(08-23-2010 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still don't see where anyone is arguing that they don't have a right to do it.

The argument is that along with that right comes a responsibility to exercise that right responsibly, and that this particular exercise of that right would do more harm than good.

I get the argument...but..IMO..it is moot. There has been (thus far) no evidence of theft,fraud or violence involved... so there is no harm and no victim. As much as I dislike this project...I do not have a right to "not be offended" by its construction. I again hope the marketplace will quash this waste of brick and mortar and show that the free market can self regulate itself even in cases of social issues... If not...then I will just have to live with it.

If I wish to live free...I have to let others do the same as long as no theft,fraud or violence is involved in their actions. I really can not stray from that position and be an advocate of liberty.

(08-23-2010 09:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still don't see where anyone is arguing that they don't have a right to do it.
The argument is that along with that right comes a responsibility to exercise that right responsibly, and that this particular exercise of that right would do more harm than good.

I get the argument...but..IMO..it is moot. There has been (thus far) no evidence of theft,fraud or violence involved... so there is no harm and no victim. As much as I dislike this project...I do not have a right to "not be offended" by its construction. I again hope the marketplace will quash this waste of brick and mortar and show that the free market can self regulate itself even in cases of social issues... If not...then I will just have to live with it.
If I wish to live free...I have to let others do the same as long as no theft,fraud or violence is involved in their actions. I really can not stray from that position and be an advocate of liberty.

Agreed. As I said, I don't necessarily buy the argument, but if you're going to oppose it, at least oppose the proper argument.

(08-23-2010 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 08:57 PM)jh Wrote:  But there are also those that have argued that that decision should be made for them or who have only lately switched to a more nuanced position.
I simply do not understand how "the Muslims have a right to build a mosque near Ground Zero" and "the government should step in to prevent the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero" are mutually compatible ideas.

With every right comes an accompanying duty to exercise that right responsibly. The argument is not that they don't have the right, but that this represents an irresponsible exercise of that right. The reason that government action was advocated has less to do with a change of position than with the fact that the matter was pending before specific government agencies that were being urged to take preventive action.

Maybe another example where IIRC, you are on the other side of the fence, might help. I have the right to bear arms. Does that mean I can take my gun into a bar? No, because that would be an irresponsible exercise of that right. Will the government--in the form of a police officer--take action to stop me--in the form of arresting me? You betcha.

Here, because of the extreme emotional pain very likely to be inflicted, the argument is that this is an irresponsible exercise.

I'm not 100% sure I buy that argument, but that is a correct statement of the argument that I've seen expressed by everyone who posted in opposition.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps we just have different conceptions of rights.

In your example I would not agree that you have a right to carry a gun into a bar since it is illegal (whether or not it should be is an entirely different story). You have the ability to do so, and the closer our political conception of rights comes to our natural abilities (some might call them natural rights), the better off we are, but that's different. Under your construction, you do not have an unrestricted right to bear arms. Either the right is improperly defined or the law is illegitimate (neither is uncommon in the real world). Something cannot be both be a right and illegal.

A right which cannot be practiced is not a right in any meaningful sense. Otherwise women & Chrisitans in arab countries would have just as many rights as we do. They don't. Saying that all people have inalienable rights doesn't matter unless the government recognizes those rights (though it can be a powerful rhetorical & inspirational tool to use against oppressive governments).

(08-23-2010 09:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So you're ignoring the Wal-Mart example? People argue that it will "ruin the downtown area" to put a Wal-Mart on the loop!! So what? Why is that Wal-Mart's problem??

If you don't want Wal-Mart to build, where do you go for redress?? You picket, you go to city council and the zoning commission... It happens every day.

You argue that this is a violation of personal property rights, but those rights for most other "businesses" get violated every day.... If I want to put up a porn shop, I have to apply, and people can come comment and possibly have me shut down... If I want to put in a bar, same thing. A Wal-Mart... a feed lot... a Nuclear Power Plant... Why is THIS the poster child for "freedom"??

As to the threats... No one and "not one single person anywhere at any time" aren't the same for these purposes. You had to go to a different thread to find quotes, and as I said, the context could matter when saying someone is "threatening violence"... They COULD simply be frustrated with someone who regularly argues that Wal-Mart should be stopped from building in BFE now wants to defend the property rights of "The Cordoba Project",... forgive me if that isn't the name... I don't want to look it up

once agtain, Owl one-ups me with his gun example

Ham....I get the point...but... I would rather see people just ostracize WalMart and deny it market share... and do the same in regard to this mosque project by simply not participating in its construction. Turning to the bureaucratic thugs as a solution to this problem is a slap in the face of liberty. If we do not have property rights....We have NOTHING!!!
Property rights are the ONLY true right we possess. Deny them...and you DOOM us to tyranny!!

(08-23-2010 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still don't see where anyone is arguing that they don't have a right to do it.
The argument is that along with that right comes a responsibility to exercise that right responsibly, and that this particular exercise of that right would do more harm than good.

I get the argument...but..IMO..it is moot. There has been (thus far) no evidence of theft,fraud or violence involved... so there is no harm and no victim. As much as I dislike this project...I do not have a right to "not be offended" by its construction. I again hope the marketplace will quash this waste of brick and mortar and show that the free market can self regulate itself even in cases of social issues... If not...then I will just have to live with it.
If I wish to live free...I have to let others do the same as long as no theft,fraud or violence is involved in their actions. I really can not stray from that position and be an advocate of liberty.

Agreed. As I said, I don't necessarily buy the argument, but if you're going to oppose it, at least oppose the proper argument.

What is bothering me about this situation is that we are missing a great opportunity to allow the marketplace to show its true greatness. No one in politics or in the media expounds the idea that ostracism is the perfect solution to this situation....Instead all I see is people wanting to use the force of government to stop it and thus degrade the foundation of private property rights. If we really want to send a message to those that oppose liberty and free markets...then we have the perfect platform to do so with this issue.

(08-23-2010 09:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So you're ignoring the Wal-Mart example? People argue that it will "ruin the downtown area" to put a Wal-Mart on the loop!! So what? Why is that Wal-Mart's problem??

I thought Wal-Mart was covered in the people have a right to protest section.

Quote:If you don't want Wal-Mart to build, where do you go for redress?? You picket, you go to city council and the zoning commission... It happens every day.

You argue that this is a violation of personal property rights, but those rights for most other "businesses" get violated every day.... If I want to put up a porn shop, I have to apply, and people can come comment and possibly have me shut down... If I want to put in a bar, same thing. A Wal-Mart... a feed lot... a Nuclear Power Plant... Why is THIS the poster child for "freedom"??

There's no thread about Wal Mart. If there was, I would argue that it is a violation of property rights in the abstract sense (particularly if the land in question is already properly zoned - where zoning laws are in effect you do not have unrestricted property rights. I believe the land the mosque is on was already properly zoned. Changing it now would be an arbitrary exercise of government power), although that term is basically meaningless as a political right since the Kelo decision. Those people are arguing that Wal Mart doesn't have a right to build a store in their community, that they should be prohibited by law, not that Wal Mart has a right to do so but shouldn't. If the latter was their argument they wouldn't need to use the power of the government.

This is a case where an abstract conception of a right is used to argue against the further erosion of a political right. Rights are meaningless if they are restricted to what is popular, but I don't think this mosque is the poster child for freedom. I don't believe there is such a thing. There will never be a case where, if we just win this one, our rights will be secured.

Quote:As to the threats... No one and "not one single person anywhere at any time" aren't the same for these purposes. You had to go to a different thread to find quotes, and as I said, the context could matter when saying someone is "threatening violence"... They COULD simply be frustrated with someone who regularly argues that Wal-Mart should be stopped from building in BFE now wants to defend the property rights of "The Cordoba Project",... forgive me if that isn't the name... I don't want to look it up

I was responding to a post that criticized both RobertN and Obama for attempting to change the subject by bringing up the property rights issue. As Obama has yet to post on this forum, I fail to see why there would be an expectation that responses would be limited to this thread. And I didn't just post quotes from anyone, annywhere, I included a canidate for congress and two potention presidential canidates (that was more for the Obama side).

(08-23-2010 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still don't see where anyone is arguing that they don't have a right to do it.
The argument is that along with that right comes a responsibility to exercise that right responsibly, and that this particular exercise of that right would do more harm than good.

I get the argument...but..IMO..it is moot. There has been (thus far) no evidence of theft,fraud or violence involved... so there is no harm and no victim. As much as I dislike this project...I do not have a right to "not be offended" by its construction. I again hope the marketplace will quash this waste of brick and mortar and show that the free market can self regulate itself even in cases of social issues... If not...then I will just have to live with it.
If I wish to live free...I have to let others do the same as long as no theft,fraud or violence is involved in their actions. I really can not stray from that position and be an advocate of liberty.

Agreed. As I said, I don't necessarily buy the argument, but if you're going to oppose it, at least oppose the proper argument.

What is bothering me about this situation is that we are missing a great opportunity to allow the marketplace to show its true greatness. No one in politics or in the media expounds the idea that ostracism is the perfect solution to this situation....Instead all I see is people wanting to use the force of government to stop it and thus degrade the foundation of private property rights. If we really want to send a message to those that oppose liberty and free markets...then we have the perfect platform to do so with this issue.

How do you suppose the free marketplace will do the heavy lift in this situation? Realistically.

(08-23-2010 11:31 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still don't see where anyone is arguing that they don't have a right to do it.
The argument is that along with that right comes a responsibility to exercise that right responsibly, and that this particular exercise of that right would do more harm than good.

I get the argument...but..IMO..it is moot. There has been (thus far) no evidence of theft,fraud or violence involved... so there is no harm and no victim. As much as I dislike this project...I do not have a right to "not be offended" by its construction. I again hope the marketplace will quash this waste of brick and mortar and show that the free market can self regulate itself even in cases of social issues... If not...then I will just have to live with it.
If I wish to live free...I have to let others do the same as long as no theft,fraud or violence is involved in their actions. I really can not stray from that position and be an advocate of liberty.

Agreed. As I said, I don't necessarily buy the argument, but if you're going to oppose it, at least oppose the proper argument.

What is bothering me about this situation is that we are missing a great opportunity to allow the marketplace to show its true greatness. No one in politics or in the media expounds the idea that ostracism is the perfect solution to this situation....Instead all I see is people wanting to use the force of government to stop it and thus degrade the foundation of private property rights. If we really want to send a message to those that oppose liberty and free markets...then we have the perfect platform to do so with this issue.

How do you suppose the free marketplace will do the heavy lift in this situation? Realistically.

By choosing not to participate in any aspect of this project. This project can not be built without partners from the marketplace.

Fo. Fair enough. Don't disagree... Agree with 99.99999% of it. Only comment is that "public appeals" and requests to things like zoning commissions etc are also part of the process. I agree it might be better if it weren't, but it is

JH, People also have the right to seek redress through the government, which you want to deny them. I'm sure Wal-Mart's plans comply with building codes etc. TYPICAL arguments against Wal Marts are things like traffic. There are "protests" in the Heights in Houston right now... Zoned commercial, but locals are against "big box" commercial. Not part of the code, but that doesn't mean they aren't making the argument and might not win... or at least convince Wal-Mart to move, including potential variances/incentives by the city to do so. In other words, while legal, it is against the public interest... and thus should be "encouraged" to relocate. The government is the one you go to who decides what is in "the public" interest.

I'm fine with you believing this is wrong for all... and I can't take issue with that position and generally support it, but you can't put the stuff back in the horse. Many of the same people who support this Mosque oppose things like Wal-Marts. If our concern is the public good and 65% or more of the local public are against it at that location, the city should encourage it to move... If they can't make it illegal, then they could/should find other ways to "encourage" them... just as they do Wal-Mart or the slaughterhouse.

Finally as to your quotes... I understand that those posts are perfectly appropriate for the original purpose... I just think it's unreasonable to think that EVERYONE knows that it is legal, Heck, Pelosi seems to think that protesting is illegal... or that EVERY comment by those that know this fully support and acknowledge that right. Clearly, the vast majority get that it is legal... but that doesn't mean we support it... and as such, we generally support finding peaceful, legal ways to make it "not happen". I realize that peaceful and legal isn't always expressed... but this IS a forum for argument, and sometimes things get heated.

Quote:JH, People also have the right to seek redress through the government, which you want to deny them. I'm sure Wal-Mart's plans comply with building codes etc. TYPICAL arguments against Wal Marts are things like traffic. There are "protests" in the Heights in Houston right now... Zoned commercial, but locals are against "big box" commercial. Not part of the code, but that doesn't mean they aren't making the argument and might not win... or at least convince Wal-Mart to move, including potential variances/incentives by the city to do so. In other words, while legal, it is against the public interest... and thus should be "encouraged" to relocate. The government is the one you go to who decides what is in "the public" interest.

Where am I saying that people don't have a right to seek redress through the government? People should be free to seek redress for anything they want to. Most of the time the government should ignore them, politely if possible.

I'm saying that people who try & use the coercive power of the government to keep something from being built are denying that the owner of the land has a right to build there. This doesn't change even if Wal Mart (or the mosque) needed to apply for a zoning variance. It doesn't matter whether or not it is in the public interest. If you are using the government to stop it (even if the proposed construction is stopped by an existing regulation being fairly enforced), you are arguing that they don't have a right to build there.
The government does not exist to serve the public’s interests. It exists to protect the rights of its citizens, regardless of the public sentiment.

Quote:I'm fine with you believing this is wrong for all... and I can't take issue with that position and generally support it, but you can't put the stuff back in the horse. Many of the same people who support this Mosque oppose things like Wal-Marts. If our concern is the public good and 65% or more of the local public are against it at that location, the city should encourage it to move... If they can't make it illegal, then they could/should find other ways to "encourage" them... just as they do Wal-Mart or the slaughterhouse.

And many people who oppose this mosque support Wal Mart. This is just another example of how many people are willing to subvert their principles in service of their cause.

That it is difficult to put the stuff back in the horse is no reason to stop trying to keep more from coming out. I would also argue that it is no reason to stop trying instead of just giving up, but that doesn't really work with the analogy.

Quote:Finally as to your quotes... I understand that those posts are perfectly appropriate for the original purpose... I just think it's unreasonable to think that EVERYONE knows that it is legal, Heck, Pelosi seems to think that protesting is illegal... or that EVERY comment by those that know this fully support and acknowledge that right. Clearly, the vast majority get that it is legal... but that doesn't mean we support it... and as such, we generally support finding peaceful, legal ways to make it "not happen". I realize that peaceful and legal isn't always expressed... but this IS a forum for argument, and sometimes things get heated.

Actually, I’m not sure that the vast majority of people do get it (and certainly not the vast majority of Republicans). Here is a poll from The Economist/YouGov (it was the first one I found that didn’t just survey visitors to a site & clearly stated the question at hand). According to this, 33% of the general population and 53% of Republicans do not believe that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Not that they shouldn't build there (those numbers are 58% and 88%), that they don't have a right. Since 17% of the general population, and 15% of Republicans, are undecided, that means that 50% of the general population and 68% of Republicans do not understand that the Muslims have a right to build there.

A striking 14% of the general population agree with Newt Gingrich that no mosques should be allowed to be built anywhere in America.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...round_zero

*** I was incorrect in my characterization of Gingrich's position. He statement was related only to the mosque near Ground Zero and not in the rest of America.

(08-24-2010 09:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 11:31 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I get the argument...but..IMO..it is moot. There has been (thus far) no evidence of theft,fraud or violence involved... so there is no harm and no victim. As much as I dislike this project...I do not have a right to "not be offended" by its construction. I again hope the marketplace will quash this waste of brick and mortar and show that the free market can self regulate itself even in cases of social issues... If not...then I will just have to live with it.
If I wish to live free...I have to let others do the same as long as no theft,fraud or violence is involved in their actions. I really can not stray from that position and be an advocate of liberty.

Agreed. As I said, I don't necessarily buy the argument, but if you're going to oppose it, at least oppose the proper argument.

What is bothering me about this situation is that we are missing a great opportunity to allow the marketplace to show its true greatness. No one in politics or in the media expounds the idea that ostracism is the perfect solution to this situation....Instead all I see is people wanting to use the force of government to stop it and thus degrade the foundation of private property rights. If we really want to send a message to those that oppose liberty and free markets...then we have the perfect platform to do so with this issue.

How do you suppose the free marketplace will do the heavy lift in this situation? Realistically.

By choosing not to participate in any aspect of this project. This project can not be built without partners from the marketplace.

I said realistically, you cannot think that all construction workers, union or otherwise, NY or otherwise, will not become whores for the money. Or are you thinking some construction workers will obstruct the construction with their power over the marketplace. c'mon, man it’s high time you stopped believing the fantasy.

(08-24-2010 02:43 PM)jh Wrote:  Where am I saying that people don't have a right to seek redress through the government? People should be free to seek redress for anything they want to. Most of the time the government should ignore them, politely if possible.

I'm saying that people who try & use the coercive power of the government to keep something from being built are denying that the owner of the land has a right to build there. This doesn't change even if Wal Mart (or the mosque) needed to apply for a zoning variance. It doesn't matter whether or not it is in the public interest. If you are using the government to stop it (even if the proposed construction is stopped by an existing regulation being fairly enforced), you are arguing that they don't have a right to build there.
The government does not exist to serve the public’s interests. It exists to protect the rights of its citizens, regardless of the public sentiment.

I get your point, but arguing that your specific exercising of your rights infringes upon the rights of others is not the same as arguing that you don't have that right. I am free to exercise my religious right, but I can't kill a goat in my apartment. I have to go somewhere else where my expression doesn't offend others. If I find your exercise of your rights offensive and infringing upon mine, then I go to "the state" for redress. The citizens of New York have rights that MIGHT be at conflict with the rights of the proposed mosque builders... who BTW, AFAIK, apparently don't yet own the property. PART of the argument as I understand it is allowing the property owner to deny the lease/sale because it might hurt their business without charges of racism. If I'm wrong on this, it doesn't change my argument.

Quote:That it is difficult to put the stuff back in the horse is no reason to stop trying to keep more from coming out. I would also argue that it is no reason to stop trying instead of just giving up, but that doesn't really work with the analogy.

LOL... as to the specifics, I go back to what I said above. I don't have the right to "not be offended"... IOW, I could lose the argument... but if your rights infringe upon mine, I get my day in court.

Quote:

Quote:Finally as to your quotes... I understand that those posts are perfectly appropriate for the original purpose... I just think it's unreasonable to think that EVERYONE knows that it is legal, Heck, Pelosi seems to think that protesting is illegal... or that EVERY comment by those that know this fully support and acknowledge that right. Clearly, the vast majority get that it is legal... but that doesn't mean we support it... and as such, we generally support finding peaceful, legal ways to make it "not happen". I realize that peaceful and legal isn't always expressed... but this IS a forum for argument, and sometimes things get heated.

Actually, I’m not sure that the vast majority of people do get it (and certainly not the vast majority of Republicans). Here is a poll from The Economist/YouGov (it was the first one I found that didn’t just survey visitors to a site & clearly stated the question at hand). According to this, 33% of the general population and 53% of Republicans do not believe that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Not that they shouldn't build there (those numbers are 58% and 88%), that they don't have a right. Since 17% of the general population, and 15% of Republicans, are undecided, that means that 50% of the general population and 68% of Republicans do not understand that the Muslims have a right to build there.

A striking 14% of the general population agree with Newt Gingrich that no mosques should be allowed to be built anywhere in America.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...round_zero

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that is what he said. This could certainly be edited, but his website says

Quote:There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

As to the poll. the 14% doesn't surprise me when you consider the athiests who don't think religious buildings of ANY kind should be built... the strictly religious who don't suppport any religion but their own... the people who are understandably irrationally bitter because they have been directly negatively impacted by Islamic terrorists... and bald-faced racists.

as to the broader question... I'm willing to bet that just like the NYT editor... having the LEGAL right to do something isn't the same to most people as "having the right". Of course, I could be 100% wrong... but as you said in your defense of not having Obama posting on this thread... the people in that poll aren't posting here. VERY few people on this forum have echoed that sentiment... and virtually NOBODY when "pressed".. IOW, what I just said about rights. I'm certain that a great number of people don't really understand the issue either. I'm betting there's a reasonable number of people who don't know that Ground Zero isn't some kind of "shrine"... or that the proposed Mosque isn't right there on the site... which WOULD probably make it illegal.

(08-24-2010 02:50 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 09:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 11:31 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Agreed. As I said, I don't necessarily buy the argument, but if you're going to oppose it, at least oppose the proper argument.

What is bothering me about this situation is that we are missing a great opportunity to allow the marketplace to show its true greatness. No one in politics or in the media expounds the idea that ostracism is the perfect solution to this situation....Instead all I see is people wanting to use the force of government to stop it and thus degrade the foundation of private property rights. If we really want to send a message to those that oppose liberty and free markets...then we have the perfect platform to do so with this issue.

How do you suppose the free marketplace will do the heavy lift in this situation? Realistically.

By choosing not to participate in any aspect of this project. This project can not be built without partners from the marketplace.

I said realistically, you cannot think that all construction workers, union or otherwise, NY or otherwise, will not become whores for the money. Or are you thinking some construction workers will obstruct the construction with their power over the marketplace. c'mon, man it’s high time you stopped believing the fantasy.

I expect you are correct and that people will "sell out" themselves. America is a nation of sell outs without principles. Get ready to see a mosque at ground zero. Personally...I could not live with myself knowing I participated in this monstrosity.

(08-22-2010 11:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 10:55 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 10:41 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Unfortunately, like you and others, he has obviously repeated what the news media is feeding all of us. Also, just because he said it was doesn't make it so.

A place where Christians come together to worship is called a Church, a place where Jews come together to worship is called a Temple, what is a place where Muslim come together to worship called?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51

Plans are for the facility to include a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, food court serving halal dishes, and prayer space for 1,000–2,000 Muslims.

the building is currently used for Muslim worship, the proposed location of the project triggered an intense nationwide controversy.

The Initiative said that some services planned for the Cordoba House, such as the restaurant and performance center, disqualify it from being a mosque.


They are saying its not a mosque because of the other thins in the building. I've been to churches with Coffee bars and I'm afraid that does not make them a star bucks.

But it's ok the project coordinators, like you, have a massive ability to compartmentalize

"However, the official website for the facility says it will include "a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community"."

All of this distracts from the fact that *nobody* has said they don't have a 'right' to build it at that location just that they should refrain from acting on it.

Maybe if you use the English definition of mosque. Of course, that is an interpretation of what makes a mosque a mosque or a church a church etc.

The only meaningful criteria for definition of a mosque that I'm concerned about is whether they would be willing to relinquish this piece of land at any point in the future, or do the members of this mosque regard this as Muslim land in perpetuity, as say OBL regards, well Cordoba.

(08-23-2010 08:01 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 06:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:as for i-45, can you commit violence against a building?

I think most people consider arson to be a violent act. It's also one in which it is impossible to determine if it will be non-lethal until after the fire is out. I don't want to quibble about whether or not arson is considered violent, because it doesn't matter.

Over & above his endorsement of arson, he also endorses any other non-lethal, note that he does not state non-violent but only non-lethal, means of shutting down the project. Presumably that would include physical assault of the workers or owners which is clearly a violent act.

I will grant your points and admit that my previous post is a mistake in judgement. I don't want to see this monstrosity built, but should not have advocated arson or other forms of violence.

BTW, jh and I believe FO (hard to keep up)... if it wasn't obvious... I apologize for misunderstanding your position initially. You are for markets and against government intervention AT ALL... I thought you were only against it in this instance. I respect the position.... and agree there are lots of morons out there in general... I find that number pretty limited in here, despite some pretty wildly differing political opinions.

(08-24-2010 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 02:43 PM)jh Wrote:  Where am I saying that people don't have a right to seek redress through the government? People should be free to seek redress for anything they want to. Most of the time the government should ignore them, politely if possible.

I'm saying that people who try & use the coercive power of the government to keep something from being built are denying that the owner of the land has a right to build there. This doesn't change even if Wal Mart (or the mosque) needed to apply for a zoning variance. It doesn't matter whether or not it is in the public interest. If you are using the government to stop it (even if the proposed construction is stopped by an existing regulation being fairly enforced), you are arguing that they don't have a right to build there.
The government does not exist to serve the public’s interests. It exists to protect the rights of its citizens, regardless of the public sentiment.

I get your point, but arguing that your specific exercising of your rights infringes upon the rights of others is not the same as arguing that you don't have that right. I am free to exercise my religious right, but I can't kill a goat in my apartment. I have to go somewhere else where my expression doesn't offend others. If I find your exercise of your rights offensive and infringing upon mine, then I go to "the state" for redress. The citizens of New York have rights that MIGHT be at conflict with the rights of the proposed mosque builders... who BTW, AFAIK, apparently don't yet own the property. PART of the argument as I understand it is allowing the property owner to deny the lease/sale because it might hurt their business without charges of racism. If I'm wrong on this, it doesn't change my argument.

I disagree that, properly defined, rights can ever be in conflict. If someone has a right which precludes you from taking an action, you do not have the right to take that action. It's the whole "you're right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins" thing - it's not that there is a conflict between your right to swing your arm and my right not to have my nose broken (even if you are just a placekicker) are in conflict - it's that your right to swing your arm doesn't include the right to hit me in the face. It might not be obvious at first which right is right, but only one can be. If New Yorkers have some right that the mosque would be violating (I can't imagine what it would be), then the Muslims would not have the right to build there.

I thought that they did already own it and are currently using it as a prayer center. If they don't yet own it, I have no problem with the property owner refusing to sell it to them.

Quote:I could be wrong, but I don't believe that is what he said. This could certainly be edited, but his website says

Quote:There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

I believe you are correct & I misstated Gingrich's position. I should have confirmed it before posting. I will edit the post accordingly.

Quote:“We insist on calling it a prayer space and not a mosque, because you can use a prayer space for activities apart from prayer. You can’t stop anyone who is a Muslim despite his religious ideology from entering the mosque and staying there,” said Imam Rauf’s wife and partner, Daisy Khan, who runs the American Society for Muslim Advancement, from an office housed on the Upper West Side’s famed Riverside Church. “With a prayer space, we can control who gets to use it.”

Hum. Would I be called names if I were to do some speculating as to why they might want to, at times, keep even fellow Muslims out? What "activities" would they want to lock out Muslims who might have a differing "ideology"?

(08-24-2010 05:23 PM)jh Wrote:  I disagree that, properly defined, rights can ever be in conflict. If someone has a right which precludes you from taking an action, you do not have the right to take that action. It's the whole "you're right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins" thing - it's not that there is a conflict between your right to swing your arm and my right not to have my nose broken (even if you are just a placekicker) are in conflict - it's that your right to swing your arm doesn't include the right to hit me in the face. It might not be obvious at first which right is right, but only one can be. If New Yorkers have some right that the mosque would be violating (I can't imagine what it would be), then the Muslims would not have the right to build there.

Be careful about kickers there JH... and I may be wrong about the Mosque as the argument was once, there's already a mosque 2 blocks away in defense of THIS mosque... but I think we generally agree on the differences...

Seems like we're SOMEWHAT arguing semantics in that I can swing my arm HERE and not violate your rights... but if I swing it THERE... I am. So the right I have to swing my arm is correct, but limited by exactly where I do it... which is why I mentioned the goat slaughter and Wal-Mart. Property rights are OFTEN infringed because they often put burdens on society... traffic, parking, late night crowds, noise, lights, smells, utilities, emissions, or in the case of things like churches, the fact that certain businesses and maybe even people can't be located within certain distances. Obviously I don't know the specifics of the NY situation... but I'm aware that property rights can conflict with eachother, even when properly defined... Unless you're arguing that people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want with their property. While I GENERALLY support this, there are limits... and sort of like yelling fire in a movie theatre, your "free speech" rights also have limits.

Anyway, we've gone an awful long way down this alley. I appreciate your position. I reiterate my position that if the purpose of the center is to promote peace, that it could be done just as easily a few blocks away. They aren't winning any friends by adopting the stance they have. While they may not have a legal obligation to do so, it certainly doesn't help their claimed goal... which only emboldens their detractors.