Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque Plans In Ramadan

Juan Cole

what Issy is arguing is technically true, i.e., there has been no violation of equal protection by any governmental agency. He then says "case closed."

Well, the case isn't closed. The Equal Protection Clause (XIV) which incorporates both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses (First Amendment) against state and local governments is more than just a legal principle which has no meaning outside a courtroom. That principle embodies an ideal which must be part of the discussion regardless of whether or not someone's rights have actually been violated.

The protesters are obviously demanding something. Whatever that "something" is, I'm sure they would be very happy if local government stepped in and prohibited the building of the Park 51 community center. They certainly have every right to make such a demand. But as long as such demands are being made, either expressly or implicitly (or by threat of mob violence), those of us who understand the concepts and ideals embodied in the First and Fourteenth Amendments will continue to argue that any such governmental action is prohibited by the USCON.

So what are the reasons for building it? My understanding was that the current churches are overcrowded and in need of a larger building to serve a growing congregation. You say: Is that their stated goal?
In one breath you grant that they have the right to build the church and yet in another demonize them for doing so. There are lots of Mosques in New York City, lots of Muslims. New York Muslims, surely, were just as shocked and traumatized when the Saudi Nationals attacked their city. The attack wasn't against white skinned Christian Republicans. The attack wasn't committed by brown skinned people against white skinned people, The attack was comitted by a group from one nation against another nation. To demonize them for their religion or skin color is looking past the real reason for the attack: American Government meddling in the middle east.
New York City Mosques

The attack was for political reasons, as are all acts of warfare. Are Japanese forbidden from building near Pearl Harbour? Are Americans forbidden from building in Nagasaki? Germans in London?
Are white people forbidden from building near the site of the Oklahoma Bombing? Where are the protestors? Where is the sensitivity?
Or is the protest only for political gain and no more worthy of respect than the original attack.

As I understand it, the developer wants to build, and there is no known zoning problem. So at this point, the only way to stop the project would be if citizen pressure on government authorities would cause them to act to stop the project due to "sensitivity" concerns.

And IF that were to happen... that would be the proximate governmental action which is cause for concern.... IE existing laws being circumvented in a discriminatory manner

Don't be silly, Greger. Not believing the claimed motive of a person or group does not equate to me demonizing them.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

You still do not get it do you, Schlack. Because it is a right of private property, the owners have a rock solid basis for building their center. They need not ask anyone's permission. You seem to think it belongs in a democratic tug-o-war with victory going to the loudest, the strongest, or the most persuasive in debate and political intrigue. Granted, the concepts of liberty and natural rights are a foreign concept to many the world over, but surely a few among the many living in darkness can at least see its shadow upon the cave's wall?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Actually issodhos, it is you who does not get it.

So what is their claimed motive? You claimed a motive for them but as I said, it appears to be nothing more than needing a larger facility. I'm sorry if you didn't like the word I chose but, despite your obvious support for their right to build it, you certainly give the impression that you don't approve.

ANd Beyond that, other thant the fact that it ia impossible to know what their motive is.... and the fact that mabe they may have several motives.... and maybe different people in their group have different motives....

other than all that... what the heck difference does it make what is their motive.... if they have rights to the land... legally, and their is no zoning issue after that, who among us has the right and responsibility to speculate upon their motives and suggest that as a reason why they should not be able to do what they appear to be entitled to do?

Why is this discussion even necessary?

Ahhh I see now, I am wrong because reality doesn't measure up to your ideal.

nuff said