We've invaded two Muslim nations in the last ten years, and we're going to ask for "sensitivity" from those who practice Islam?- which they can then express by a willingness to forgo the right to build where the law of our land says they can, and to engage in activities- protected by the Constitution of the United States- in the practice of their religion? Sensitivity seems hardly to weigh in these scales. Our uniqueness, when compared to most of the Muslim World, is in the Rule of Law, and the guarantee of civil liberties: that is where we should stand- not on our "sensibilities", however aroused they may be.
How can it be the choice of the people...? Cant even pretend to agree with that one. My granddad fought all 3 wars for Finland versus Soviet. A vast majority of the Finnish people were against picking a fight with Soviet. The decision was made by the President of that time. Guess who was the first one to leave the country when the first Soviet tanks moved towards the border...? He is buried in an unmarked grave because people want to destroy his remains for what he did.
V, if you remember correctly the first attacks on the World Trade Centers were made well before 9-11. There was the attempt to blow the Centers up by driving explosive laden trucks into the parking garage underneath the Centers. The battle between Islam and the West has been going on for many years. I'm not sure if it can be traced back before the creation of Israel in 1946 or not, but my guess is that it goes back much further than that. To the radicals we are the enemy and always will be. We treat women as equals and even allow them to go out in public with their faces and arms bare. We have a level of freedom that they do not understand. You have to remember that their perspective is one that only their religion matters and their warped interpretation of it. To think that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only catalysts creating martyrs is very narrow and misleading. For these radicals to continue in power they must have enemies. The West and Israel are the enemies they have created and even if those enemies were gone they would have to have some other country or people to hate or they lose their power base. The Rule of Law that our society was founded on is a very noble principle that must be maintained. However, when the Rule of Law gets perverted to the point where the people become endangered then we have to step back and reasess when we need to say NO. Where is that point? That is a vey good question and we could probably draw a hundred different viewpoints on that. One of my favorite sayings is "The line between nice guy and fool is very slender." Allowing all freedoms no matter what the consequence falls under that same mantle. If the liberals who say that the mosque should be allowed because of religious freedom then they should agree to unbridled gun ownership because of the right to bear arms. For me a radical iman loses his right to religious freedom when he starts agreeing with Hamas and going against the same country that allows him to practice his religion.
Twini, the previous administration got us to thinking that lawlessness was the way to deal with the threats faced by the nation, and reasserted a right of the government, and especially of the executive branch, to exercise power without restraint of law. But, Rule of Law simply means all are subject to the laws of the land. This was first established by the Megna Carta: prior to that, it was thought that those governing made the laws but were not themselves subject to them. Rule of Law is essentially contentless: we establish by law what is permissible and what is not. If those who establish a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center buildings violate the laws, they will be subject to any punishments associated with those violations. We will protect ourselves by doing what is necessary to detect and interdict crimes and conspiracies that arise from the operation of the mosque, if there are any. There is no contradiction, nor any weakness, implied in our system. On the contrary, it is potentially the strongest known to man, eliciting the unqualified support of its people when it is observed to the fullest possible extent. ____________________
So all would be good if we send a few guys over to blast the "Dome of the Rock" to pieces and then 10 years later build a Catholic church in it's place, providing doing so doesn't contravene any zoning bylaws, etc.? (Note "the Dome of the Rock" is the oldest existing Mosque, built on the site of the Jewish holy "Temple Mount", in Jerusalem in 691-692 A.D.) It has been a guiding force in my life... the principal that though something may be legal doesn't make it right, moral or ethical. Regardless of what we have done (and I do believe there are many things we are accountable for) building a mosque on that site is a major provocation and a foolhardy act for those wishing to foster peace and understanding.
I'm refering to the choices of the people in control (or those able to seize control). Wasn't Mussolini captured and summarily executed by Italian partisans? Weren't there multiple assassination attempts on Hitler's life by his own generals to stop the War? Are you saying that the Nazi excuses of "we were only following orders" at the Nuremberg Trials were a valid defense worthy of acquittal? Are you saying there is no free will? Are you saying that there was no possibility that coup could occur to overthrow Hideki Tojo and lead to an earlier Japanese surrender? The Japanese Emperor could not have chosen to intervene sooner, before Japanese cities were leveled and save lives? Of course there was a choice. Granted not much for the average citizen but for the Country's leadership who are responsible for its citzens – no doubt! There was a choice especially when surrender was inevitable at that point for Japan. No need to be so dramatic. I never said civilians deserved to die in any context. It is an undeniable fact of every war that civilians will die and that is the reason war is horrific and must be avoided. Yet my point is still that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are not comparable to a war. Cold blooded murder is certainly different from war. Bottom line is that out of respect for the victims and their families, the Mosque does not need to be built so close to ground zero when there are other locations which are far less provocative & contentious.
You should check your history. The vast majority of the Japanese people had no idea what was going on. They were continuously told that they were winning the war and that they would emerge victorious and that their cause was right. Why would they try to overthrow the government when everything was apparently going great? Bottom line SHOULD be that Islam did not attack anyone. It was radical freaks that are using the name of Islam. If I (a Canadian) go out and start murdering people and claim that I'm doing it on behalf of the USA should the USA be blamed?
Brewster hit the nail directly on its head. The symbolism is so important to the radicals that this would be seen as a major victory for them. Remember they look at our freedoms as a sign of our weakness and moral decay. The fact that the mosque is allowed at all will be a further sign of our weakness. It's kind of funny to hear the freedom of religion argument brought up regarding the mosque. In the old days of the Soviet Union the government was their god because communism was their religion. That didn't stop us from chasing down their spys and fighting them at every turn. When religion goes from the mosque to the battlefield you lose the mantle of religious freedom. If I go on a corner in NY and blare out "Death to Islam" I would be arrested on hate crimes. Yet this mosque can do the same thing and hide behind religious freedom. Sorry I don't buy that argument at all.
Who isn't big on symbolism? EVERYONE uses symbolism. That should be no reason to not build anything. The USA has pretty much perfected the use of symbols. We all know they don't really represent true Islam... so then who cares what they think.
