of sensitivity and the historical significance of building a mosque on "conquered places" that's making everyone so upset. 

Therefore, if lack of sensitivity is acceptable....Greg Gutfeld's gay bar next door to the mosque is a non-issue. So would a bar-b-que joint on the other side....

[JLO]

Freep, we don't want to deny them there building, far from it, just put the damn thing somewhere else! There are already 23 Mosques in NYC, none of which we have a problem with! The only reason they want to build across from the worst terrorist attack on American soil, is to deepen the divide and declare their reign over us! BTW, they want to open it on the anniversary of the attack! Tell me they aren't intending to flip us the bird!!

Yes, indeed-ee.

A

[ROCKURWORLD]

People need to wake up and get over this PC BS. It isn't about religious freedom, it is about war with people who want to kill us and destroy this country.

[lastparker]

I really hate to say this but, I agree that they have the right to build this atrocity.
I totally agree that it is a slap in the face to those who died and the families of those victims.
However it is a slippery slope if we can start denying building permits to religious organizations.

I know a lot of people will think I am nuts on this. In my view if we have freedom then sometimes we have to put up with offensive things happening.

Like the mere existence of the ACLU.

[Ballygrl]

Good News! Hamas has weighed in and they're for the Mosque too, and Obama is kind of doing a 180 now and refusing to talk about this. When is Obama going to actually be on the side of most Americans? Another bad PR move for Obama and some Democrats.

[Godot showed up]

Freep, we don't want to deny them there building, far from it, just put the damn thing somewhere else! There are already 23 Mosques in NYC, none of which we have a problem with! The only reason they want to build across from the worst terrorist attack on American soil, is to deepen the divide and declare their reign over us! BTW, they want to open it on the anniversary of the attack! Tell me they aren't intending to flip us the bird!!

If they're so damned interested in bridging the gap between our different philosophies, you'd think they would understand the request of near 90% of Americans when we ask they build it a block or two away instead of ground zero where Americans have lost loved ones due to the radical criminals of their religion.

Sorry, I don't find that in the least to much to ask!

You think they would be as understanding if the tables were turned? Of course not!

Even agreeing that they have a right to build this thing is, to me, a serious misunderstanding of whom we're dealing with. WE ARE DEALING WITH A FOREIGN ENEMY. This is all part of the worldwide Islamic jihadist movement generally, and specifically part of the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al, I know you know they are. I know you agree they technically have the right--but they should NOT even technically have the right, any more than Great Britain has the "right" to build war memorials to its victory at, say, Waxhaw Creek, or one in the center of Charleston commemorating the capturing of Charleston. This, of course, is even worse, as we're currently at war with the Islamic enemy, and not currently at war with Great Britain.

Freeper, you're dead wrong. This is not about freedom or putting up with offensive things to preserve freedom. Unless, Freeper, you're willing to put up with being conquered. That's offensive. Will it preserve our freedoms? Because that's the critical mistake you're making--you're seeing this as a domestic issue instead of another battle in the worldwide war against Islamic extermism, which is EXACTLY how the Islamic enemy sees it (from the other direction of course; for them, it's the worldwide war against all infidels for the purpose of establishing a world-dominating caliphate).

[JohnnyReb]

Even agreeing that they have a right to build this thing is, to me, a serious misunderstanding of whom we're dealing with. WE ARE DEALING WITH A FOREIGN ENEMY. This is all part of the worldwide Islamic jihadist movement generally, and specifically part of the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al, I know you know they are. I know you agree they technically have the right--but they should NOT even technically have the right, any more than Great Britain has the "right" to build war memorials to its victory at, say, Waxhaw Creek, or one in the center of Charleston commemorating the capturing of Charleston. This, of course, is even worse, as we're currently at war with the Islamic enemy, and not currently at war with Great Britain.

Freeper, you're dead wrong. This is not about freedom or putting up with offensive things to preserve freedom. Unless, Freeper, you're willing to put up with being conquered. That's offensive. Will it preserve our freedoms? Because that's the critical mistake you're making--you're seeing this as a domestic issue instead of another battle in the worldwide war against Islamic extermism, which is EXACTLY how the Islamic enemy sees it (from the other direction of course; for them, it's the worldwide war against all infidels for the purpose of establishing a world-dominating caliphate).

Where do you live dude? Ain't many people heard of "Waxhaw Creek". ....including here and I'm just a few miles from there.

[Ptarmigan]

I really hate to say this but, I agree that they have the right to build this atrocity.
I totally agree that it is a slap in the face to those who died and the families of those victims.
However it is a slippery slope if we can start denying building permits to religious organizations.

I know a lot of people will think I am nuts on this. In my view if we have freedom then sometimes we have to put up with offensive things happening.

Freedom is not absolute by the way as some like to think. Freedom has been abused by leftists and Jihadists and it is them who make people less supportive of freedoms and government more likely to clamp down. As they say, freedom is NOT free and for good reason. I posted an article about a Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed from the crashing towers on 9/11. It has been denied permit to rebuild for 9 YEARS. Freedom cuts both ways, it is not a one-way street, as moonbats like to think. If a mosque was to built, how about we build a church, synagogue, temple, etc.

Lastly, freedom is not about buildings. Religions exists in your mind. Religion is not at a building. The last time I checked, the First Amendment does not protect buildings, just religion, press, and assembly, and the government cannot interfere with it. It was the zoning board, a government entity that approved it and zoning is something I am against. The same one that rejected the church.

[Ptarmigan]

Even agreeing that they have a right to build this thing is, to me, a serious misunderstanding of whom we're dealing with. WE ARE DEALING WITH A FOREIGN ENEMY. This is all part of the worldwide Islamic jihadist movement generally, and specifically part of the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al, I know you know they are. I know you agree they technically have the right--but they should NOT even technically have the right, any more than Great Britain has the "right" to build war memorials to its victory at, say, Waxhaw Creek, or one in the center of Charleston commemorating the capturing of Charleston. This, of course, is even worse, as we're currently at war with the Islamic enemy, and not currently at war with Great Britain.

Freeper, you're dead wrong. This is not about freedom or putting up with offensive things to preserve freedom. Unless, Freeper, you're willing to put up with being conquered. That's offensive. Will it preserve our freedoms? Because that's the critical mistake you're making--you're seeing this as a domestic issue instead of another battle in the worldwide war against Islamic extermism, which is EXACTLY how the Islamic enemy sees it (from the other direction of course; for them, it's the worldwide war against all infidels for the purpose of establishing a world-dominating caliphate).

Well said! Being conquered means good bye freedom.