BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:22 AM

I think the Muslims have a right to build the cultural center.

It is not a Mosque, as first characterized by the right wing talk shows. But now it has caught on and almost everyone is calling it a Mosque. Where are the spires and domes?

How ever I believe it is poor judgment on the part of Muslims and it demonstrates the insensitivity of the Muslim faith as a whole. I says "we are better than you" but of course, every religion claims that over all other religions, they just don't usually stress it.

The "Mosque" will always be a thorn in the ass of Americans and they don't seem to give a damn. As if they like being a thorn in somebody else's ass.

When will Muslims wake up and discover they are really Jews and Christians? That's where they came from historically. That's where their roots are.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:30 AM

When will Muslims wake up and discover they are really Jews and Christians? And when will when will Christians wake up and discover they are really Jews?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Stu
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM

"The "Mosque" will always be a thorn in the ass of Americans and they don't seem to give a damn. As if they like being a thorn in somebody else's ass."

Good lord - the USA is truly fucked if this attitude persists. I don't suppose you're quite as vocal about Americans being a thorn in the ass of the rest of the world? That's because most of them are ordinary people who want to get on with their lives and don't want people making a fuss about their personal choices when it comes to faith etc. Just like the huge majority of Muslims.

"How ever I believe it is poor judgment on the part of Muslims and it demonstrates the insensitivity of the Muslim faith as a whole"

Hmm, how about:

"How ever I believe it is poor judgment on the part of Jews and it demonstrates the insensitivity of the Jewish faith as a whole."

Any bells ringing yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 01:30 PM

And when will when will Christians wake up and discover they are really Jews?

And when will fundagelicals wake up and discover they are really delusional ?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM

And when will when will Christians wake up and discover they are really Jews?

I have.

"How ever I believe it is poor judgment on the part of Jews and it demonstrates the insensitivity of the Jewish faith as a whole."

Does that mean there is a proposed synagogue in Mecca?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Stu
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 02:36 PM

Did you miss my point?

"Does that mean there is a proposed synagogue in Mecca?"

No, but here's a small hint as to why this problem has reached this state: synagogues in the West Bank.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM

"why this problem has reached this state: synagogues in the West Bank. "

What about mosques in Israel?


YOUR statement implies that ANY Palestinian state will be Jew-Free. Isn't that ethnic cleansing????


There were synagogues in the area of the West Bank BEFORE 1948.


So YOU imply that Israel should bulldoze ALL mosques in Israel, I have to preseume from your comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:09 PM

Stringsinger, you will note that I closed with the following:

Any Muslims or Jews here who feel or think they know I'm wrong in the above paragraphs, feel free to correct what I've said. That's my understanding, in any event. See below.

And it is still my understanding that the Zionist movement was strongly disfavored in Orthodox circles, on the ground that the State of Israel could and should only come about on the return of the Meschiach; and that the hard core Zionist forces were heavily left, politically. And that there was a good-sized portion of the Zionist movement that was violence oriented. That was the source of the terrorist activities--widespread bombings and so forth, a la IRA--against the British in what became the State of Israel, before the British left when the UN declared the State of Israel, carrying out the Balfour policy.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:01 PM

"Rallies of Misinformation

In the months leading up to the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, conservatives, right-wing media, and Republican lawmakers have led a campaign of misinformation, paranoia, fear, and anger toward Muslims, sparked by the recent hysteria over a hate pastor's plan to burn the Quran (which he thankfully never carried out) and outrage over an organization's plan to build a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. A recent Washington Post poll found that a plurality of Americans now have an unfavorable view of Islam, "the most negative split on the question" since Oct. 2001. Commemorating the 9/11 attacks, President Obama urged tolerance toward Muslims. "As Americans we are not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam," he said. "It was not a religion that attacked us that September day -- it was al Qaida, a sorry band of men which perverts religion." Yet rhetoric from conservatives who gathered this weekend in New York City to protest the Park51 community center, and in Washington, D.C. for the Tea Party "9/12" rally was steeped in Islamophobia and general misinformation about the President, leading Democrats, and their policies.

'NO MOSQUE HERE': The Stop Islamization of America-sponsored rally near Ground Zero in Manhattan against the Park51 Islamic cultural center drummed up fears of Sharia law in America with regular "no mosque here" chants from the Tea Party-esque crowd. As the Wonk Room's Matt Duss noted, the event stirred "together half-truths with outright falsehoods into a stew of anti-Muslim paranoia." Speaking at the event, GOP House candidate Ilario Pantano attempted to instill fears that Park51 project leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, along with Iran, was responsible for the Gaza aid flotilla this summer that resulted in the killing of nine Turks -- including one Turkish American -- by Israeli commandos. And the event's headline speaker, right-wing Dutch politician Geert Welders -- who once called Islam "the ideology of a retarded culture" -- falsely claimed that the Park51 center would be "a house of Sharia" and that Rauf "refuses to condemn terrorists." In dozens of interviews with The Progress Report, attendees at the protest espoused similar views. "It's going to be a Sharia law mosque. They believe in the jihad," one woman from Long Island said. Another woman associated with the American Congress for Truth said Rauf is "building sharia on Ground Zero." Echoing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one man -- not seeming to recognize the freedoms bestowed on the U.S. as opposed to other countries -- said, "When they build a church in Saudi Arabia then they can build a mosque" near Ground Zero. Many attendees said that Rauf and his organization wanted to build a mosque near Ground Zero because that's what Muslims do after a victory in battle -- a notion propagated recently by Fox News, and by hate radio hosts Micheal Savage and Rush Limbaugh. "History shows us that they do build where they have conquered," one woman said. When asked how she knew this, she replied, "On many different shows. ... We have historians in our family and they said if you were to research that, that that would right. I don't know personally myself, I haven't seen them but they say in history, that's what they have done."

THE TEA PARTY IN D.C.: Tea Party members from all over the country gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. for their second annual FreedomWorks-sponsored "9/12" rally to protest against President Obama and his purported "socialist cronies." Many attendees at the 9/12 rally appeared to represent the nearly 20 percent of Americans who believe that Obama is a Muslim. "None of the crowd members I talked to would say that Obama was either Christian or a U.S. citizen (the best I got was 'only God knows what's in his heart,' from a nice woman from Ohio)," reported TPM's Evan McMorris-Santoro. The rest of the rally -- which was considerably smaller in size when compared to last year's event -- consisted of ridiculing taxes and spending and heralding the Constitution with "God repeatedly placed firmly on the conservative side of the political spectrum by speakers and audience members alike."

SIGNS OF INTOLERANCE: Apart from the divisive and misinformed rhetoric that took place at these rallies, attendees often displayed signs, banners, and other placards displaying symbols and inscriptions of hatred and intolerance. At the 9/12 rally, one attendee held a sign that said "Obama wants to ban pork!" presumably a reference to the false claim that he is a Muslim. Another sign depicted Obama as both a Nazi and a communist while another associated members of Congress with rodents. One man carried a sign that said "Obama, the terrorist from within." One banner at the New York rally read that the Park51 center is "the monument to terrorism," while another sign read "no Muslim integration." Many protesters carried small pieces of cardboard that read "No Obama's Mosque." One placard portrayed a cartoonish image of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and read: "'Sharia' Pelosi. Implant A Tongue Depressor -- Wire Her Jaw." Others wore t-shirts with an image of an airplane flying into the World Trade Center with the words, "They will teach" imprinted on them. Indeed, one observer at the anti-mosque rally in New York noticed the signs and rhetoric of hatred and intolerance, telling The Progress Report, "It's so emotional here. It's really aggressive...it's all fear and it's all anger, and it just makes me cry. ... What is wrong with a mosque? It's just the same, it's a great religion just as all the others."
" (Progressive newsletter)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:34 PM

Two things spring to mind here.

I would pose these two questions:-

1. Do Americans truly believe in free speech, and freedom of religious worship?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, how many people would be bothered to the point of protest, should the church in which Timothy McVeigh worships, choose to open a branch in the centre of Oklahoma City?

Unless the answer to question 2 is NO, there is a serious problem with hypocracy in the US of A.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 09:59 PM

How can you answer a question framed as "how many..." with no?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 10:39 PM

Yeah that little test is a real mind-bender.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:15 AM

I quite like the coinage "hypocracy". Is that the government of the hypocritical, by the hypocritical, for the hypocritical?

Nonetheless, I agree with the thrust of what Don says. Unless and until there is no substantial number of US citizens who would treat Muslim people (or Muslim owned or built buildings) differently from Christian people (etc) or Jewish people (etc) then the freedom of religion under the US constitution is illusory.

However, unless and until religions cease to promote the making of laws applicable under civil jurisprudence based on their religious beliefs there is no true separation of church and state. In the UK perhaps the most dangerous example of this is the apparent complacency in the face of the undermining of individuals' legal rights by Sharia law, but in the USA my unscientific belief is that proposals from right-wing fundagelical "christians" are a greater present threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:24 AM

This is a unique, one off, extreme circumstance.
Other than this , are there any other instances of religious discrimination in US?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Stu
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 04:13 AM

"So YOU imply that Israel should bulldoze ALL mosques in Israel, I have to preseume from your comment."

You presume very wrong indeed, and have obviously missed my point completely.


"This is a unique, one off, extreme circumstance.
Other than this , are there any other instances of religious discrimination in US?"

There most certainly are.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM

"This is a unique, one off, extreme circumstance.
Other than this , are there any other instances of religious discrimination in US?"

This morning (Tuesday 9/14) I heard a news item on NPR that some small (40,000 population) city in the West (I forget the city and state) is being sued because they prohibited the opening of a Buddhist center or temple. About the same time they had allowed the building of a Catholic church in the same vicinity. q.e.d.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: pdq
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:33 AM

...how many people would be bothered to the point of protest, should the church in which Timothy McVeigh worships, choose to open a branch in the centre of Oklahoma City?

Timothy McVeigh is not worshiping in any Church here on Earth since we, the people of the great United States of America, executed him.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM

The issue of "Church and State" is fundamental to the acceptance of the US Constitution.
Without it, democracy ceases to be. If one religion is allowed to dominate or to take precedence over another, then that is a theocracy as they have in other countries.

The reaction of those who are opposed to the construction of the Center could be classified by polling statistics as the "tyranny of the majority" which runs counter to protections in the Constitution. Their reactionary stance can't prevail under a democracy.
Most of the people who were polled as was stated by the Imam who wants to build the Center were those who just wanted the problem to go away without facing the issue.

There was plenty of evidence as has been shown above that religion has caused certain groups to demonize those who don't belong. Newt Gingrich is not new. The "No-Nothings"demonized Catholics in the early part of US history. The so-called "Christians" demonizedNative Americans and either exterminated them or put them on uninhabitable reservations. Slavery was given a biblical basis.

Freedom of religion, however, also requires freedom from religion in a viable democracy.

It doesn't impinge on my rights to reject religion to build this Muslim Center. I agree with Micheal Moore in that it ought probably to be built on so-called "Ground Zero" which is as stated above, a misnomer having to do with the center of a nuclear explosion. There is a chance of irony, here, though, if it ever comes out that the WTC was imploded by explosives. Although many have tried to debunk this idea, not enough information was provided to completely discount this idea. But that's a thread creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 06:18 PM

I've been noticing several references to the Constitution and American society in this and other threads. I've excerpted a few, set out below, and I want to respond, not so much to intent of the posters as to the way in which they lay their arguments out. I'll number the quoted portions, for easier reference.

1. Stringsinger said:
The reaction of those who are opposed to the construction of the Center could be classified by polling statistics as the "tyranny of the majority" which runs counter to protections in the Constitution.

2. And elsewhere Richard Bridge said
Anyone who assumes that all Muslims are the same or that all must be penalised for the sins of the few (a few who appear wholly to have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "jihad") despite the US's constitutional "freedom of religion" is a bigot.

3. Bobert said, in an omnibus reply to other posts:
Me thinks that alot of fols do not understand what the Constituion is all about...

(No, Boberdz... It's about guns...)

My poin exactly.... So we've come to a point where people get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are meaningfull???

4. And Stringsinger again:
It is inconsistent to protest the building of a mosque and not a temple, cathedral, shrine, church or any other religious edifice. This protest runs contrary to the US Constitution.

5. And Richard Bridge later said, in part:
Unless and until there is no substantial number of US citizens who would treat Muslim people (or Muslim owned or built buildings) differently from Christian people (etc) or Jewish people (etc) then the freedom of religion under the US constitution is illusory.

6. And Stringsinger said, very recently:
The issue of "Church and State" is fundamental to the acceptance of the US Constitution.

That sampling of portions of posts displays, on the part of those posters and probably many others, a misunderstanding of what the Constitution is. The Constitution of the United States is not a sketch of how our society should be, or what our ethical positions should be, or how we as Americans should treat each other. The Constitution is intended as a framework or blueprint of how the United States government is to be organized and run.

Take quote number 1.   The Constitution doesn't and can't control what the majority does, tyrannical or otherwise. Congress may pass laws that bear on that under the police power, but that's not the Constitution.

Quote number 2. Contrary to popular usage, the Constitution doesn't provide freedom of religion as a general societal matter. The Constitution controls what Congress may or may not do with its legislative powers, on the subject of religious practice.

Quote number 3. The first quoted paragraph of Number 3 is correct, in the words used, at least. That's exactly what I'm saying: A lot of folks don't understand what the Constitution is all about. I can't speak for Bobert, though, and say that he meant the same thing that I'm expounding here.   

Quote number 4. "This protest" (whatever that refers to) does not run counter to the U.S. Constitution. It is the action of nongovernmental forces, and is not controlled or even referred to by the Constitution.

Quote number 5. First, the standard seemingly advocated by that quote is impossible to meet in ANY society; there's never going to be unanimity. And even if the standard could theoretically be met, the Constitution neither purports to nor attempts to guarantee freedom of religion, except as one attempts to read the minds of the framers as to why "Congress shall make no law" regarding establishment of religion. It's been a while since I last read the Constitution, but I believe it never uses the words "freedom of religion". Freedom of religion is not a governmental function.

Quote number 6. Frankly, number 6 is not at all clear. "The issue of 'Church and State' is fundamental to the acceptance of the US Constitution."   "The issue *** is fundamental" is vague; "the issue" is merely laying a groundwork for a discussion, not deciding what resolution is to be made of it. And "fundamental to the acceptance"? The Constitution was accepted a long time ago, in, what, 1789? If Number 6 refers to anyone or any government outside of the United State granting acceptance of the US Constitution, it is presumptuous. And if, on the other hand, it refers to the thinking of all US citizens, not only is unanimity impossible, but the Constitution is a rather complicated set of rules for government, and no one proposition (or "issue") rises to a level which automatically calls for acceptance or nonacceptance of the whole thing by Americans.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm disagreeing with any of the posters of 1 through 6 as to desirable societal goals or actions. In fact I suspect that those writers and I are in close agreement on the principles involved. I merely assert that unless an action of government as to (in this case) the Islamic Center and Ground Zero (whatever that is) is involved, the Constitution should be left out of the discussion, because its invocation merely fuzzes up the issue.

End of rant.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 10:48 PM

Important


Tomas Freidman of the NYT decided to research the issue of a Mosque at the World Trade Center and discovered that the North Tower in fact had a prayer Mosque. He also learned that the South Tower had a less formal Muslim Prayer room outside the 'Window on the World' Restaurant on the 100th floor stairwell.


It seems that there is some tiny fragment of a Mosque that is still lies beneath ground Zero even if it only a fraction of a gram.
If this is too close for the remnent of the original WTC Mosque to be from ground zero I suggest you move ground zero.


All of this is mearely an intentional political ply to divide and conquer the populist movement in America by the age old means of Reigious Intolerence by any means possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:35 PM

Amos the factual, the bringer of truth, the fair and balanced: "conservatives, right-wing media, and Republican lawmakers have led a campaign of misinformation, paranoia, fear, and anger toward Muslims,"

New York Democrats are quickly declaring opposition to the GZ mosque. Rep. Michael Arcuri (D., N.Y.) said in a statement:

"The pain felt by many Americans from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is still very real, and I can understand how the thought of building a mosque near Ground Zero could reopen those wounds. For the sake of the victims and their families, I think another location should be chosen."

Arcuri saw the obvious — encouraging the choice of another location does not entail a violation of First Amendment rights or freedom of religion. This was the theme for a deluge of Democratic representatives from the Empire State.

Rep. Mike McMahon issued an eloquent statement. A highlight:

"This is not the first time that the construction of a house of worship at a sensitive site has been questioned and opposed… Muslim Americans deserve the right to practice their faith – as we all do. I believe a new location is the right compromise so that Muslim Americans can worship … while the families of 9/11 victims obtain the peace of mind they deserve."

And Rep. Steve Israel:

"While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further."

And Rep. Tim Bishop:

"Ground Zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right."

They were contradicted by one fellow New York Democrat. According to Rep. Anthony Weiner, for a "member of Congress [to be] weighing in on this stuff" would be a "violation of the clear separation of church and state." As the New York Post replied, "Huh?" If Weiner still believes that, when will he condemn his fellow Dems for clear violations of our founding principles?

That brings the tally of Democrats opposing the Ground Zero mosque to at least five congressmen (the New Yorkers plus Altmire), one Senate majority leader, and 54 percent of their own voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Stu
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 04:00 AM

" He also learned that the South Tower had a less formal Muslim Prayer room outside the 'Window on the World' Restaurant on the 100th floor stairwell."

Windows on the World (and The Greatest Bar on Earth) were on the 107th floor of the North Tower. I know because I was dining there a week before the attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 12:56 PM

Uncle Dave, I humbly disagree.

"Take quote number 1.   The Constitution doesn't and can't control what the majority does, tyrannical or otherwise. Congress may pass laws that bear on that under the police power, but that's not the Constitution."

The intent of the Constitution historically is that the "tyranny of the minority" was an important issue in its construction. Remember that the drafters of the Constitution were in fact worried about the populace behaving in such a way to over run the effects of
the Constitutional principles.

"Quote number 2. Contrary to popular usage, the Constitution doesn't provide freedom of religion as a general societal matter. The Constitution controls what Congress may or may not do with its legislative powers, on the subject of religious practice."

Yes, but this does impinge on the rights of freedom of religion. And you see that today that this Constitutional injunction is being violated which then vitiates your argument.
For example, the enforced "National Day of Prayer".

"Quote number 3. The first quoted paragraph of Number 3 is correct, in the words used, at least. That's exactly what I'm saying: A lot of folks don't understand what the Constitution is all about. I can't speak for Bobert, though, and say that he meant the same thing that I'm expounding here."

There is no clear-cut interpretation of the document called the Constitution that can be agreed upon. A lot of what it states is open to interpretation and that is why we have legal means to attempt to enforce an interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 03:23 PM

Stringsinger replied to my last post thusly, in part:

"Take quote number 1.   ***

"The intent of the Constitution historically is that the "tyranny of the minority" was an important issue in its construction."

Ahh, but there's the rub, "intent". The Constitution is objective in its prescriptions for the shape of government in the United States, and that is binding. The framers' intent or desires are not. As a matter of fact, I think you and I are in agreement that that was much of the framers' desire, and they tried to set up rules, procedures, governmental standards which would minimize any tendency toward tyranny of the majority which might be expressed through the government; and further we can I think agree that that concern and that effort were well justified. But their reasons and motivations are not the Constitution.

I said, "Quote number 2. Contrary to popular usage, the Constitution doesn't provide freedom of religion as a general societal matter. The Constitution controls what Congress may or may not do with its legislative powers, on the subject of religious practice."

You said, "Yes, but this does impinge on the rights of freedom of religion."

The Constitution does not grant "freedom of religion" as a right; it prohibits certain types of actions by the government it was setting up, with a motivation toward making the choice and the practice of religion open and fluid. But the framers' motivations, hopes, and preferences are not the Constitution, and are not enforceable legally. Whereas the specifics of the Constitution are.

"And you see that today that this Constitutional injunction is being violated which then vitiates your argument. For example, the enforced "National Day of Prayer".

Two comments about that: What "enforced 'National Day of Prayer'" is that? I know of no such thing. I have heard that expression, but who is forced to observe such a day? And who enforces it? Second comment: The fact, (even if it is a fact, which I dispute) that the Constitutional provision is (if it is) violated doesn't affect what the Constitution provides. It only demonstrates that officials and citizens don't allow themselves to be guided by the clear language set out in the Constitution. If I rob a bank (even if I'm not caught and prosecuted), does that somehow vitiate the anti-bank-robbery laws? No, it doesn't.

This whole conversation we're having deals with the different meanings of the word "law". There are scientific or physical laws, of course, which are merely better or worse descriptions of how the world is thought to operate. Then there are what might be called moral or ethical laws, giving rise to moral or ethical "rights", which are not legally enforceable. And then there are statutory laws, which set out standards of privilege and prohibition for persons, corporations, etc., enforceable in a court of law. And at the top of the heap, legally, is the Constitution, which sets out standards of privilege and prohibition for the Government.

The activities of that crowd or mob at the site of the proposed Islamic Center and "anti-GZ-mosque pressure" may be seen as reprehensible and against what we see as "the intent" or spirit we like to see as consistent with the motivations of the Constitution's framers, but are not in themselves covered by anything in the Constitution, unless there is governmental action taken. THAT ACTION, if taken, would probably be unconstitutional. But the actions and statements of members of the public are not so covered.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 08:41 PM

I sure liked that last one (but of course that's because I agree.) As bizarre as it may sound, I actually see this as part of the cacophony of American democracy (displeasing or offensive perhaps and yet beneficial). People yell and scream and yet the government won't interfere with that Muslim community center, because they can't.

Yelling and screaming may influence policy on many matters -- but up to a limit. And here what some (how many?) people want is over the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic cultural centre near ground zero
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

So the politicians making pronouncements (with the possible exception of Bloomberg, holding some powers to take (erroneous) actions if he were inclined), are all just pissing in the wind, hoping they chose the best direction.