The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

I've read that quote. Still seems like a lack of willingness to say that lobbing mortars into Jewish cities is not acceptable.

[JWBear]

Turn it around, Leo. What if it was a Catholic community center (not a church) was proposed somewhere where a famous child molester lived. The church building it owns the land, has all the permits, etc, but there was a great public outcry against it by people who (falsely) claim all Catholics are child molesters, and that it's wrong to build there. Would you tell a Christian denomination to give up their rights and build somewhere else just to appease these bigots?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I didn't say their freedom is less than anyone else's. I have CLEARLY stated they have the right to build there. This is not in question, just as the right to protest and put pressure on elected officials is a right. I am simply looking at it from a standpoint of public relations.

And I look at it from the standpoint of not caving in to ignorant bullying for the sake of political gain. There is NO rational reason for them to back down because there is nothing offensive or inappropriate about their proposal.

A gut, "Really? Mosque? There?" reaction is a totally understandable thing. But any amount of thought, and application of First Amendment reasoning, should lead any rational person to stop right there and recognize how wrong that gut reaction is. And just because there are some idiots that aren't able to do that, and that can scream loudly about it, is no reason to accept their screaming as a reason to "compromise" when no compromise should be necessary. Those idiots should be shouted down.

And as Alex said, they have the right to shout like idiots. But the fact that regulatory options are being explored to block this because of their shouting is 100% unacceptable.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I've read that quote. Still seems like a lack of willingness to say that lobbing mortars into Jewish cities is not acceptable.

He also didn't condem the Israeli government that sent rockets into Syrian cities. I call it even.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I've read that quote. Still seems like a lack of willingness to say that lobbing mortars into Jewish cities is not acceptable.

Go interview a Catholic arch bishop about their opinion of how the Vatican has handled sexual abuse scandals. Would a non-committal answer from them mean they're a dangerous person who supports pedophilia?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Go interview a Catholic arch bishop about their opinion of how the Vatican has handled sexual abuse scandals. Would a non-committal answer from them mean they're a dangerous person who supports pedophilia?

More likely I would view it as someone who wishes to deflect rightful criticism away from the church. Just as it would appear as this Imam wishes to deflect rightful criticism away from radical Islam.

JW, I don't quite get your analogy. I get that you are trying to link (for the same of argument, not literally) the Catholic church with all pedophiles. What I could understand as an analogy is a center for troubled teens run by the Catholic church and the church refuses to acknowledge whether or not any priests involved in counseling these teens have had issues with molesting children or pediphilia. I would GREATLY condemn that. Building a church near a child molester I'm not getting.

I also bet, if asked, he would gladly and eagerly condemn Israel for such actions.

My gut reaction is certainly as you described, GD, but I then the reason has set in that they have a right and there is no reason to stop them. As far as using buraeucratic means to stop it, I don't support that, but it isn't like things don't happen like that all over, condemning properties in order to seize them, having buildings declared as historical, or finding some reason why a Walmart can't build a big box store in a neighborhood (there have been HUGE protests here in Phoenix regarding that Walmart situation). Not trying to justify using those means, I'm just saying it isn't a new tactic whatsoever.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Building a church near a child molester I'm not getting.

Simple. "Some Cathilic priests are pedophiles = all Catholics are pedophiles = A Catholic community center near where boys were molested is an outrage because it dishonors the victims!" It's the same twisted logic as "Some Muslums are terrorist = all muslums are terrorists = a Muslum community center near ground zero is an outrage because it dishonors the victims!"

BTW... I specifically said “community center (not a church)”; because it is a community center that is bing built in Lower Manhattan, not a mosque.

[JWBear]

You know… on further reflection, I could care less if Ruaf praised Hamas, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or Satan himself. Religious freedom is religious freedom. Your, my, or anyone else’s disagreement with their beliefs does not trump those constitutionally guaranteed rights of free worship. If we allow mob rule to decide who we allow to have religious freedom, if we suppress religious expression because it is unpopular or politically incorrect, then we are truly lost as a nation.

[scaeagles]

I agree with that, JW. That's why I do not think that it should be stopped.

The issue, again, seems to be perception. THAT is why there are protests. It is the feeling of not wanting to play nice with those who don't want to play nice with you. Perhaps if there was some gesture from the Imam or some statement he could make where he says he wants to play nice then this whole thing would blow over. As it is now it will be built, and there will be resentment. Why not try to avoid that?

[Ghoulish Delight]

In what way, exactly, has he shown he DOESN'T want to play nice? Not caving to irrationally absurd demands? Why is the burden on him when it's the protesters who aren't playing nice?