It's not the government, it's the landowner.

He hired an architect to create the new tower (Freedom Tower), unfortunately this architect has 0 experience in buildings over 4 stories. Other architects reviewed the plans, and it would have immediately collapsed.

So the architect re-planned it, other architects reviewed it, and it would have been unusable with the elevator configuration.

So the architect re-planned it, other architects reviewed it, and again it would have immediately collapsed.

That's the last I heard about it... and this was a good 6 years ago.

That makes it a little clearer Seaver, but weren't a lot of the rejections coming from the State/City (perhaps they were arguing over the actually design?) or do I just have a horrible memory?

We don't have projects on the scale that Dubai does because we don't have a few hundred thousand slave laborers to do all the work for us.

And if anyone isn't aware of it, One WTC is under construction and is up to over 30 stories, with concrete poured for 26 or 27 as of the end of July.

its not that you dont have slave labour. thats not the issue. unemployment is so high jn the states that if work was really in demand, that those projects would create those thousands of jobs that needed to be filled. Dubai and Abu Dhabi have paved the way for their mega developments by ridding themselves of red tape that is endemic in the western world. in fact it is one thing i admire most about the UAE, it ability to 'get shit done'. what usually takes years of political infighting generally takes a few months here (like the Wage Protection System WPS that was introduced about a year ago now)

But lets not throw stones if we live in glass houses shall we. If we dig hard enough we could see how the western world subjugated the indigenous population for their own commercial gains

Unfortunately getting rid of the red tape helped ensure a death a day on the Burj Dubai during some months. Should we do that here?

it wasnt the red tape that was the cause of the death-a-day statistic, its the lack of saftey measures being implemented by main contractors and subcontractors.

In an emerging city in a boom period and running on tight construction programmes, safety is bound to be neglected sometimes. The last few years (and ever since the financial meltdown) have seen a marked decrease in the number of worker deaths and and increase in safety policies. But sometimes no matter how much you try and prevent accidents, or how much training you provide, you cant help accidents from occuring.

I'm assuming that if you were going to build WTC again, that the safety policies of US contractors are far more advanced and safety inspections by consultants and authorities more thorough than in an emerging nation. There's still many things to fix here, no doubt.

Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site - NYTimes.com

I'm am pleased with this. Obama has reasserted the importance of religious freedom by supporting the building of the community centre.

What do you think?
Has he unnecessarily waded into a political/religious debate?
Has he made the right move, as a president should support America's freedoms?

I think he's doing the right thing... also think it's going to hurt him greatly.

Frankly, it's the only correct response. The right ought to be cheering in the streets, given this display of support for constitutional principles.


*crickets*

Tea Party leader Mark Williams says Muslims worship a 'monkey god', blasts Ground Zero mosque

Just remember... it's not because of xenophobia they are opposed to the mosque....

I'm glad Obama is finally speaking up. Once again I did not vote for him but I'm continually growing fond of him.

I'm not pleased with Obama's insertion of opinion on local issues that do not involve local politicians. I'm fine with his position and outlook, but I don't think that it is the president's position that he weighs in on local issues. I've had this position since before he had a beer meeting.

It's not exactly a local issue if you consider the fact that this isn't the first time an Islamic center/mosque has been opposed by the public. This just happens to be a high-profile case.

I don't see it ever inappropriate for the President to support one of America's freedoms.

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

That comment about the monkey-god is laughable....I thought that Islam and Christianity essentially have the same god....

In front of an image of the constitution, no less.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/20...g_williams.jpg

what Obama should have said was..

"...as a citizen,I believe that Muslims have the same right to ..."

i personally dont think he should be speaking in the capacity of president in the case that his opinion influences any decisions.

Funny I don't see him supporting on any of the right to bear arms case, even the one in his own backyard of Chicago, IL. That was a very high profile case and his position on the right to bear arms is flip floppy at best.

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

exactly. just like the staff's words here are heard not as members of the community but as staff, his are heard as President unless he prefaces it as in your quote.

I am under the impression that it isn't a bad idea for a nation's leader to support a nation's freedoms.

Are you talking about a court case? That's another thing all together.

First starting with his position on gun control and then his comments on the latest Supreme Court ruling. I don't think it's another thing all together if you're saying that he's showing support of the Constitution freedoms.

Are you referring to his revising his position in his favouring the overturning the Washington gun ban? He's in line with a more open interpretation of the Second Amendment than he was before he was president. I don't know what he's said about Chicago.

So generally what we are seeing is a) his stating his support for the Second Amendment, and b) his stating his support for freedom of religion (First Amendment).

sorry, no.
If that's the case, then the LOCAL government and people should be able to determine if a mosque should be in the downtown area of Manhattan.

I see your point, but I don't see these as the same kind of issue.

It would only be the same if the gun ban or limitations were applied to a specific class of people, but it's applied to everyone who can or want to own guns within the area.

I don't see zoning laws stating things like, "Christian or Jewish houses of worship are permissible, other religions' houses of worship are permissible with a special permit; however, Islamic houses of worship are not permitted under any circumstances."

If it's okay to have other religious buildings in the area, then it should be okay to have an Islamic building in the area.

Let's not consider Islam the handgun or "assault rifle" of religions.

I don't disagree. It should be permissible. I'm for them building something anywhere including the area in question.

I am not in favor of any of the politicians from outside of the local area weighing in from David Paterson, Governor of NY to President Obama. They aren't involved in our day to day politics and should stay out of it. NY Gov. Paterson Mosque Compromis to "use government land" is folly and shows his ignorance and stupidity. It allows people to then weigh in on and critique him for his viewpoint that he shouldn't be judged on. This is why I believe that President Obama shouldn't have made a public statement on it. It could have easily been put out via other channels that it is his opinion but it didn't have to be an officially stated direct from the mouth statement.

There are already too many people who get involved in my hometown politics that are elected and appointed. I don't need more that come from outside of the area that I may not have elected to care for my area.

I think it would be even more so the case if it were a debate about how to organize the city, or maybe about municipal laws, or whatever. But this is an issue that goes as far as the Constitution. That's why I see it differently.

The overall effect of this extends beyond local politics.

A law that banned all houses of worship regardless of faith or denomination would be comparable with a gun ban. Trying to block muslim houses of worship specifically is not comparable.

Calling the people who carried out the attacks of 9 years ago muslims would be like calling Timothy McVeigh an American patriot, and refusing to allow a mosque to be built because of them is ugly and shameful. Obama is correct in supporting the right of all people to religious freedom, and given the absurd scale this has achieved I don't think he was out of line to speak in his official capacity either. The head of state is supporting a fundamental right upon which your country was founded. How is this wrong?

This ceased to be a local issue the minute it made international headlines.

If the local community board decided that it would not rezone the building or allow for the destruction and construction of a new building for the mosque that is the community board's right and duty. Many houses of worship here in NYC have changed hands over time one famous one is Bialystoker Synagogue which at one time was a Methodist Church. Many smaller churches have take over normal buildings and repurpose them as houses of worship to support the community.

This isn't about the people protesting it is about the local government being allowed to govern and control the space that it needs to without the interjections and objections of outside politicians and their pressure.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

This isn't a ban. It is a process for allowing and enforcing zoning laws.

Cyn, to me Obama seems to be speaking mostly to the issue of the people protesting it. Consider this aspect of the article:

yeah, i think there are levels of this that shouldn't be conflated.

there's the register that cyn's talking about, which is local zoning laws, the commission that makes determinations within that context and the political processes that cluster around them. that's local stuff. i don't see obama as weighing in with an idea of influencing the actual decision-making either way. in fact, i can imagine a scenario in which it would be counter-productive for him---or the president at any time--to even try to substantively influence such a process. i can imagine the commissioners saying fuck you over a perceived infringement of prerogatives.

the other level is the one of international embarrassment--not just state local or national--over this issue caused by the tea partiers. there was a delightful sign that was photographed yesterday, almost as good as the statements seaver quoted above. these people are an embarrassment. i don't blame the administration for making a move to counter the impression that americans are largely ignorant, xenophobic racists.

Let me get this straight: the community board in Lower Manhattan unanimously approved the center, didn't they?

I read that, but even if he speaks after the fact, it still is part of the story. I'd give it to him if he mentioned it a year or so later, to allow for there to be a separation of time to distance himself from it.

Sheldon Silver the most powerful Democrat in the state says about the protesters, "I believe people are entitled to their opinions. Disagreement is one of the fundamental principles of our country." He supports the mosque as a "freedom-of-religion issue."

I know that Sheldon has a history of if he doesn't like something going on in our neighborhood it quietly disappears politically or is engaged full on. It's his turf and I expect that as my elected official responsible for the Lower Manhattan area (District 64) he weigh in on things with responsibility. I see that from him, not from other politicians.

As far as the Landmarks Commission, they still can ensure that the building facade stay intact and that they cannot demo the building and build a new one.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------

I'm not 100% sure on unanimous, I believe some members abstained from voting, but it was approved.

Well, given that the board approved it, and given that the protests are generally against the idea of "Islam getting too close to '9/11 hallowed ground,' aka 'Ground Zero'," I have a tough time considering this as being anything other than a national if not international issue.

I see it as a First Amendment issue. I see it as an international cultural and religious issue.

I can't see it as a local issue once you move beyond the official steps regarding zoning and building regulations. I think this is because I see both 9/11 and Islam in a post-9/11 world as being anything but a purely local issue.

Sorry, Cyn, but it's pretty obvious that any chance of this being a strictly local issue ended 9 years ago next month. Just like the decision to leave the USS Arizona where it is wasn't a local issue.

It's also not a local issue since the media is reporting it as a national issue.

Honestly, "local issue" feels like the response of someone who wants to use that excuse to infringe on someone else's right to the practice of their religion.

Jazz, I think you're missing the rest of what I've stated. I don't want the LARGER political folks to weigh in on the spaces and musings of what goes on in the neighborhoods of Lower Manhattan. I'm fine with them weighing in on Ground Zero, but not outside of that space.

Most local community board meetings can be divisive arenas. It directly affects people's quality of life. CB3 voted to allow for a high rise, and now there is a The fact that the local DOT changed the thoroughfare from 2 lanes to 1 lane to access the Williamsburg Bridge means that there is heavy traffic today whereas before it was moderate to light traffic.

They keep building low income housing in my neighborhood, but won't do so in the areas that they are allowing the mosque. Nope, all that area is "luxury" housing.

The local board hasn't denied any house of worship that I have been able to find, but they do block low income housing all the time.

It's not like he took action or asked action to be taken. He simply stated publicly he agreed the mosque should be allowed.

The Tea guys/gals will use this to raise funds, no doubt about that. Can't have a monkey president supporting a monkey god religion... not in the US of A!

Thought this was an interesting angle: why would the muslim community *want* to build a mosque in such a sensitive, symbolic location? Why would they want to do it? The rent can't be cheap...

Why does anyone want to build a building anywhere?

Because there is a need for the growing Muslim community that is moving into the area.

The area is very under served as far as support services as historically it was not a residential area. Over the past 15 or so years has it has changed to include more residential housing. This means that supermarkets, houses of worship, and restaurants open after business hours and on weekends are required and demanded by the neighborhood.

Living in Manhattan you know the area better than me...I didn't know that particular area was heavily residential...I can see it from that point of view...I still think they are pushing things and it will come back to haunt them if they do decide to build there. Not that I personally wish harm to befall them but things are heating up nationally over this brings out the ugly side in people, and a sensitive matter to those who have family and friends who died on 9/11/01. I don't see this ending well its going to continue to fester and inflame emotions and ultimately bring all sorts of people with bad intentions out of the woodwork.

The place where the Murrah Building used to be in Oklahoma City is now Oaklahoma City National Memorial. Across the street is St. Joseph's Old Cathedral, and one block away is St. Peter's Episcopal Cathedral. Two blocks away is Frontline Fellowship and Skyline Church.

Tim McVeigh was Catholic. Not one fucking peep from anyone.

powerclowns got a point.

there'll be those that will have the knives out waiting for the first excuse to call for its closure in order to justify their POV. So i dont think this is going to be an issue that is going to go away anytime soon. It will pop up in the news again. I'm hoping for reasons of cross cultural diversity and interfaith dialogue, but that doesnt sell news does it?

it does seem to me that everytime there is a mosque opening up, the proposal seems to make the national news, regardless of what country you live in. this just so happens to be the close to the most notable in the last decade.

When Al Qaeda sets off an atom bomb on Wall street it won't matter anymore will it?

as always, conservatives are taking the high road.

GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam - POLITICO.com Print View

I'm just glad that Republicans aren't race and culture baiting again in this election cycle. Surely if they did, no one would fall for it, right? I mean it's not like they could take issues that have existed for 10 to 30 years or so, pretend that they just occurred in the past 6 months, and then whip up a furor in advance of elections in November...because that would be crazy.

edit: slight semantic shift

no it wont.

what your point and what's it got to do with AQ and this mosque?

it would be crazy, pig (nice to see you, btw)

so rather than risk that, conservatives are combining cultural/religious/xenophobia with a bit of good old american racist fun and excitement:

washingtonpost.com

This is one of the many reasons I believe Obama shouldn't have stepped into it, but it gives more fodder to those that oppose him. Again, some people believe that he endorses it, so now he has to clarify it. In clarifying it he'll have to further engage in conversations about it.

It didn't really need clarification. I'm sure he was pushed for it by the media. If anything, it was the media reaction that need clarifying. And I'm sure if he went long enough without saying anything that the right would have called him out for pussyfooting around the issue. Because, you know, the President shouldn't ignore such a national issue about Ground Zero.

You can't win.

The bigots on the right have pushed this to such a large issue that Obama has no choice but to get involved.

here's a timeline that tracks the development of this absurd right-wing "ground zero mosque" meme:

How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began - War Room - Salon.com

the article tracks is back to a single racist asshole conservative blogger, pamela geller.

not sure if it's quite as linear as the salon piece maintains, but it's nonetheless interesting to have a narrative to point to that shows something of how a meme comes into being. lets you see the underpinning of the raft the right would fill with racists.

btw i think it's a **really** dangerous game the conservatives are playing, legitimating american fascism as they are.

dont forget, Obama is really an undercover muslim. no wonder he's supported the WTC mosque.

i havent heard that one yet, but i wouldnt be surprised if it did come up soon.

If it really is that bad, it's probably the single most disgusting thing to arise out of 9/11 since the push to go to war with Iraq. Way to use a tragedy to push for more tragedy. The last thing the right should be doing right now is alienate, marginalize, and otherwise demonize Muslims at home and abroad. Way to go. But if you can prey on the fear of your voters in such a way that will put you in power, then, hey, why not? That's politics. Besides, it's all about looking ahead. Someone has to keep the military industrial complex chugging along. Someone has to be The Enemy.

C'mon, you know someone—somewhere—has already said that and meant it. It's a question of how many.

It was Obama choice to get involved, the only real issue had to do with historic landmark, and zoning. Now it ends up another part of the space is owned by the MTA, which makes the issue slightly different. I am not against freedom of religion, and I think we all need to be tolerant. I do not want us to be a nation which the government should have any say over this even if as a PR stunt. The media has full rights to interview people and say whether they feel that it should be considering ramifications how the families of 9/11 victoms may react. And people have a right to protest as well, that is what freedom is. But our politicians leaders should stand up and say exactly that.

my remark came from the juxtaposition of the three chunks of infotainment i happened across today---the politico piece about how encouraging reactionary fears of muslim people is now part of conservative strategy; the salon piece that traces the development of the particular canard this thread's based around, the "ground zero mosque" to a particular racist asshole conservative blogger, pamela geller; and the washington post article about the tea partiers gathered in the aridzona desert as a protest--400 of them---which shows you that the press is willing to cover almost ANYTHING the tea party does--but i remember a protest against the war in iraq in dc that drew over 2 million people that got less press than does a gathering of 400 neo-fascists in the fucking desert...

anyway, yeah. it's a problem, where the political situation is may be heading, and alot of that has to do with the political...um....problems that the right has encountered thanks to the realities their politics have contributed significantly to producing, coupled with the fact that they continue to attract big money from the same donors who funded the rise of the conservative media apparatus---so the corpse still twitches---and in an attempt to figure out a way to regain all-important market share and by extension traction, they're willing to get into bed with the ultra-right.

so these kind of wedge-political actions are, i suppose, to be expected.
but i think it could backfire in a number of ways.
the one that concerns me is that the right manages to gain ground in the midterm elections and entirely paralyze the obama administration. it's at that point where the chickens could begin to come home to roost. what i'm more hoping is that the jerk to the right alienates almost everyone but the extreme right and that conservative take the consequences of this shift into the jurassic regions straight in the face.

but we'll see.
it's a zany times....400 reactionaries in the arizona desert getting more coverage than 2 million opposing the iraq war in dc...zany times.

Well no shit, of course people have the right to protest but we have the obligation to call them on being dickheads when they do.

Newt Gingrich and Ginny Thomas (Clarence Thomas's wife) are speaking on behalf of Stop Islamization of America at a protest on 9/11

It's a shame that Nazi comparisons typically end discussions, because sometimes there are apt comparisons to be made.

for ultra-right conservatives these days it's ok to be a fascist. but it's not ok to be called a fascist. it's ok to be a racist. but it's not ok to be called a racist. it's ok to be xenophobic. but it's not ok to be called xenophobic. it's ok to be homophobic. but it's not ok to be called homophobic.

Conservatives aren't the only racists and bigots. The liberals have plenty in their camp too. Harry Reid being the latest example. Democratic Sen. Reid: Build mosque elsewhere - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

So now we have another instance of amateur hour in the White House where Obama made another statement without thinking and turned a local issue into a national issue.

Just let the Muslims build their mosque.

Sorry I got as far as -

And had to go take a shower.

Really all they're missing to prove their commitment to freedom and honoring 9-11 is Ann "the 9-11 widows are greedy harpies" Coulter, then they'd have a prefect group of "real Americans."

So what are you saying? That America is at risk of normalizing racism? I don't think that liberals and conservatives are going to get into a pissing contest to see who has more racists. Wouldn't that be interesting?

Do you honestly think it was only a local issue until Obama made his statement?

Am I the only one getting tired of people in this thread bitching about "the right wing" being the big problem and how the media fucks everything up? For the last few posts there hasn't been much discussion about the planned mosque, it's mostly anti-conservative sentiment. I'm not saying this because I am a conservative, I'm saying this because I'm tired of everyone blaming the conservatives for not wanting the mosque to be built. It's a true cop-out, not having an opinion of your own and blaming a political party for saying something you don't like. I'd like to read people's opinions of the issue at hand and not hear all of this "conservatism is only propaganda!" bullshit. You give these little quips that don't contribute jack shit to the discussion, and you think you've said something smart because you think it's "exposing the real side of the issue", but you aren't, we've heard it all before. Please, use your fucking head to think about the quality of your post and if it actually contributes anything to the thread.

We all know they have a right to build a mosque wherever they want, no matter who gets offended or doesn't like it. That's what America is, a free country. Everyone has acknowledged that. But who here thinks the placement of the mosque is the BEST idea? Tell me why you think it must be built in that spot and not some where else of equal importance but less controversial.

My first post in this thread was very clearly against the building of the mosque. I have since changed my mind on this issue and my thoughts have taken a complete U-turn, thanks to this thread and the other members opinions alone. My opinion now is: they have the right to build it there and they should build it there, whether it's "morally right" or "morally wrong" is irrelevant. Morals don't matter, the law does.

there's a personal subtext to my entries here today in particular.
this racist horseshit is not abstract. it affects actual people. it affects how they live their lives every day. people who have done nothing to anyone at all but who happen to be muslim find themselves already feeling--o i dunno, whats the word---claustrophobic because the right has decided for purely mercenary reasons that it's ok to flirt with legitimating racism. people who are very close to me, whom i love alot, are already affected by the sense that we're at the start of **yet another** mounting wave of officially sanction racism directed at people who happen to be muslim, who happen to be arab by descent but who are, in every way, as american as any of the people whose predispositions are being channeled for political gain by the national conservative movement.

the main difference is that most of those people don't feel like there's a line being drawn around them for no reason that separates them from being who they are, separates them from where they've grown up, separates them from a sense of belonging in the united states. where they've fucking grown up. same as you.


so i think i need to check out of this thread for a while.

btw, as an aside: nothing i write is about individuals who happen to be conservative. i happen to think the tea party is a neo-fascist movement and that on technical grounds. but i also know people who are part of it and know that it is not one thing, that it is not even, not single. same goes for the conservative movement in general. the actions of national-level rightwing organizations that legitimate racism are calculations made for political gain for the organizations. the calculation is based on the idea that there are more people who would be drawn to these organizations by going this way than would be repulsed by the turn. but that presupposes that there's open-endedness, that there's movement and/or flux--which means that people do not think all one way. so yeah. just to be clear.

There's a gaggle of men that hang about the closest gas station/snack store.
Every damn time I frequent this establishment, I hear them spouting their same mantra.
Obama's nuthin' but a N****r Muslim.

It's so fucking nauseatingly tiresome & frightening.

I've already weighed in on the positioning of the community centre.

My problem is that people who are opposing it are opposing it on the grounds that it's too Islamic. It's based on the assumption that Islam is essentially the cause behind 9/11.

Islam wasn't the cause behind 9/11 any more than America was. Americans should be opposing terrorism and hatred, not Islam.

How long is it going to be too sensitive to have an Islamic presence in the proximity of Ground Zero, and where do you draw the line? Should all Muslims stay away from Lower Manhattan out of respect for Islamophobes? What's the right thing to do?

When I was a kid in the 70s, I was under the impression that America was (essentially) a progressive place (or at least progressing) and that because shows like The Jeffersons and All in the Family and music groups like The Village People and Parliament were popular, that we were steadily moving toward a national culture that was inclusive, even celebratory, when it came to appreciating non-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christian members of American society. But I was kid, you know, I really only knew what my parents taught me and what I observed of our culture through movies, music and television.

Since then, I've gotten older and wiser and after years of reflection am pretty much convinced that that 'happy colorful place,' that 'America' I grew up in, was sold to me, or rather that it was what I wanted to see and (because of that time and place in history) it was given to me...I'm no longer certain that it ever really existed outside of the political climate established at home by my parents and by the 'marketplace' which found these ideals to be very profitable at the time (hence the old 'liberal media conspiracy' canard, perhaps). How else could things be so different now? So terribly wrong, in my estimation.

I just spent the better part of two weeks traveling around the southeastern US and I've come back with a fortified confidence in this theory. I've read regional magazines and newspapers, seen political campaign ads on tv, overheard conversations and seen enough ignorant bumper stickers, billboards and rebel flags to cover 'Ground Zero' twice over with good old American fear and radicalism. And before the good old boys pile on, I'm not apt to believe that this is a 'Southern' thing. How could it be, it's too pervasive, too popular, to be regional.

So, I'm sorry to pile on with the 'right wing' bash-a-thon without contributing significantly to the issue with the mosque, but I think the reaction to the mosque is a perfect example of the exclusionary, reactionary antithesis of everything I was brought up to believe in as an American. This shit wouldn't have flown in 1975.

Perhaps, like much of life, this is just a turn of the tide and all the little conservative children of the world are growing up thinking that (basically) their country is heading in the right direction while their popular culture teaches them that their fears are justified and their reactions are rational. I dunno.

I guess my point is, it's my impression that all this anti-Mosque hoopla is just a single incident in a much more troubling and pervasive trend toward the legitimizing of some very old, ugly and dangerous ideas.

sorry I didn't have something more specific to add to the discussion, but to me there's no sense in talking specifically about it without addressing the bigger issue. It would be akin to swatting a single termite crawling across the floor of your living room while the multitudes are busily eating away your floorboards.

An excellent point mix, I feel the same way. Lots of things I thought were "real" were not and just specters and lip service to the diversity.

I do not think that it is much the case today, but I can see it in other parts of the country when I visit. I wonder "where are the black people?" a lot when I am traveling the US and around the world. I look for the diversity of culture and I don't see it much in other countries either. It's always an us versus them, the invaders, the ones that don't belong here. Yet immigration is strong all over the world, people cross borders to get a better life. Nothing trips me out more than meeting Asian people who speak perfect Castillian Spanish, German, or speaking Icelandic.

I do think that the small minded will be the small minded and they will eventually die off as those in the younger generations grow up with more diverse classrooms and workplaces.

If you would have told me two years ago that this would be the political environment after a black man was elected president, I wouldn't have believed you. Yeah, there was racism after 9/11, and hatred directed at Muslims, but it seemed to be a small minority; most Americans seemed to have grown up and left their prejudices behind.

Then a black man got into the oval office, and the blindfold was removed. We're no more evolved than we were a century ago. The racists had always been there, but they were hiding; now they're going to rallies preaching their ignorance on signs. As bad as America looked when Bush was in office, I'm more ashamed to be an American today. What must we look like to the rest of the world?

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. I'm not sure that diversity in and of itself fosters tolerance and inclusion. It is an attitude, perhaps even a philosophy. There has to be respect and appreciation and trust. Sophistication. Objectivism. What I observe in young Americans today doesn't reflect a tendency toward these things. Not to say that there isn't tolerance in our society, just that it seems we are resigned to it rather than grateful for it.

I think it's wrong because it's not ok to tell any religion where they can and can not build a community center. Islam did not attack us on 9-11. Al Qaeda did. You have groups like "Stop Islamization of America" calling themselves a "human rights group." I find that offensive.

And many people here have expressed why they thought it should be built where it's planned. Cyn, who disagreed with Obama speaking about it, stated there is a need based on current residential use of of the area. Lastly I'm not blaming "a" political party... I blame both parties. People in the Dem party have stated they're against it too. I blame them and think they're wrong too.

Did someone actually say that Harry Reid is a liberal?

The reason that this whole situation gives me pause is that we seem to be building towards the type of highly charged, overtly xenophobic political atmosphere that sets the stage for widescale, institutionalized atrocities.

nothing more to say. move along.

My point was that the liberals need to get their house in order before complaining. I've seen bigotry and racism from both sides. Shouldn't be, but it is.
Since I live in New York I've seen a lot of discussion about the mosque. The national aspect of it certainly increased after Obama made his comments.

---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------

I personally have no objection to the mosque being built anywhere they choose. I don't think Muslim beliefs have anything to do with terrorism. That link is thanks to a small number of charismatic nutcases who have twisted Muslim principles to suit their own purposes and for their own personal power and influence.

As long as people of any race or of any religious beliefs aren't committing acts of violence, I really don't care what they do or where they live. Deal with the troublemakers individually, not as a class of people.

I'm also tired of conservatives being labeled bigots or racists. Another example of falsely labeling a group of people because of a few vocal personalities.

It wasn't until I moved to NYC that I learned there are fiscally conservative moderate socially Republicans existed.

it's like an olympic games of stupid is breaking out on the televisual airwaves.

Newt Gingrich compares mosque to Nazis - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

legitimating racism is a dangerous game.

I like the matter-of-factly way that Gingrich places an entire religion into a cubbyhole next to a now non-existent racist, antisemitic, fascist political party and its ally, a now non-existent empire guilty of horrendous war crimes.

The fact is, the Nazi party couldn't place anything anywhere because they don't exist.

The Empire of Japan couldn't place anything in Pearl Harbor because it doesn't exist.

Isn't it odd how the Germans and the Japanese aren't viewed as The Enemy? Why is that?

Because we have a new enemy. I have come to the conclusion that much of this nation can not exist without an enemy. I don't understand why we need a bogeyman but for some reason we do.

Palin, Gingrich, Hannity, Beck, and other GOP leaders have been pounding on this since May but Obama making a statement over the weekend made it a national issue?

The problem is that instead of kicking those people out or just ignoring them, they are pandering to them to create wedge issues. What other conclusion are we supposed to come to when one of the main 2012 hopefuls is speaking on behalf of the "human rights group" called "Stop Islamization of America"?

I don't think that's possible.

Just like the black folks didn't vote or want Al Sharpton to speak for them, I don't expect Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, or Sarah Palin to speak for me. I didn't ask them to speak for me nor did I vote for them to speak on my behalf.

That may be true for you but as a whole those people are widely popular in the current GOP. There is no organized force pushing back from them so it isn't much of a stretch to say that they represent mainstream conservatives.

I guess then that it's fair to say the same thing about the fanatical Muslims since there isn't any organized force pushing back from them that it isn't much of a stretch to say that they represent mainstream Muslims.

I guess you've demonstrated the point for me.

Au contraire, Muslims are VERY vocal that fanatical terrorists are not representative of the mainstream. A very disingenuous position for you to take, Cyn.

What bothers me so much about issues like this is there seems to be an underlying idea that we have some right not to be offended as though others rights are less important then their right to not be uncomfortable. I don't know how you really reconcile that with living in a free country or any value on what we (should) stand for.

That's my point, there are individuals who are in any community or group, but not any organizing body which is why kutulu is saying it's okay to make the stretch. There are conservatives out there who speak out and state they aren't represented by Rush et. al.

I don't think it's okay to make the stretch for any generalities.

I agree Cyn its unfair to generalize any group due to a few (or many) out spoken idiots. Conservatives aren't against the Mosque being built SOME conservatives (and liberals) are and they should be the ones held accountable not the entire group. This guilt by association crap that's so common in politics is BS, there isn't one giant conservative brain being shared by millions of people and many of them can and do disagree on issues like this. Most conservatives I know HATE Rush.

A good part of the blame for the outrage and indignation associated with the mosque lies firmly with the major polarising force in the world today... the internet. The ability to spout extreme opinions and to easily find others who agree with you is one of the major impacts of the web. Neo-nazis, white supremacists, radical Muslims, extreme fundamentalist Christians... all these groups can now find an audience for their opinions, and because of the activist nature of their leanings, their voices/websites/media exposure is far greater than their numbers merit.

The age of the silent majority is truly now. Most people just don't care, but you'll never hear that. They don't espouse their feelings from the rooftops as the extremists do.

I'm not against the mosque... Muslims did not attack the WTC... idiot terrorists who happened to be Muslims did.

The vast majority of Muslims subscribe to the tenet of peaceful co-existence that is a basic part of Mohammed's teachings. The vast majority of Christians subscribe to the basic teachings of Christ. Pick your religion... none of them are based on aggression towards others. What we are seeing today is that the fringe elements of any group can now make themselves appear MUCH more numerous than they actually are. I'm not giving up on society as a whole... but I [am MUCH more jaundiced about what I read in the media and on-line.

I don't think anyone can really say what conservatives want. There's just too many types of conservatives now to make a general statement as to their desires. Around the time of Reagan the GOP started melding social conservatives with fiscal conservatives and now we have so many voters who vote one issue it's impossible to really define the conservative movement. As you point out many conservatives seriously dislike Rush, other love him. Same with Palin. One thing they usually have in common is there's no way in hell they're voting for a Dem.

The same can be said for liberals to some degree. And the one thing they're not doing is vote GOP.

Which is why both parties do whatever they can to get independent voters. Which every way the Ind. votes swing so does the election, usually.

I don't know if the internet bears the brunt of the responsibility. This story has been helped immensely by the fact that network and cable news channels are all too eager to trumpet and validate bullshit like "the ground zero mosque".

so here we are again: the ultra right and it's racist constituency gets ahead of this non-issue in the context of the conservative media apparatus and waves the fascism problem about for a few days. this is not a matter of margins taking over either: from the politco and salon pieces above, we know that exploiting this non-issue is a tactical choice made by the organized right. but the ultra-right does not represent the whole of the republican party, nor, obviously, all conservatives.

now it seems that other republicans are concerned that appearing to be (or being) a bunch of racist assholes could damage the gop in upcoming elections:

washingtonpost.com

if you look at the names involved, it's pretty clear what's really going on.

a) first and foremost this is a way for the conservative media apparatus to bump its ratings. something to get really lathered about. harumph harumph.

b) this is yet another conservative non-issue that's designed in part to created a phantom "battle" at the level of news cycles which they can control and thereby pretend to "win"--having nothing to say of any substance about any economic or social issue except either warmed over versions of the same nonsense that got us into the present economic situation in the first place or NO, creating and "winning" such image battles is maybe important because

c) this is likely a non-issue that was used to galvanize the demographic that votes conservative not because of what they think so much as because of who they "are"--so the identity politics crowd. the front national impersonators. all the kind of folk that sane conservatives want to be lumped in with.

and

d) it seems to also be a play within conservativeland in the ongoing factional fight for control of the movement such as it is: rove's organization versus the republican party in a knockdown drag out fight over patches of astroturf and donor money.

...and people who see the opposition to the "mosque" (community center) for what it is--unconstitutional religious intolerance.

not to mention, there are primaries in many states next Tuesday...I can only hope that this bloated piece of nonsense illuminates the blatantly racist/xenophobic/generally intolerant tone of many of the 'conservative' campaign ads I've seen in the last couple of weeks.

I say conservative because I noticed that many of the repub nominees refer to themselves in their ads as 'conservatives' rather than 'republicans'. Which leads me to believe that the ideological split in the party must be pretty wide.

Sure, and I think it leaves a lot of voters out in the cold while the old "lesser of two evils" decision pops up that a lot of us find ourselves having to make around elections. Whats average Joe Conservative to do? Vote Dem to show he doesn't support bone heads like Rush and Sarah? Everybody is just trying to get by in the world and just because you feel the GOP represents you better then the Dems doesn't mean you should have to get lumped in with this garbage.

Although I wish those that opposed stupid things like this would be a little more vocal about it...I sure as hell would be pissed off is somebody claiming to represent me was going around trying to pull this crap.

You know, you'd think with so many independent voters having such a huge impact on elections it might be a sign that we need more parties....then people could also pick and chose whats right for them instead of having to shoe horn into a group that sort of represents them.

We do have other parties to vote. I've voted the Working Families Party which sometimes can have either a democrat or a republican on their line. It's helped me vote for a democrat without ever having voted on the democrat line.

Well I should have written viable parties, most people are too scared to throw away their vote so they stick with the big two. Buy anyway yeah, I often vote for third parties for the same reason Cyn.

The Democrats have made an even more offensive move now with Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation of how the opposition to the mosque is being funded. It's really none of the government's business who is opposed to the mosque or how they are funded. Has Nancy conveniently forgotten about the first amendment?

'No regrets' on mosque issue, Obama says - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

I wouldn't call that wanting an investigation. She's merely calling for transparency on both sides of the issue.

I'd like to know how the mosque is being funded. That seems like a more appropriate inquiry compared to questions of how the opposition is being funded.

It is a little strange to be looking into who is funding the opposition...of course I'm not sure it really matters who is funding the Mosque either. For better or worse people have a right to express how they feel about a Mosque being built near ground zero...it shouldn't have any effect on the out come but they have the right. Who cares how they got the money to do it? Freedom of speech and all that.

Jesus christ, just when you think this story couldn't get any stranger they find a way to up the ante one more time.

Rather than calling for who is funding who, can't we just call for all sides to just shut the fuck up and forget about it?

"Looking into something" is an investigation. But the government has no business even asking for transparency from either side. Who is funding either side is none of the government's business. Nancy Pelosi is way off base on this.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this, dog. It doesn't matter who's funding it; what matters is it's unconstitutional and wrong. This shouldn't even be a debate.

This issue is really bringing out the worst in people. I'll zero in on politicians because they hold the most power and everyone knows when they say something stupid (like what Pelosi said).

Sticking to the Constitution seems like the easiest, least complex way to solve this problem. Let them build it, because they have the right to do so. Don't let the government investigate anything we do as private citizens, because they have no right to do so. Everyone should just look at the Constitution as the end-all for problems.

Blah this shouldn't even be a debate. I'm sickened by both sides for turning this into a political football.

this is why the republicans were worried about this non-issue.
they cant control it. the question "who's funding the opposition" is an indication of loss of traction. the constitutional questions are a canard.
what's worse is that the damage this non-issue will do the right outweighs the benefits.

personally, i hope this blows up in their faces.
live by the sword die by the sword.

maybe it'll back the conservatives off from legitimating racism as a campaign strategy.