Mosque at 9/11 site

alice wrote:

I thought this country was founded on freedom of religion.

And slavery. Yeah, we really want to return to that. Not.

It was founded on slavery? I am unaware of that. Of course I wouldn't want slavery.

Slavery was abolished. Freedom of religion was not.

In the early days of colonization, slavery existed in the north as well as in the south. More of the people who settled the south were from a background of landed gentry, and established large farms based on the European feudal systems, only there were not many serfs, so more slaves were needed. In the north, there were more cities, fewer farms, and more settlers from what would have been considered lower classes in Europe, so they developed more industry faster, and needed slaves less.

A gross over-simplification on my part, but Al is right. As the country was colonized, slavery was a big part of the system.

Ann

Well, thank heavens, it was done away with.

You mean I've got to get rid of my slave? What will I do without her?

Al, you've apparently slept through the last two decades of cultural sensitivity training. Or you're the one writing the one-way manuals (European-descent citizens must defer to non-European-descent citizens whenever there's a clash). Cutting and pasting Constitutional passages doesn't address why the people who are opposed to it (which doesn't include me; I'm indifferent) are opposed to it. Sensitivity to what, to them, is hallowed ground is the issue, and putting a mosque, a place where Islamic jihad often foments (the Germans just shut one down) is a sore spot to them. Why don't you get this? Actually, I think you do get it, the same way pro-illegal alien folks rhapsodize that illegal aliens are just like the early New World colonists, to promote your own zealotry.

Abe F. March wrote:

You mean I've got to get rid of my slave? What will I do without her?

Glad you are obviously feeling better.

Abe F. March wrote:

You mean I've got to get rid of my slave? What will I do without her?

All slaves are women? Sounds about right.

LC wrote:

Sensitivity to what, to them, is hallowed ground is the issue

And, of course, our culture has always been sensitive to and respectful of the hallowed ground of other cultures. Until gold or oil was discovered on it. Or just until we wanted the real estate for ourselves.

LC wrote:

, and putting a mosque, a place where Islamic jihad often foments (the Germans just shut one down) is a sore spot to them. Why don't you get this?

The First Amendment does not exclude those who would express themselves or worship in ways with which we disagree and/or of which we disapprove. Why don't you get this?

Quote :

The First Amendment does not exclude those who would express themselves or worship in ways with which we disagree and/or of which we disapprove. Why don't you get this?

Why was Operation Infinite Justice name-changed to Operation Enduring Freedom? What was the point of that silly, useless exercise? Who cares what it's called? What, for all practical purposes, did it matter or accomplish?

LC wrote:

Why was Operation Infinite Justice name-changed to Operation Enduring Freedom? What was the point of that silly, useless exercise? Who cares what it's called? What, for all practical purposes, did it matter or accomplish?

I don't know why. The question I'd ask is why do we have those stupid names in the first place? Do we have so many wars nowadays that we have to give them soul-stirring patriotic names in order to tell them apart?

Al Stevens wrote:

I don't know why.

Give it some thought instead of deflecting with a bunch of irrelevant questions, ok?

I think you are confused, Elsie. When they changed the name, they exercised their 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression, which includes changing what they want to call it for whatever reason. For some reason (which I also do not know), you imply that they should not have changed the name. I don't believe they actually register those gung-ho war names with the trademark office. So they can pick a name du jour if they want to.

I know the official reason. They said they didn't want to offend Muslims over who, governments or Allah, get to inflict infinite justice. I don't believe that. I think that's spin. I think they realized that "infinite justice" implies a war that never ends. You understand, I presume. Well, in case you don't, think about infinity. All of which doesn't sit well with anyone, particularly voters. That's what I think. But, as I said, I don't know for sure.

So, do you think we need those stupid names? What would you call the war in Afghanistan?

Al,

My answer to war name for Afghanistan:

A Stupid Waste of People Time, Energy and Money.

Back on topic.

What's all the fuss about? The proposed mosque is not planned for Ground Zero. It is to be located two blocks away on a site that had been occupied by a Men's Warehouse (or something like that) before the building was sold for this purpose. There is another mosque nearby. Should we make them close that one down? What about the several porn shops in the neighborhood?

So. Two blocks. Where is the imaginary line outside of which a mosque can be built? Three blocks? Four blocks? How many blocks do we need before the 1st Amendment kicks back in?

So. What's all the fuss about? The fuss is about people getting their hackles up without knowing the facts. They get their information from crackpots with agendas. They listen to sound bites such as the gospel according to Limbaugh (who stepped on his crank today with a botched analogy comparing Ground Zero to Pearl Harbor).

I really only listen to the weather anymore. The news has one purpose: ratings. It is not meant to inform, only to influence and inflame.

I try to find legitimate news on the internet or when there's a good cross-section of opposing idealogues on PBS.

I am very poorly informed. As for the mosque, I've kept my opinions to myself. But here goes: there are always people for whom the actions of others create an emotional hardship. I have learned that we have to move on. A memorial is a good thing; we never want to forget the loved ones who lost their lives needlessly on 9/11. However, even they would not expect continuous mourning nor would most of them want us to live with hate in our hearts. Hate eats the hater; where hate resides, love is pushed aside.

This country is so young that we have no concept of building entire civilizations on top of those that came before, often destroyed through wars. Personally, unless the people building and worshiping in the mosque participated in the destruction of the World Trade Center, I think any building that emanates a spiritual quality is a positive thing in any city. I agree with Al; how far away is far enough? Probably there is no "far enough" for those who wish to continue arousing hate and division.

The closest examples I have come from the south and South Africa where people spent years in demeaning humanity and now learn to live together. In many ways it's imperfect, but it's better than the alternative.

Limbaugh is a hypocrite and anyone who pays heed to him has a problem--a major one.

As far as the mosque goes--they own the property--let them have a mosque.

I wouldn't try to build one there because of all of the furor, but they have the right. They could be understanding and sell the property and build somewhere else, but that is their prerogative.

Also, they may figure they will be opposed wherever they try to build and that does not speak well for our American values and sense.

Unfortunately, the news media has a gotcha mentality. When President Obama said they had the right to build the mosque, he was correct, then when he said it might not be wise to do it, I felt that was correct also.

alice wrote:

Unfortunately, the news media has a gotcha mentality. When President Obama said they had the right to build the mosque, he was correct, then when he said it might not be wise to do it, I felt that was correct also.

See how that works? He did not say that, but everyone believes whatever sound bite they heard about it. Even MSNBC reported it that way. But he didn't say it that way.

President Obama specifically said that he would not comment on the wisdom of building there. He did not say or suggest that he thought it would be wise or unwise. Only that he had no intention of commenting on whether it was wise or not.

Pay attention, folks. Listen to the real deal, not the unreal, agenda-driven commentators.

Unfortunately, Al, those who are seeking a political change hunger for the thread of controversy, even if it's not true. Think of how easy it is to pick up a piece of one of our posts and make us look like fools. Multiply the political capital gained by repeating a wrong remark until it is accepted as truth.

I am a lone wolf among my friends. Rush Limbaugh is their prophet; he and a few others. My friends are wealthy and well-educated. They want their people in office to protect their wealth. Whatever moves the country in their direction is "truth" no matter how false the origins. They believe in their own entitlements as though their choices were the ones that put them in their comfort. Poor people are poor because of bad choices. The rich have no stake in making their lives better.

Al,

You are right. I misstated what he said. I am as bad as the news media.

Al,

You are right. I misstated what he said. I am as bad as the news media.

alice wrote:

Abe F. March wrote:

You mean I've got to get rid of my slave? What will I do without her?

Glad you are obviously feeling better.

I promised never to call her slave again.

Note: I've deleted the photo.
The idea of the photo was intended to imply that my wife put me in the hospital after calling her a slave. It was an attempt at some humor. I've never called her a slave nor treat her as one.

Abe,

That brings back memories. The tubes were a bit much.

Abe,

That sweetheart is not a slave. Such a look of love and caring!!

That alone will do much go help you get well.

Give my love to Gisela for her loving.

Carol

Al Stevens wrote:

Pay attention, folks. Listen to the real deal, not the unreal, agenda-driven commentators.

Why don't you take your own advice? He most certainly did say they have a right to build in lower Manhattan. What site in lower Manhattan do you think he was referring to?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/obama.islamic.center.support/index.html

<< Washington (CNN) -- President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York's ground zero, saying Friday that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

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

As for your earlier post asking "how far away is far enough," I leave that to the people whose feelings are hurt by it. It's not my place to dictate how they feel (even though you appear to think it's your place).