Obama defends ground zero mosque plans

[Voegelin]

Speaking at a White House dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said . . .

Obama defends ground zero mosque plans - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

 

[The Lady Kate]

Same story: Obama backs mosque near ground zero - Yahoo! News

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.
"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

 

[Ar Cosc]

Wow, Voegelin posts a positive story about Obama!

 

[Voegelin]

Wow, Voegelin posts a positive story about Obama!

It is not positive as you will soon see. A local religious/zoning dispute is nothing in which a president should entangle himself.

His supporters are spinning it as a defence of the constitution but that isn't the issue. People have the "right" to do a lot of things. Does that make every exercise of a right good? No. Of course not.

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of people to protest Planned Parenthood clinics? Very doubtful

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of Americans to keep and bear arms? Very doubtful

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of Americans to homeschool? Very doubtful

The "right" of Muslims to build a mosque next to the site where jihadists murdered 3,000 people is one right he singles out for favor. Now why could that be? Hmmmm?

 

[kermit]

It is not positive as you will soon see. A local religious/zoning dispute is nothing in which a president should entangle himself.

So I assume that you feel the same about Palin, whom is not a NYC resident, chiming in on the subject.

 

[RedDead1981]

It is not positive as you will soon see. A local religious/zoning dispute is nothing in which a president should entangle himself.

If that's all it was then it wouldn't be the talk of the country and you know it.

His supporters are spinning it as a defence of the constitution but that isn't the issue. People have the "right" to do a lot of things. Does that make every exercise of a right good? No. Of course not.

True. But irrelevant as it applies to legality or constitutionality.

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of people to protest Planned Parenthood clinics? Very doubtful

Maybe, if that were under attack right now. No, it isn't.

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of Americans to keep and bear arms? Very doubtful

Maybe, if that were under attack right now. No, it isn't.

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of Americans to homeschool? Very doubtful

Maybe, if that were under attack right now. No, it isn't.

The President is addressing an issue that is on the minds of a lot of Americans. I'm sure many wish to know his feelings on it. I know I did.

The "right" of Muslims to build a mosque next to the site where jihadists murdered 3,000 people is one right he singles out for favor. Now why could that be? Hmmmm?

Clever. The subtle insinuation that he's Muslim or has secret Muslim ties. Shall we go one step further and call him a terrorist? I've read some of your posts by now, but I thought even you were above that. Shame.

(btw, drawn out, repetitive proclamations look even sillier on the internet than they sound on Hannity and Levin.)

 

[variant]

Good for him.

Always hail the person taking the unpopular choice of liberty and doing the right thing over the right to score political points.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Thank you Mr. President for once again being on the right side of the issue.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Obama is being a champion for liberty on this issue - and Conservatives see this as a bad thing?? (Now whose out of touch?)

 

[The Lady Kate]

It is not positive as you will soon see. A local religious/zoning dispute is nothing in which a president should entangle himself.

First of all, Voegelin, you are the last person who should be complaining that something is too trivial for someone to get involved in... don't you have Obama's golf scores memorized?

Second, if this is too trivial for a president to weigh in on, what does that say about the likes of Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich, who have also voiced their opinions? Or is your infatuation with Obama so great that it makes you think that His royal voice should not be heard in such plebiean matters?

Third, since when is something that's been broadcast on every national news service nothing more than a "local" dispute?

Voegelin, you're usually better at manufacturing outrage over non-issues... but this time you're not even trying.

His supporters are spinning it as a defence of the constitution but that isn't the issue.

You don't consider rights or the constitution an issue? Not surprising.

People have the "right" to do a lot of things. Does that make every exercise of a right good? No. Of course not.

So is your solution to have fewer rights? You first.... what rights are you willing to give up for the greater good?

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of people to protest Planned Parenthood clinics? Very doubtful

Why should he?

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of Americans to keep and bear arms? Very doubtful

Again, why should he?

Would he use a White House dinner to support the right of Americans to homeschool? Very doubtful

One more time... why should he?

The "right" of Muslims to build a mosque next to the site where jihadists murdered 3,000 people is one right he singles out for favor.Now why could that be? Hmmmm?

Because it's the one on every news station? You do watch the news even when it's not about Obama, don't you?

Because it's an issue which is dividing our country, and Obama would prefer to smooth it over? Now, as much as Conservatives want Obama to fail in all things, perhaps it's not worth it?

Because it's relevant during a WH dinner celebrating Ramadan? And in case you want to make an issue of that, would you like to see links to previous presidents holding identical celebrations?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Obama is being a champion for liberty on this issue - and Conservatives see this as a bad thing?? (Now whose out of touch?)

Remember... Conservatives don't care about issues; they just want to see Obama fail... especially at liberty.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Remember... Conservatives don't care about issues; they just want to see Obama fail... especially at liberty.

I've come to see that as the issue as well. Obama can do no right by people who share Voeglin's disposition, no matter what he does. If I were him I certainly wouldn't worry about pleasing people who can't be pleased regardless.

 

[Voegelin]

Even a CNN poll shows a majority of Democrats oppose this. Independents oppose it by 70% and Republicans by even more. Only 34% of New Yorkers support the mosque. What other support there is is very weak as well.

Yet in "Christian forums/American Politics" the majority seem to approve of this and most everything else he does.

That is puzzling considering this Pew report on religious turn-out in 2008:

A Look at Religious Voters in the 2008 Election - Pew Research Center

Scroll down to the first graph. And that was before Independents and many Democrats turned against him. In addition, his support among groups --Christian, Jewish and secular--which supported him by large numbers in 2008 has weakened in the last year.

But not here so much.

 

[lux et lex]

How is what Obama doing any different than the letter George Washington wrote backing the Jewish group that wanted to start a congregation in Rhode Island?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Even a CNN poll shows a majority of Democrats oppose this. Independents oppose it by 70% and Republicans by even more. Only 34% of New Yorkers support the mosque. What other support there is is very weak as well.

So where is the legal grounds to stop it?

 

[kiwimac]

Dissatisfaction has never trumped the law. What the Muslims want to do is both legal and their right seeing they OWN the property. You don't get to vote people's rights away simply because you do not approve of them.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

I wouldn't want a rabid teapartier moving in next door to me but I would vehemently defend their right to do so.

 

[kermit]

I wouldn't want a rabid teapartier moving in next door to me but I would vehemently defend their right to do so.

Remember in the conservative worldview they have property rights, but others do not.

 

[lordbt]

Obama is being a champion for liberty on this issue - and Conservatives see this as a bad thing?? (Now whose out of touch?)

I think it is less an example of Obama being a champion of liberty and more of an example of how a broken clock still manages to be right twice a day. Champions of individual liberty do not expand the power and scope of government, they limit it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I think it is less an example of Obama being a champion of liberty and more of an example of how a broken clock still manages to be right twice a day. Champions of individual liberty do not expand the power and scope of government, they limit it.

Well then, we haven't had a champion of individual liberty in office for centuries... why start complaining about Obama, who's just another in a long line.