So what do you make of this "911 Моск" craziness?

Predictably, the teabaggers and rednecks are against the mosque. There are approx 1,462 mosques in America, accroding to a 2007 survey. Freedom of religion definitely guarantees that Islam is on equal footing with any other religion here, at least from the legal point of view. It seems local NY borough residents have voted in favor. Why the controversy?

It seems teabaggers are against the big and evil govimint, but they now want the govimint do something about the Моск. Insane to the membrane? No, insane to the brain.

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

Portion of  the first amendment as it pertains to this issue:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I don't see Congress attempting to pass a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Therefore, this is an issue strictly of public opinion and local zoning (and officials whose jobs and careers are at the mercy of that opinion). 

Since Christian churches are subject to zoning regulations as well, I don't see an issue even non-legally.  My understanding of what is being proposed by the more realistic officials is a ban on all religious establishments in the vicinity, as divisive and counterproductive.

Lastly, there is an issue of common sense here, which certainly isn't in itself enough to stop this mosque, but i believe 70% of americans oppose this. Clearly, they are all rednecks and teabaggers.  But I digress. While this 70% may not have legal means to carry out their will (in allegedly a democratic society), it would otherwise be enough for any respectable group to reconsider their plans.  The fact that they don't, is a continued disservice to their image in the Western world, and yet another sign of the inemptness of the more moderate islamic leadership to speak out and repair the damage that has been done to their reputationby zealots, thugs, and mass murderors.

The reason "70% of Americans oppose this" is that they may not be fully familiar with the facts.

However, even a brief research can show that there is really nothing to worry about:

-- The "mosque" is not a mosque but a cultural center.  There will be no minarets, no prayer calls through the loudspeakers.

-- The proposed site is actually two blocks away from the Ground Zero but it will be further away (4-5 blocks) from the future WTC & memorial.  

-- There is already a Muslim center in NY about four blocks away and it is not insulting anyone.  No one gave any justification for why 540 meters is insulting but 625 is not (or whatever the distances are).

-- Two years after 9/11 US invaded Iraq partially to "liberate the people of Iraq" (at least that's the official story).  Absolute majority of Iraqi people are Muslim.  That war apparently does not insult 70% of Americans.  70% of Americans are apparently OK with the fact that over 4000 soldiers have died in Iraq and tens of thousands were wounded supposedly protecting Muslims.  

-- Among the victims of the 9/11 attacks there were some Muslims.  There also were some Muslims among the first responders (FDNY and paramedics).   

Newt Gingrich and those Republicans currently in power have a win-win situation on their hands.  If "mosque" builders do yield to pressure and decide to build their cultural center elsewhere (I wonder where since no one gave any justification for how close is too close) the Republicans can claim credit.  If the cultural center is still built at the proposed site no one would expect Republicans to do anything about it because of the First Amendment.  On the other hand, they are forcing those currently in power (Democrats) to defend unpopular people.   

But let's be honest with ourselves here.  70% of Americans are anxious about Muslims period.  It does not matter how far they will try to build this "mosque".  In fact, there are protests against building mosques around the country.  

Now, imagine a situation where a group of Russians decided to build a cultural center or even a church.  Then a group of Americans of Georgian (Republic of Georgia aka Gruziya aka Sakartvelo) descent would protest saying that they are too angry over the 2008 war in Ossetia and living "in the shadow" of a Russian Orthodox temple is just "insulting" to them.  This is the same logic here.  

P.S.  On the other hand,  back in 1993, Pope John Paul II asked Carmelite Nuns to move their convent from just outside  Auschwitz.  They agreed.  The issue was that the dismay among Jewish survivors of Auschwitz.  

I am not sure what the differences are between these cases, but if NY Muslims to decide to move their proposed cultural center I would like them to do it out of respect for victims of 9/11 and their families, not because Newt Gingrich told them too.  

It is really a tough situations.  If they go ahead and build the center where they plan it will look as if they don't respect 9/11 victims.  If they move it it will look like the critics were right all along and the purpose of the center really is to celebrate the attacks of 9/11.

gtSasha:

The reason "70% of Americans oppose this" is that they may not be fully familiar with the facts.

That's the same reason Obama says why americans oppose his health care effort.  I hate that argument.  Yes, no one with a job and a life can know all the details of everything.  Yet people are still allowed to have an opinion based on whatever knowledge they see fit.  This is not a dictatorship. What is the guarantee that the 70% would not GROW if people wasted their lives learning more about this?

gtSasha:

However, even a brief research can show that there is really nothing to worry about:

Personally, I am not worried.  I don't even have as strong an opinion on this, as would appear from my last post.  I would only be worried if I were a muslim American.  Worried about the damage to my reputation by the as*holes, by whose behavior I will be judged by my fellow Americans, friends, and coworkers, etc.

gtSasha:

-- The "mosque" is not a mosque but a cultural center.  There will be no minarets, no prayer calls through the loudspeakers.

этого ещё не хватало :)

gtSasha:

-- The proposed site is actually two blocks away from the Ground Zero but it will be further away (4-5 blocks) from the future WTC & memorial.  

-- There is already a Muslim center in NY about four blocks away and it is not insulting anyone.  No one gave any justification for why 540 meters is insulting but 625 is not (or whatever the distances are).

I am not sure anyone polled cares about this.   I sure don't.  At all.  I don't even live there.

gtSasha:

  

-- Two years after 9/11 US invaded Iraq partially to "liberate the people of Iraq" (at least that's the official story).  Absolute majority of Iraqi people are Muslim.  That war apparently does not insult 70% of Americans. 70% of Americans are apparently OK with the fact that over 4000 soldiers have died in Iraq and tens of thousands were wounded supposedly protecting Muslims.  

That is both false, and irrelvenat. 

False, because lowest opposition to that war was 50% immed.  prior to invasion, and went up steeply after some of the misstatements by the administration became exposed. I am confident, 70+% of americans are insulted by that war at this time.  And even more- not ok with the rest of your statement.

Irrelevant, because we are not building a church (sorry, a YMCA) at the symbolic epicenter of our aggression. 

gtSasha:

   

-- Among the victims of the 9/11 attacks there were some Muslims.  There also were some Muslims among the first responders (FDNY and paramedics).   

gtSasha:

   Newt Gingrich and those Republicans currently in power have a win-win situation on their hands.  If "mosque" builders do yield to pressure and decide to build their cultural center elsewhere (I wonder where since no one gave any justification for how close is too close) the Republicans can claim credit.  If the cultural center is still built at the proposed site no one would expect Republicans to do anything about it because of the First Amendment.  On the other hand, they are forcing those currently in power (Democrats) to defend unpopular people.   

Agreed.  Politics is a b*tch, ain't it? :)

gtSasha:

But let's be honest with ourselves here.  70% of Americans are anxious about Muslims period.  It does not matter how far they will try to build this "mosque".  In fact, there are protests against building mosques around the country.  

I actually admire Americans for allowing as many mosques, cultural centers, etc, as there are, given the events that are being observed.  I know of no other people on earth who would be that forgiving and kind.  Sure, there is some residual tension, people may not want a mosque in their residential neighborhood, or whatever, - these are expected human reactions, and what baffles me just as much is the complete failure of moderate American muslims to even attempt te separate themselves from the "bad" ones in the public eye.  This whole controversy, is a great example.  Where is the outcry e.g. "you will not IN OUR NAME offend the victims relatives, New Yorkers, Americans in general.  Not in our name."  Where is this???

gtSasha:

Now, imagine a situation where a group of Russians decided to build a cultural center or even a church.  Then a group of Americans of Georgian (Republic of Georgia aka Gruziya aka Sakartvelo) descent would protest saying that they are too angry over the 2008 war in Ossetia and living "in the shadow" of a Russian Orthodox temple is just "insulting" to them.  This is the same logic here.  

If that group of Georgian descent represents a majority of a neighborhood, city, or nation (as is the case here), i would support them.  And by "support", i don;t mean banning the church, as with the rest of the topic, the issue would be strictly ideological.  Now, if these Georgians live in a repressive dictatorship, of course, then no one gives a ***. 

gtSasha:

P.S.  On the other hand,  back in 1993, Pope John Paul II asked Carmelite Nuns to move their convent from just outside  Auschwitz.  They agreed.  The issue was that the dismay among Jewish survivors of Auschwitz.

That was a reaction of normal, adequate, and admirable people (Pope and the nuns I mean).  And I say that, not even realizing what was so offensive about their presence.  After all, it wasn't in the name of christianity that the holocaust occurred.  Yet they decided to err on the side of the "right thing to do" anyway.

gtSasha:

I am not sure what the differences are between these cases, but if NY Muslims to decide to move their proposed cultural center I would like them to do it out of respect for victims of 9/11 and their families, not because Newt Gingrich told them too.  

I agree, however, if that occurs the respect will be "faked".  If the respect existed, we would not be talking about this in the first place.

gtSasha:

It is really a tough situations.  If they go ahead and build the center where they plan it will look as if they don't respect 9/11 victims.  If they move it it will look like the critics were right all along and the purpose of the center really is to celebrate the attacks of 9/11.

Yes, their philosophical "moral dilemmas" are certainly worthy of our most profound condolences.

I think whatever 50%, 60%, 70% ot 90% of public "thinks" is completely irrelevant, except for the sensationalist maniacs that the press establishment is. They manufacture these polls, duping the public into answering "the right way" and self-perpetuating the cycle. It's their business - no longer reporting but making news. This is done all the time, in many countries. Besides, Hitler used to be a very popular public figure. How did that work out? Exactly.

I am appauled how Republicans and teabaggers are using an issue like this to further polarize and take attention off things that matter, like economy, or the two wars we are in, or one of the other thousand things that are really going wrong right now. However, I would imagine it is very hard for them to resists - their electorate cannot think independently and they rely on people like Sarah Palin or Rush "Limbo" to force feed them "values" and "ideas". Because it is understandably a scarry world out there for someone with only 3 classes of public school...They need a mommy or daddy figure to put things in perspective for them. Like that we are fighting a war on terror (with terror), yet Moslem cultural center is bad. Or that British Petroleum is more American than Obama, they had made our ocean overflow with oil, after all - like a wet effing dream of some oil cartel deuschebag.

The truth be known, most "conservative" people simply enjoy being pigeonholed. They like living in a simple world, where things are only black and white, and right and wrong.

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

Egor, just a short note. When the politics becomes a b-tch, you know we all have it coming. Politics should be focused on what's essential for governance, period. Current state of affairs is nothing short of alarming, at least to me. We have allowed our politicians to become worthless lobby sluts, who incessantly use largely irrelevant pop culture events as a fig leaf. This ain't gonna end good.

As to that Newt Gingrich deuschebag, what an a-hole! I saw him on TV the other day saying something like "Americans were fighting N.a.z.i.s., and Americans were fighting Japanese, and now we are fighting Al-Qaeda...." as if this has something to do with the Muslem community center. I know he knows Islam is not an exclusive Al-Qaeda religion. Besides, what does fascism have to do with religion? I mean, this is exactly what they are feeding to the local teabagging proletariat. Simply gross...

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

AHTOH:

Egor, just a short note. When the politics becomes a b-tch, you know we all have it coming. Politics should be focused on what's essential for governance, period.

Yeah, that would be nice.. But its not realistic.  You know, there's a theorem in political science, that politics strictly focused on what's essential for governance will not accomplish its goals (mainly due to incompetence and ineptness with things that are infinitely complex), while a collection of idiots sitting in a room, working within a competently designed constitutional framework, and seemingly pointlessly fighting with each other, unbeknownst to themselves, actually make up a relatively more effective government.  After all, the constitutional framework "expects" them to act that way, in fact COUNTS on them to act this way.  Something to think about :)

In this case, republicans do have a winning hand, as gtSasha correctly points out.  But why is this automatically a bad thing?  They are representing (no matter how evil the imeediate motive may be) what americans, as people feel needs to happen.  That's a winning hand. What's the problem?

gtSasha, with all due respect, your recent criticism of talk radio in the other topic (which i am yet to respond to ) now looks somewhat hypocritical.  Don't you think?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I say open the fuсking thing already.

Назвался груздем. . . 

Where is congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? 

I am not even interprting. Read what you pasted verbatum.

As far as "open the f..ing thing already", who is that directed to? :)  Man, you can't please these infidels. Some don;t want it at all, others want it NOW.  Life sure is difficult!  You go to all that trouble to clear off an area...

Egor:

gtSasha, with all due respect, your recent criticism of talk radio in the other topic (which i am yet to respond to ) now looks somewhat hypocritical.  Don't you think?

 

It is funny, but just a short time ago as I was driving home, I accidentally hit the AM button and Sean Hannity show came on.  I may not remember a word or two but I quote almost exactly:  "[they] are trying to build a 13-story mosque at the Hollow Ground, a place where the remains of some three thousand Americans are found to this day".  This statement is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start if I wanted to criticize it.  

I am not sure where I am being hypocritical here.  If anything, this example supports my views on talk radio.  I think this whole mosque controversy is blown way out of proportion largely thanks to talk radio.

Well I am about to head home, maybe i'll catch the tail end of that show

I do agree with you that talk radio has blown this out of proportion.  But I think thats a good thing, as a counterbalance to mainstream media which over the past 2 months has ignored several major issues that are important to vast supermajorities of the American public, who are being spit in the face by this government and the liberal media.  Sorry to say this, but its true.  The reverse was true under Bush.  He was spitting in the face of American people from the other direction, and it was the mainstream media that stood up for the nation then.  That is already an unfair advantage to the Liberals and Socialists, as talk radio has much smaller audiences. 

The hypocricy argument, was that the pic you posted does more to blow things out of proportion and brainwash confused idiots into an opinion, than all the talk radio i've heard on this issue.  And more than the statement you just heard by Hannity.   People object to this for reasons that make sense to them.  Not the reasons alleged in the pic.