Obama defends ground zero mosque plans

[rambot]

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.

When I looked at the data "A majority of all political groups polled oppose the mosque. Forty-three percent of Democrats support it and 54 percent say they are opposed. Eighty-two percent of Republicans are against the mosque, as opposed to just 17 percent who support it."

I wonder if this is indicative of the number of actual proponents of freedom (I don't like "X" but I'll defend your right to do so") exist across the US political spectrum?

 

[kermit]

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.

I'm trying to figure this out. First Obama has no business chiming in on a local matter. But then you present a nation poll on the topic. Bascially, you are saying that the president's opinion doesn't matter but some guy's from Iowa does. Is a bit of consistancy too much to ask?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

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

Actually nothing left to "entangle" himself in. The legal hurdles have been cleared.

I don't like mosques in America either, nor Islam. But if we use government fiat to block this project, we set the precedent that the government can block the construction of places of worship that people (or at least certain pressure groups) don't like. There's no escaping it.

And that is far more dangerous than another mosque.

That would be allowing the terrorists to win.

 

[kiwimac]

Actually nothing left to "entangle" himself in. The legal hurdles have been cleared.

I don't like mosques in America either, nor Islam. But if we use government fiat to block this project, we set the precedent that the government can block the construction of places of worship that people (or at least certain pressure groups) don't like. There's no escaping it.

And that is far more dangerous than another mosque.

That would be allowing the terrorists to win.

QFT!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I disagree, at least partially. I think it's entirely context-dependent. You can be a champion of liberty for issue X and yet still be the opposite for issue Y. We see it all the time, especially among religious conservatives. They will decrease government on business, but increase government on rival churches and moralities.

 

[TeaPartier]

Maybe it would be ok for Neo-Nazi's to set up a Hitler monument in Jerusalem?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Maybe it would be ok for Neo-Nazi's to set up a Hitler monument in Jerusalem?

For this to be analogous, the present situation would have to be that al Qaeda was building an office or community center in New York, close to Ground Zero. That is not the case. Poor analogy.

 

[kiwimac]

Perhaps the following might shine some needed light on this manufactured controversy.

Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"? - War Room - Salon.com

 

[Drekkan85]

Up next for a headline:

"President advocates upholding of Bill of Rights - FoxNews puzzled at why he wants to take such a rabid-socialist-marxist-fascist opinion that freedom of religion should be granted to all citizens".

 

[Voegelin]

This certainly is rattling some people. They'll change it I'm sure but this is what the Guardian has up now:

Paul Harris in New York
The Observer
Sunday 15 August 2010

. . . New York Republican congressman Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, condemned the proposed mosque and the president's comments . . .

Obama under fire over support for mosque near Ground Zero | World news | The Observer

 

[Voegelin]

Up next for a headline:

"President advocates upholding of Bill of Rights - FoxNews puzzled at why he wants to take such a rabid-socialist-marxist-fascist opinion that freedom of religion should be granted to all citizens".

Misses the point. That is the straw Man Obama constructed. No one is saying it should be illegal to build a mosque here. Everyone is of the protection the free exercise of religion enjoys in America (but not in Mecca and elsewhere).

Since he injected himself into this debate, we want Barack Hussein Obama to answer some simple questions: Should the Iman build his mosque next to ground zero? Is it the right thing to do?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

"At a White House celebration of Ramadan tonight in the company of representatives of several of the Nation’s most prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations,

As notable as what the President said is the company he keeps. Consider a few examples from this year’s Iftar dinner guest list:

Ingrid Mattson heads the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the country, the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the biggest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history and was identified as a Brotherhood “associated or friendly” group in documents introduced as evidence uncontested in that Holy Land Foundation prosecution. Ms. Mattson now presides over the selection, training and certification of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system – interestingly, a job formerly in the hands of Muslim Brother Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and first head of the American Muslim Council, who is currently serving a 23-year sentence on terrorism charges.

Salam Al-Marayati is president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In 1999, then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt withdrew his nomination of Al-Marayati to a leadership position on the National Commission on Terrorism when it became public that Al-Marayati claimed that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, was a legitimate organization and has the right to attack the Israeli Army.

Dalia Mogahed runs the insidious Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and advises President Obama on Muslim affairs as a member of the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In an October 2009 interview with the London Telegraph, she made the following astounding assertions: “I think the reason so many women support shariah is because they have a very different understanding of shariah than the common perception in Western media.” “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with shariah compliance.” “The portrayal of shariah has been oversimplified in many cases.”

Obama’s Ground Zero Mosque

 

[Drekkan85]

Misses the point. That is the straw Man Obama constructed. No one is saying it should be illegal to build a mosque here. Everyone is of the protection the free exercise of religion enjoys in America (but not in Mecca and elsewhere).

Since he injected himself into this debate, we want Barack Hussein Obama to answer some simple questions: Should the Iman build his mosque next to ground zero? Is it the right thing to do?

And he should answer yes. Any American that answers no is anti-American. The very basis of the birth of the US was about religious freedom. It's enshrined in your bill of rights. It's a peaceful group, a group that condemns terrorist acts, and wants to work to bridge the gap between Islam and some elements in the West that like to see Islam as a monolithic entity.

The BoR isn't something you can just toss in a wastepaper bin when you dislike its ramifications. Now those Americans don't have to like the mosque being built. But if they say it shouldn't be built - despite the fact that the land was legally bought, and it's an attempt to practice a religion, then they're undermining the very thing that makes America a great nation (and yes, I believe America is, or at very least - can be, a great nation).

 

[GQ Chris]

Can we get a President with some basic common decency? Obama outdid himself in this latest endeavor.

 

[Drekkan85]

Can we get a President with some basic common decency? Obama outdid himself in this latest endeavor.

You oppose the right of a religious group to freely practice their religion in line with the first amendment? A group that's opposed the actions of vicious extremists? You want a President that puts petty hatred above the rule of law?

 

[Voegelin]

And he should answer yes.

I hope he does say "yes" to "Is it right to build a mosque next to ground zero?" Please email the WH and demand it.

Any American that answers no is anti-American. The very basis of the birth of the US was about religious freedom.

You might want to think that through. Racists have a right to build churches wherever they want. No one disputes that. But suppose some wanted a worship center next to where Martin Luther King was shot. Or antisemites made a point of erecting houses of worship next to Holocaust museums. There is nothing "anti-American" about opposing those who try to provoke. Simply because America--unlike Saudi Arabia, unlike Iran, unlike where ever Muslims enact Sharia law--allows the free exercise of religion, it does not mean everyone should shut up and say "Great! They are exercising a constitutional right!"

Some on the left tried this ploy to defend Ward Churchill when he called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns".

"He has the freedom to say whatever he wants!", they wailed.

"Yeah...yeah...we know. Why are you stating what no one is disputing?", those who found his comment detestable asked.

It's obvious why this gambit is used. Don't know who Obama and others think they are fooling.

 

[allhart]

I hope he does say "yes" to "Is it right to build a mosque next to ground zero?" Please email the WH and demand it.

You might want to think that through. Racists have a right to build churches wherever they want. No one disputes that. But suppose some wanted a worship center next to where Martin Luther King was shot. Or antisemites made a point of erecting houses of worship next to Holocaust museums. There is nothing "anti-American" about opposing those who try to provoke. Simply because America--unlike Saudi Arabia, unlike Iran, unlike where ever Muslims enact Sharia law--allows the free exercise of religion, it does not mean everyone should shut up and say "Great! They are exercising a constitutional right!"

Some on the left tried this ploy to defend Ward Churchill when he called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns".

"He has the freedom to say whatever he wants!", they wailed.

"Yeah...yeah...we know. Why are you stating what no one is disputing?", those who found his comment detestable asked.

It's obvious why this gambit is used. Don't know who Obama and others think they are fooling.

Just build a gay bar next to the Mosque and let see who's tolerant?

 

[Drekkan85]

I hope he does say "yes" to "Is it right to build a mosque next to ground zero?" Please email the WH and demand it.

You might want to think that through. Racists have a right to build churches wherever they want. No one disputes that. But suppose some wanted a worship center next to where Martin Luther King was shot. Or antisemites made a point of erecting houses of worship next to Holocaust museums. There is nothing "anti-American" about opposing those who try to provoke..

You're the one creating strawmen. Your situation is not analogous. To take your holocaust example.

A) Germans were NAZIs
B) Germans are Lutherans

Therefore we should not be able to build a Lutheran church near the holocaust museum. That's the only way to be analogous. ISLAM didn't attack in 9/11, it was an extremist group that used Islam.

To take your other example - MLK.

1) White racists hate MLK and try and preach what he stands for
2) White people (not racists) want to build a largely white congregated church near where MLK died

Therefore... we clearly have to oppose this! Again, it's not the group that hates MLK that wants to build the Church. It's a group that shares one characteristic with the group that hates MLK (they happen to be white), but their belief structures, what they view as important, are completely different.

Not all white people are the same. Not all Christians are the same. Not all Muslims are the same. Islam is not a monolithic force out to crush America. It's a religion with many divergent theologies. This group represents an extremely MODERATE theology and wants to embrace multiculturalism and understanding with the West.

It's only provocative if people WANT to delude themselves into being offended.

 

[Drekkan85]

Just build a gay bar next to the Mosque and let see who's tolerant?

Hey, the dude wants to build a gay bar there, I say more power to him. My one concern would be how long it will stay in operation. He's stated he's aiming it at specifically gay Muslims. Given the relative size of the Muslim community, and the relative size of the gay community, that's a pretty small pool to draw from.

So any investor must know that they're just flushing money away. But if they have the money to flush, let them do so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I hope he does say "yes" to "Is it right to build a mosque next to ground zero?" Please email the WH and demand it.

You might want to think that through. Racists have a right to build churches wherever they want. No one disputes that. But suppose some wanted a worship center next to where Martin Luther King was shot. Or antisemites made a point of erecting houses of worship next to Holocaust museums. There is nothing "anti-American" about opposing those who try to provoke. Simply because America--unlike Saudi Arabia, unlike Iran, unlike where ever Muslims enact Sharia law--allows the free exercise of religion, it does not mean everyone should shut up and say "Great! They are exercising a constitutional right!"

Those are all poor analogies. Al Qaeda isn't building a Mosque near Ground Zero. American Muslims are. This controversy is stupid precisely because it equates peaceful American Muslims, of diverse opinions and backgrounds, with radical jihadists like Al Qaeda.