WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Current Topics
Trump 2.0
by pdx rick - 03/16/25 02:19 AM
2024 Election Forum
by rporter314 - 03/11/25 11:16 PM
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 13 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Agnostic Politico, Jems, robertjohn, BlackCat13th, ruggedman
6,305 Registered Users
Popular Topics(Views)
10,261,112 my own book page
5,051,295 We shall overcome
4,251,031 Campaign 2016
3,856,678 Trump's Trumpet
3,055,866 3 word story game
Top Posters
pdx rick 47,431
Scoutgal 27,583
Phil Hoskins 21,134
Greger 19,831
Towanda 19,391
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Irked 1
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,547
Members6,305
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 16 17
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,583
No, it doesn't rest purely on property rights. It should, but when there are people claiming that it is offensive and asking what can be done to prevent this mosque from being built, then first amendment comes into it. That was not decided by President Obama. It was decided with those that find the mosque offensive. President Obama merely answered those inquiries, using the Constitution to explain why what these protesters wanted was not legally possible.


milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.




Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by Scoutgal
No, it doesn't rest purely on property rights. It should, but when there are people claiming that it is offensive and asking what can be done to prevent this mosque from being built, then first amendment comes into it. That was not decided by President Obama. It was decided with those that find the mosque offensive. President Obama merely answered those inquiries, using the Constitution to explain why what these protesters wanted was not legally possible.
Then you are basically saying that "we" are not a "nation of laws", in which case, there is no real foundation for folks prattling on about a First Amendment right to religious freedom because the result will not be based on law. When the dust has settled, the decision concerning this structure will be determined politically.
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Originally Posted by numan
How many people would commit murder for a McDonald's? (hmmm...I shudder to think!)
offtopic

Let's turn that question around and make it a food/health issue. How many people does McDonald's kill?

***back to topic***


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Both loganrbt and Issy are making good points, IMHO. smile


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723
C
old hand
Offline
old hand
C
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723
There was absolutely no political upside to Obama taking a position on this issue. He said what he said because it was the right thing to say. How refreshing.

Issy is right about one thing: this is primarily a property rights issue. It was, however, the fearmongers who made it about more than that. And that is when the President decided to remind us that we are a nation of laws.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723
C
old hand
Offline
old hand
C
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723
This puts it into its proper perspective...

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by AustinRanter
This is America. We are a nation of laws. We are a nation whose common values are built around the Bill of Rights. Either it protects all as written, or it doesn't.
Oh really? So when I wrote, "In this case the property is privately owned and, to my knowledge, there are no restrictions against building regious buildings on it, so that should settle the matter. All the rest is politics.", was I not saying that the issue does not need to be hyped as a First Amendment issue? Is not the issue laid to rest constitutionally based purely on property rights? Is there any argument in favor of prohibiting this 'Islamban' structure from being built? Is it not stupid to try to muddy the right to build on this privately owned site by dragging religion into it? Of course it is.
Yours,
Issodhos

Iss...

IMO, I think that public opinion (right or wrong) will be way more aimed at the religious implications, which many (if not a majority) believe all Muslims who practice the religion of Islam are terrorists, directly or indirectly. I doubt seriously if "property rights" will ever cross the minds of "most"...not all, who oppose or those who are possibly neutral about the building.

I truly get that many see the building of the Mosque as the most monumental display of disrespect and contempt that could possibly be perpetrated on America. There are many people who believe America has entered into a religious war with the Muslims and Islam.

However, I can also agree with much of your comments on property rights. It certainly is part of the package of rights we're all entitled to.

IMO, regardless of our individual perceptions or opinions, that this sitation, in the eyes of a very large population, isn't going to be confined to, or perceived as, being an ordinary real estate transaction with all rights entitled.

The pictures pointed to in Chucks last post is "what I tend to believe" many envision.


Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" wink

Yours Truly - Gregg


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by california rick
Originally Posted by numan
How many people would commit murder for a McDonald's? (hmmm...I shudder to think!)
offtopic

Let's turn that question around and make it a food/health issue. How many people does McDonald's kill?

***back to topic***
Zero. McDonald's is not holding a gun to a customer's head. I guess that would make it suicidem if indeed the ingesting of McDonalds fare does result in death. After all, enough noise has been made of the claimed unhealthy aspects of a McDonalds only cuisine.
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740
Likes: 1
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by issodhos
Zero. McDonald's is not holding a gun to a customer's head. I guess that would make it suicidem if indeed the ingesting of McDonalds fare does result in death. After all, enough noise has been made of the claimed unhealthy aspects of a McDonalds only cuisine.
Yours,
Issodhos

offtopic

glad to see you didnt fall into the trap of calling it food.

and im sure that their 2 billion a year spent on brainwashing marketing is drowned out by the noise you mentioned above. One wonders why they still bother


"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 28
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 28
What Logan said first page.

Thanks too, Chuck for your pictures.

Speaks my mind.



"Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass...it's about learning how to dance in the rain."
Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5