- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
But are you saying this is proper and just action by the community?
You have no rights to build anywhere you want.
The whole wear a red shirt on Sunday thing is stupid because it doesn't take into account our right to free expression and the need for the State to show why it would have an interest in changing the color you wear on Sundays.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Protest is protest, it's fine. But the question went beyond protest to actual action. Is it ok to use societal and/or political pressures to prevent an individual from exercising a right where there is no legal recourse to infringe upon said exercise.
Which begs the question how many blocks should a "no mosque zone" be for people to be comfortable. 2 apparently is too close for many. 5? 10? Should we let the states decide how big these zones are or do it federally?
Further, will this apply to ALL religious buildings, or just Islamic ones?
Because Muslims want to reach out and repair the damage caused to our relationship, and this building helps do that. (it's not a mosque. It's a community center with a mosque in it)
Because Muslims aren't responsible for what happened. I'm German, should I stay away from anywhere where Jews worship?
BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LAND THERE. There are a **** ton of churches building new buildings in my neighborhood. If it were up to me, I'd say we need another church in our neighborhood like we need a hole in the head. However, their buildings meet the conditions of zoning laws, and they have every right to build a new building on their property. I don't understand why this is so hard for people.
That is quite irrelevant to the entire issue. If they can legally obtain the right to build wherever they want then there is really no issue here. They can't be deprived of it.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment
You can't deprive these people of property.
I'm sure they can tie up construction of it with law suits and petitions, various permit blocks, and attempts to use the zoning laws to take issue with every nit-picky thing possible. Perhaps delaying construction to the point of it no longer being financially worth it to the builders or so long that the outcry dies down.
43.using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.
"With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably, the first time any mans freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." - Jean Luc Picard
As I said, nothing legitimate or just one could do to stop it. There are other ways of using societal or political force to infringe upon the rights of the individual, but these are not legitimate or just actions.
Well clearly, according to Ikari we are fascists and the resident menopause hormones ad, we're illogical. But whatever. Glad we are in agreement.
And I don't think it's a legitimate or just action to show such insensitivity to the nation by building a mosque so close to the site where muslims massacred Americans. :shrug:
But guess what? It's legal for them to try and it's perfectly legal for those opposed to use the methods I described. Good for the goose and all that.
Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...chances are, it's a duck. If you don't want to be labeled a fascist don't support or put forward fascist notions such as societal or political intimidation to force your way over the free exercise of rights when legally there is nothing legitimate or just you can do about it. But if you're done with these little outbursts now, perhaps we can move forward.
I don't know if all that should actually be "legal". Societal or political intimidation should be watched because it can go too far. If someone wants to build a mosque and has purchased everything legally and passed inspection or whatever, then that's that. Sure you can try to do something about it, but as soon as you do you've infringed upon the rights of others and that action is justly punished by the use of government force. We shouldn't excuse or allow these intimidation techniques to infringe upon the exercise of our rights; as our rights are what is ultimately the most important. There's no right against being offended, in fact it's going to happen. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. But there are rights to religion and property, those need to be enforced.
So the people building the community center/mosque are douchebags because they don't consider the sensitivities of people who equate Islam with terrorism?
To me, that's what it looks like here. Sure people have a right to protest, but I think they are "slaying dragons". Yes, the terrorists were all Muslim. That doesn't mean mean that all Muslims are terrorists.
Pearl Harbor was attacked by a nation, not a fringe minority of a religion. The only way to be upset about this is to link this mosque to terrorism.
You know I remember alot of Conservatives saying on this website "Don't make arguments based on Emotionality" but yet that's exactly whats happening with some of you.
Even conservapedia claims that one point of "Liberal Style" Is:
But I'm seeing a lot of conservatives doing that in here.
If America begins to deny people their rights because of emotion, or innocent assocations or blood lines. Then you will become the very thing you were fighting against.
And there are social values that need to be enforced. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. The mosque in that location is inflammatory and a provocation to our sense of national pride. Sorry your spine doesn't congeal enough to lead you to take exception to the insult. :shrug:
And there's nothing illegal about using the court system to delay said insult. :shrug:
So the people building the community center/mosque are douchebags because they don't consider the sensitivities of people who equate Islam with terrorism?
To me, that's what it looks like here. Sure people have a right to protest, but I think they are "slaying dragons". Yes, the terrorists were all Muslim. That doesn't mean mean that all Muslims are terrorists.
Pearl Harbor was attacked by a nation, not a fringe minority of a religion. The only way to be upset about this is to link this mosque to terrorism.
You know I remember alot of Conservatives saying on this website "Don't make arguments based on Emotionality" but yet that's exactly whats happening with some of you.
Even conservapedia claims that one point of "Liberal Style" Is:
But I'm seeing a lot of conservatives doing that in here.
If America begins to deny people their rights because of emotion, or innocent assocations or blood lines. Then you will become the very thing you were fighting against.
Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...chances are, it's a duck. If you don't want to be labeled a fascist don't support or put forward fascist notions such as societal or political intimidation to force your way over the free exercise of rights when legally there is nothing legitimate or just you can do about it. But if you're done with these little outbursts now, perhaps we can move forward.
it's a gut feeling. i can't apologize for that. and of course i don't think for one second that all muslims are terrorists.
It's easy. You don't want certain folk in some place. Certain folk buy a piece of land and do something that is well within their rights to do. You either make it completely hostile so that they cannot practice their rights, or you use backdoor methods to prevent their exercise of their rights. There's always going to be some amount of bitching or protest, fine. But there's nothing one can legitimately do until the original person does something which infringes upon the rights of others. Thus saying that society has values and if someone doesn't hold those values it's fine to do whatever it takes to ensure said person doesn't do anything against those values even if what that person wanted to do was completely within their rights to do.
A good example of such is the initial use of the marriage license, which was created to prevent interracial marriage. Society had "values", these other folk wanted to marry but society didn't want them to marry. So they created instead, and enforced through government force, a system which would actively prevent the act; in this case interracial marriage. It was an unjust act and one of tyranny against the individual as it, without warrant or charge or proof acted against the free exercise of someone's rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?