For now I will not get into the mosque funding and the not-so-secret views of the supposedly moderate imam. Let's just look at the location issue:

It's to be in a building that had large pieces of airplane hardware fall on it during the attack. That is AT the site. Not 2 blocks away. So that's one misleading factoid - should I now trust the rest of what you have to say?

Calling this a religious freedom issue is a manipulative canard. There are over 100 mosques in NYC, including one already in the Wall St area. There are over half a million Muslim citizens of NYC. NYers don't need to prove to anyone how tolerant they are. Now that you've insulted me, should I respect the rest of what you have to say?

If I were Muslim, I would be ashamed to try to put an official building of my religion at a site where members of my religion massacred 3000 people. I would want to demonstrate that those fanatics did not represent ME, by being willing to accommodate whatever feelings NYers had about this issue. I certainly wouldn't claim to want to promote healing by shoving this down their throats.

I can't even imagine myself in the mindset of someone who wouldn't just recoil at the thought of doing this in the first place.

It's like ... your brother breaks into a house and murders the entire family. (Goes to prison, is killed by the police, whatever.) 8 years later, you decide to buy and move into the house next door. Would you really decide to buy that house? Would you go to the remaining family member still living there, and say, "Hi, I've bought the house next door so we can reconcile what my brother did to your family!" And if he says no, I don't want to talk to any of you, do you call him an intolerant racist at that point? Are you really interested in his feelings? No. It's all about you. (And what kind of a sociopath do you have to be to even think about buying the house in the first place?)

Whatever this imam says about his mosque/community center/etc as a center of peace and love, is bullshit, if he insists. if not, he would build the same facility but in another part of town, and donate a lot of money to provide memorials at the site.

Trying to make this about "scary Muslims" is really dishonest and nasty. It is another attempt to bully people by playing the race card. The issue is THIS mosque at THIS site.

Yehudit,

I think there is an important distinction to make here. You're arguing that the mosque SHOULDN'T be built out of good taste, respect, etc. You are welcome to make that case and I may agree with you on some points.

However, it is an entirely separate issue whether the government has the right to forcibly deny the owners of the property to build a Muslim community center on it. That is where the problem lies. There is no provision in the Constitution for denying property rights based on it "making people uncomfortable."

If anyone can prove that this mosque is a clear public danger, I'll listen. But as long as it is just a Muslim building, you can't just willy-nilly say they don't have rights because their exercise of those rights bothers you. At some point we've got to stick up for principles.

Again, whether they SHOULD build it is one issue. Whether the government can forcibly deny them the right to is VERY different. What's at stake here is the right of people to deny rights based on the particular religion and politics of the rights-owner. That's scary stuff.

And no, I don't need to hear how bad and scary those darn Muslims are. That's irrelevant.

My my, it must be open season on conservatives by regressive, er, so called progressives again. First building a building 2 blocks from the ruins of the world trade center is not in itself a public danger however what goes on inside the building may very well constitute a public danger. At the very least it is “insensitive” and outright offensive. With so many other and likely better choices of real estate to build such a facility why would they chose somewhere they knew would ignite a firestorm of opposition and further create more animosity toward Muslims? Well it does not matter religious freedom and property rights reigns supreme and so does freedom of speech. The same law of the land that gives this group the right to build the building and practice their religion also applies to anyone wanting to open a genuine southern pulled Pork Bar-B-Que restaurant right next to them. Another idea I heard is to open a shoe throwing arena across the street where one could throw shoes at pictures of Muslim holy leaders. Those should be equally protected.

The real question is not this distraction if they can build a building on that particular site or not. The real question is where religious freedom should end.
Should it end when it puts our constitution and our way of life at risk? Should it end when it is supporting groups that support, plan, and act on ways to harm us in anyway? Should it end when it advocates denying equal rights and protections to a whole group of human beings specifically women? Should it end when it proposed to discriminate against other religions such as Judaism and Christianity?

Liberals, “progressives” and some libertarians like to profess their love of equal rights and liberty for all yet they purposely ignore those liberties when other countries deny those "rights" to their own citizens. I can understand the desire to stay out of another countries business but not when it comes to exporting their brand of discrimination and intolerance to our country.

Sharia law is incompatible with our constitution. So is supporting efforts to enact Sharia law in the US dangerous or is the clandestine practice of it is dangerous and illegal. Where do we draw the line?

First building a building 2 blocks from the ruins of the world trade center is not in itself a public danger however what goes on inside the building may very well constitute a public danger.

Is there any reason to believe that this is anything other than what it is being presented as? Aren't you making unfounded accusations? Yes, they are Muslims, but it ridiculous to assert that all terrorists, which what you've implied.

Well it does not matter religious freedom and property rights reigns supreme and so does freedom of speech.

What a sad, sad statement.

The same law of the land that gives this group the right to build the building and practice their religion also applies to anyone wanting to open a genuine southern pulled Pork Bar-B-Que restaurant right next to them.

Yep.

Another idea I heard is to open a shoe throwing arena across the street where one could throw shoes at pictures of Muslim holy leaders. Those should be equally protected.

Yep.

The real question is where religious freedom should end.
Should it end when it puts our constitution and our way of life at risk?

*eyeroll*

Should it end when it is supporting groups that support, plan, and act on ways to harm us in anyway?

Do you have proof that the group building the Cordoba House has done any of this?

Liberals, “progressives” and some libertarians like to profess their love of equal rights and liberty for all yet they purposely ignore those liberties when other countries deny those "rights" to their own citizens.

Our founders were clear on what our foreign policy was intended to be. We have no right to involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations.

To Raleigh:

"The real question is where religious freedom should end. . .when it is supporting groups that support, plan, and act on ways to harm us in anyway . denying equal rights and protections to a whole group of human beings . . . when it proposed to discriminate against other religions"

All of things you have described are also taught by of some (very few) churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions in the US as well. Do we as a country, then, wish to legislate what religious points of view are allowed to be expressed? For example, if we legislate against Cordoba House because of suspected points of view, then we must absolutely legislate against the First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, who's pastor has publicly admitted to praying for the death of the President.

Wait a minute I said “May” constitute a danger not “is” constituting a danger or are you trying to redefine what the meaning of is, is?

“Do you have proof that the group building the Cordoba House has done any of this?”

The imam at the center of this controversy publically advocates imposing Sharia law in the US. There “May” be more but it has not been fully investigated. Just advocating Sharia law may be benign but does it inspire others to impose abuse on their families? There are cases of murders committed against women from Muslim families in the US because of the father’s adherence to “Sharia law”. I might add Europe is struggling with this now and doing very badly with it. Some European countries have been toying with the idea of having a 2 court system one for Muslims and the other for everyone else so they can practice Sharia law. Doing so would allow women in their families to be legally murdered if the women are thought to have dishonored the family. What a tolerant religion. What happened to the premise when in Rome do as Romans do? If they can’t adhere to our laws they should not be here.

Does their “Religious freedom” trump all other freedoms guaranteed by the constitution and our constitution. No it does not.

“Our founders were clear on what our foreign policy was intended to be. We have no right to involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations.”

Come now, you say “intended” yet our founding fathers were heavily involved in the affairs of other nations. What history book did you study or did you run out of crayons. You are applying your naive non interference / free trade policy to people who don’t share your “love of liberty” and would quickly deny those same rights to you and your fellow citizens as well and that is truly sad.

Arial,

Praying for the death of a president in itself is not a problem but donating to a group trying to assassinate the president is. At that point they become an accessory to a crime. There is your difference and where I believe a person or group crosses the line. It does not matter to me if the practiced religion in question is Baptist, Hindu, Atheism, Frisbeetiarian or anything else.

You forgot to add Fred Phelps to your list. He “practices” his version of freedom of speech and religious freedom by causing pain to the families of solders lost in war. I believe a funeral is a private affair and Mr. Phelps is guilty of intentionally causing harm and violating the right of privacy of those families.

Now remember I said in my first post. “First building a building 2 blocks from the ruins of the world trade center is not in itself a public danger however what goes on inside the building may very well constitute a public danger.”
Again I said Building a building is NOT itself a public danger. I went on to say what goes on in that building MAY (not does) very well constitutes a public danger.

Jason thinks I am making accusations. He can believe whatever he wants he has that right.

It is well known this Imam advocates imposing his version of religion on all of us which he can advocate all he wants but has he actually gone further than just advocating to becoming an accessory? I don’t know the answer to that although others claim he has which has not been substantiated at this time.

This is just more of a double standard. We have to be “sensitive” and strive not to be offensive to Muslims. But it is OK if they offend others. Give me a break.

The bottom line is Wayne Root was 100% correct when he said “To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom...it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes. Common sense suggests this mosque, being built in this specific location, is NOT being built as a sign of friendship between Muslims and Americans...but rather as a sign of the lack of respect...a belief in our weakness...and an attempt to embarrass and belittle us.”

The Muslims behind this know full well what they are doing. This is not a cases of stupid is as stupid does they are not that ignorant. They knew the uproar this would cause. So should it be allowed? Sure go ahead but be ready to live under a microscope by those wanting them to screw up just once. Freedom of Religion, Speech, or any other freedom is not free. There are sometimes consequences to be paid.

I'm not a fan of the Hamiltonian view of foreign policy, among other polices he advocated, that dominated American politics at the end of the 18th century. However, Jefferson and Franklin both warned about involving themselves in the affairs of other nations.

Advocating ideas, even though you or I may have serious disagreements with them, is not a crime. You're putting us on a slippery slope when you start determining what is or isn't healthy speech. And, the whole idea of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech. Look at the KKK. I despise those bastards, but they have every right to say whatever they want to say.

It's the Red Scare decades ago when lives were ruined all because some people may have had Communist sympathies. Even though those individuals may have expressed an ideology that I find replusive, perhaps just as replusive as the venom spewed by racists, I'm not going to attempt to silence them.

You, in typical neo-conservative fashion, are being a drama queen. Unless Muslisms can manage to come up with majorities to pass a constitutional amendment (you know that separation of church and state thing) out of Congress and manage to take 3/5 of state legislatures, you have nothing to worry about.

How does "Congress shall make no law..." translate into anything other than a prohibition directed at the congress? This is not a religion issue at all. It is strickly a property rights issue, if it is an issue at all.

In some things I agree with Raleigh - illegal actions of any sort, such as contributing to violent actions, should be dealt with according to the legal system, and religion does not protect against that. But as you say, there's no evidence that Imam Feisal has done anything illegal. Having just read the Frontline interview with him, I don't agree with the assessment that he intends to "impose" his view on Islam on all of us, anymore than the Southern Baptist Convention intends to "impose" it's versions of Christianity on us. And I don't see his views as supporting any more public danger than the views of Rev. Wiley Drake, who affirmed the shooting of Dr. Tiller as "God's will", so would by implication support the assassination of the President. The issues is not "don't offend Muslims," but rather don't single them out specifically for legislation that we are not prepared to also weigh in against all other controversial statements by other religious figures. We must all operate under one set of rules, one set of guidelines for speech and behavior. And that means tolerating religious speech we find offensive - whatever religion it comes from. Otherwise, the government is dictating what we can and cannot believe, and I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

Drama Queen! I’m moving up in the world. No Jason I think your still the queen of the drama queens. Your characterization of “Neo-Conservatives” which you obviously despise and paint as a mob far exceeds any drama I might add. Hamilton and specifically Franklin may have warned against foreign intervention but both were heavily involved in doing just that. Yes it is the old “do as I say not as I do” rule. BTW the real term is as Joe said. "Congress shall make no law..." not “separation of church and state.” The separation words are typically use by the judiciary to reconcile the establishment and free exercise clauses. In the US I think Jefferson first used a variation of separation.

Hey, once again I said Build IT…..but don’t whine that people hate you for doing it. They have that right. ALSO Jason I don’t see where all the whining by your hated conservatives have actual stopped it now have they…… oops sorry I forgot to use your drama term, NEO-Conservative Mobsters…..

Arial the first amendment does give me the right to not tolerate religious speech I find offensive. What it does not do is give me the right to deny those rights to anyone else. You cannot force guidelines on speech behavior as long as I have not denied the same for others. As Jason pointed the idiot KKK’ers, Communist, and Nazis have every right to say whatever they want to say. It’s true they do. So does Palin, Boortz, Root, and Gingrich and Jason and ME and you. None of us have to agree with one another or like what the other says.

I can use all the words I want just not sticks and stones. That said if the City denied a building permit because of their religious views would be wrong. However if the permit was denied because of a public nuisance then that is a valid reason.

Hey I’m a Frisbeetiarian. I can complain all day long my soul is stuck on the roof. I just can’t force you to provide me a ladder and help me get it down. I did hear that the current administration might buy ladders to help stimulate the economy. Maybe there is hope after all.

Haha. I touched a nerve. Hilarious.

Your characterization of “Neo-Conservatives” which you obviously despise and paint as a mob far exceeds any drama I might add.

It's true that I'm not particularly fond of the neo-conservative view, and you seem to fit it well.

Hamilton and specifically Franklin may have warned against foreign intervention but both were heavily involved in doing just that.

Hamilton was, of course, I think I even noted that. Franklin was dead by 1791, before our problems with England arose during Washington's administration, where Hamilton's influence was felt.

BTW the real term is as Joe said. "Congress shall make no law..." not “separation of church and state.”

It was a matter of separation of church and state. Why do you think Jefferson wrote, and Madison, Father of the Constitution, sponsored the Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom?

I don’t see where all the whining by your hated conservatives have actual stopped it now have they…… oops sorry I forgot to use your drama term, NEO-Conservative Mobsters….

Well, that's not exactly what I wrote. By the "mob," I'm referring to the belief that a majority has can take away the rights of a minority. Madison called this the problem of "faction" (Federalist 10), which is why we have the Bill of Rights and a government that protects individual liberty (at least, in theory).

Also, I don't hate "conservatives" or even "neo-conservatives." I have disagreements with them. I have friends that are conservatives. I have friends that are liberals. I have debates and disagreements with them and walk away friends.

Oh my, “Haha. I touched a nerve. Hilarious.” Keep patting your self on the back and one day you might get it right, too funny…..Speaking of touching a nerve “not particularly fond of the neo-conservative view” I guess you don’t but you went much further than not being fond of someone’s view, now be honest about it. I know it’s hard but try anyway.

Your Franklin assessment is just wrong. He was the most heavily involved in medaling in foreign affairs of all the founding fathers. He set the stage for our future problems with England. Now I'm not saying that was a bad thing.

BTW once again you missed it. Hamilton argued against the bill of rights in the federalist papers because he was afraid, and rightly so, that it would eventually be misunderstood as a list which gave the federal government a tool to take more power than the constitution intended. The true intent was that if it was not included in the constitution then it was reserved to the states which are much closer to the people and the peoples will. The “Bill of rights (or bill of federal powers) was a very contentious issue and almost sank ratification.

Hamilton. Was right. (It’s ok you can say it)

Just another reason the 17th amendment should be repealed.

Now this

“It was a matter of separation of church and state. Why do you think Jefferson wrote, and Madison, Father of the Constitution, sponsored the Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom?

OK then why was the “separation” words not included in the actual constitution? That answer does exist and is much harder to get. Good luck.

BTW no you didn’t say these exact words “NEO-Conservative Mobsters” but you did attempt to use innuendo to paint that picture now didn’t you, come on now you can say it and it won’t hurt……

And lastly,
“Also, I don't hate "conservatives" or even "neo-conservatives." I have disagreements with them. I have friends that are conservatives. I have friends that are liberals. I have debates and disagreements with them and walk away friends. “

I hope at the end of all debates we could walk away friends as well. After all this is practice in which we at least look at each others point of view. At the end of all things we must exist in this world together taking care of those we hold dear which is more important than just a simple argument.

Enjoyed it. Let’s do it again soon…..

Your Franklin assessment is just wrong. He was the most heavily involved in medaling in foreign affairs of all the founding fathers. He set the stage for our future problems with England.

Um, that's not accurate. Our problems with England were a result of tensions after the Revolution and alliances with France, which were forged to win independency.

You're trying to mold it to fit your view, and it doesn't work.

Hamilton argued against the bill of rights in the federalist papers because he was afraid, and rightly so, that it would eventually be misunderstood as a list which gave the federal government a tool to take more power than the constitution intended.

You're misinterpting Hamilton, who argued against it because he thought the Constitution sufficiently limited government. His argument was, "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Of course, Hamilton almost immediately claimed constitutional authority for a national bank, taking a very expansive view of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Hamilton isn't the best Founding Father to cite on constitutional issues. The man was a liar and a corporatist that sought to make his friends rich at the expense of everyone else.

OK then why was the “separation” words not included in the actual constitution? That answer does exist and is much harder to get. Good luck.

The word "privacy" doesn't exist in the Constitution, but would deny that is what is implied by the Fourth Amendment?

BTW no you didn’t say these exact words “NEO-Conservative Mobsters” but you did attempt to use innuendo to paint that picture now didn’t you, come on now you can say it and it won’t hurt……

I can honestly tell you that I didn't mean that way. You can take it however you want, but that was by no means my intent.

Jason,
I know it is hard but who lived in France creating the ground work for those alliances with France. Yep that would be Franklin. Your mold just broke, again.

I know you despise Hamilton and no that is not a misinterpretation, you’re wrong. He wanted everyone to hold the view if it was not specifically spelled out in the constitution the Federal Government had no power over it. Now you don’t like fact that Hamilton set up the banking system but if we follow the Libertarian model you would put all the regulatory power in “private corporations”. Corporations such as Bank of America, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Yes indeed there would be no worries there and no middle class either. Without a central banking system way back then interstate commerce would have almost ceased to exist.

You are right there is no “Privacy” word in the constitution nor “Separation” so why ascribe either to the constitution other than to apply interpretations that fit someone’s personal views? That is what you do when you “imply” something.

ANY way, Come get me Mother, I’m through….. You can tie the ribbons on it….

I know it is hard but who lived in France creating the ground work for those alliances with France. Yep that would be Franklin.

Didn't I already cover this?

Of course, the reason for such an action to was to get to the goal of independency. France was eager to screw over England. We accepted their help.

But if you're going to tell me that the Founders would have accepted that it is our right or duty to engage in overseas conflicts where there is no threat to us, you're wrong.

I know you despise Hamilton and no that is not a misinterpretation, you’re wrong. He wanted everyone to hold the view if it was not specifically spelled out in the constitution the Federal Government had no power over it.

Hamilton said that during the ratification debates and in the Federalist papers. After he was appointed Treasury Secretary, he began taking on a host of policies that were not constitutional by taking an incredibly interpretation of the powers given to the federal government.

If you're going to complain that a separation of church and state and privacy rights are not constitutional because they are not directly spelled out, you are being wholly hypocritical to not agree that the banking model that Hamilton set up was unconstitutional since there is no constitutional authority for it at all.

Now you don’t like fact that Hamilton set up the banking system but if we follow the Libertarian model you would put all the regulatory power in “private corporations”. Corporations such as Bank of America, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Yes indeed there would be no worries there and no middle class either.

Ah, this comment shows a complete lack of understanding of our financial system on your part. Ever heard the term "rent-seeking"? AIG, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs have benefited from government regulation.

The Hamiltonian system, which encourages cronyism, is why we have bailouts and why corporations benefit off of taxpayers when they engage in risky behavior, which was in-part encouraged by government regulation, because they know that government will save them when they begin to fail.

In a free market system or at least with limited regulation, the market would hold businesses accountable when they are engaging in poor practices.

You are right there is no “Privacy” word in the constitution nor “Separation” so why ascribe either to the constitution other than to apply interpretations that fit someone’s personal views? That is what you do when you “imply” something.

Really? You're going to be that shallow and stubborn about the meaning of First and Fourth Amendments to argue semantics?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

How do you not get a right to privacy out of that? Even the most conservative of legal scholars recognize that the right to privacy was commonly accepted in British common law, before the founding of the United States. It's hardly a new idea.

You also have to look at the Ninth Amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The rights retained by the people has been generally accepted to be British common law, a Lockeian view of natural rights and negative liberty (civil liberties).

And how do you not get that a separation of church and state exists from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Again, I'll point you to James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, and sponsored Jefferson's Statue for Religious Freedom in Virginia.

What a fun exchange. It helps me feel good about why I'm not a conservative.