"Could he have said what you stated above? Sure, and it would have
been pandering to the element that is opposed to the Mosque. You cannot
simulateously oppose their right to build the Mosque and believe in the
Constitution. You can, however, believe that it is wrong to place a
Mosque there. An understandable position, but not for one that is
elected to uphold the Constitution"
I disagree, DJ. One can uphold the Constitution but believe that it is wrong, not wise, or short sighted to place a Muslim community center at that specific location. You can easily uphold the Constitution while still believing its application in a certain aspect is unwise.
0
"Could he have said what you stated above? Sure, and it would have
been pandering to the element that is opposed to the Mosque. You cannot
simulateously oppose their right to build the Mosque and believe in the
Constitution. You can, however, believe that it is wrong to place a
Mosque there. An understandable position, but not for one that is
elected to uphold the Constitution"
I disagree, DJ. One can uphold the Constitution but believe that it is wrong, not wise, or short sighted to place a Muslim community center at that specific location. You can easily uphold the Constitution while still believing its application in a certain aspect is unwise.
"Could he have said what you stated above? Sure, and it would have been pandering to the element that is opposed to the Mosque. You cannot simulateously oppose their right to build the Mosque and believe in the Constitution. You can, however, believe that it is wrong to place a Mosque there. An understandable position, but not for one that is elected to uphold the Constitution"
I disagree, DJ. One can uphold the Constitution but believe that it is wrong, not wise, or short sighted to place a Muslim community center at that specific location. You can easily uphold the Constitution while still believing its application in a certain aspect is unwise.
Believing it in private is one thing. Suggesting, as the President, that one group should have less rights than another, contrary to the Constitution, is a huge problem. While I agree he was best to simply say that the Constitution allows them that right, and leave it at that, any words that could be construed as not having personal or professional beliefs that the Constitution is paramount, is far worse than anything he did state.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
"Could he have said what you stated above? Sure, and it would have been pandering to the element that is opposed to the Mosque. You cannot simulateously oppose their right to build the Mosque and believe in the Constitution. You can, however, believe that it is wrong to place a Mosque there. An understandable position, but not for one that is elected to uphold the Constitution"
I disagree, DJ. One can uphold the Constitution but believe that it is wrong, not wise, or short sighted to place a Muslim community center at that specific location. You can easily uphold the Constitution while still believing its application in a certain aspect is unwise.
Believing it in private is one thing. Suggesting, as the President, that one group should have less rights than another, contrary to the Constitution, is a huge problem. While I agree he was best to simply say that the Constitution allows them that right, and leave it at that, any words that could be construed as not having personal or professional beliefs that the Constitution is paramount, is far worse than anything he did state.
Kind of like flag burning, though not as extreme (in my eyes). It is constitutional to burn the flag (1st Amendment) but it is still looked at as distasteful.
I think that even though this group may have their heart in the right place, there is still a lot of animosity toward Muslims, (and perhaps understandably so) by those that lost family on that day, and see this mosque as distasteful.
This is not a Constitutional issue, nor one for the courts or even public opinion. This is in every aspect a matter of the heart for those that live in this area. I think that this debate is good and healthy and could lead to some overall healing within this community. The people on the right and the left that are hijacking this issue for political gain are disgusting. The right claiming that the left is in league with terrorists, and the left claiming that the right are religious bigots.
I think we have to really look at ourselves and go to some very uncomfortable places in order to come to peace with this one, but ultimately it is Constitutional, to block it is wrong, and would be denying people their rights, and at the same time I think to build it is in poor taste.
It is a very complex situation to say the least, lets just try not to get swept up in the current of vitriol that seems to be rising on the outer edges of our political discussions.
It is
0
Kind of like flag burning, though not as extreme (in my eyes). It is constitutional to burn the flag (1st Amendment) but it is still looked at as distasteful.
I think that even though this group may have their heart in the right place, there is still a lot of animosity toward Muslims, (and perhaps understandably so) by those that lost family on that day, and see this mosque as distasteful.
This is not a Constitutional issue, nor one for the courts or even public opinion. This is in every aspect a matter of the heart for those that live in this area. I think that this debate is good and healthy and could lead to some overall healing within this community. The people on the right and the left that are hijacking this issue for political gain are disgusting. The right claiming that the left is in league with terrorists, and the left claiming that the right are religious bigots.
I think we have to really look at ourselves and go to some very uncomfortable places in order to come to peace with this one, but ultimately it is Constitutional, to block it is wrong, and would be denying people their rights, and at the same time I think to build it is in poor taste.
It is a very complex situation to say the least, lets just try not to get swept up in the current of vitriol that seems to be rising on the outer edges of our political discussions.
Believing it in private is one thing. Suggesting, as the President, that one group should have less rights than another, contrary to the Constitution, is a huge problem. While I agree he was best to simply say that the Constitution allows them that right, and leave it at that, any words that could be construed as not having personal or professional beliefs that the Constitution is paramount, is far worse than anything he did state.
But would he really be doing that DJ? I mean let's assume he came out and said "this should go somewhere else out of respect for the victims, their families, and the events of that day." (Now, that again falls into the "confusing all Islam with radical Islam", but that's another issue.) If he did that, would he really be saying that one group has less rights? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me. I think you are mistaken if you are advancing the position that you cannot be against building the center in that specific spot unless you are also against the Constitution. I don't think the two positions are at all mutually exclusive -- why do you?
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Believing it in private is one thing. Suggesting, as the President, that one group should have less rights than another, contrary to the Constitution, is a huge problem. While I agree he was best to simply say that the Constitution allows them that right, and leave it at that, any words that could be construed as not having personal or professional beliefs that the Constitution is paramount, is far worse than anything he did state.
But would he really be doing that DJ? I mean let's assume he came out and said "this should go somewhere else out of respect for the victims, their families, and the events of that day." (Now, that again falls into the "confusing all Islam with radical Islam", but that's another issue.) If he did that, would he really be saying that one group has less rights? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me. I think you are mistaken if you are advancing the position that you cannot be against building the center in that specific spot unless you are also against the Constitution. I don't think the two positions are at all mutually exclusive -- why do you?
Again, guys, this isn't a just a mosque. It will have an area for prayer but also a ton of other things. It's not like there's gonna be a minaret right there or anything. The drawings I saw of the planned building look, from the outside, just like any other modern office building you would find in the area.
0
Again, guys, this isn't a just a mosque. It will have an area for prayer but also a ton of other things. It's not like there's gonna be a minaret right there or anything. The drawings I saw of the planned building look, from the outside, just like any other modern office building you would find in the area.
But would he really be doing that DJ? I mean let's assume he came out and said "this should go somewhere else out of respect for the victims, their families, and the events of that day." (Now, that again falls into the "confusing all Islam with radical Islam", but that's another issue.) If he did that, would he really be saying that one group has less rights? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me. I think you are mistaken if you are advancing the position that you cannot be against building the center in that specific spot unless you are also against the Constitution. I don't think the two positions are at all mutually exclusive -- why do you?
I think Rick's post above yours really nailed it, and he certainly isn't an ally of the left.
You are misstating my position. I am personally against building the Mosque. I cannot, however, deny that it would be unconstitutuional to deny their right. Therefore, since I few the Constitution as a living, breathing thing, I believe the Mosque should be built. I am only Joe Smoe, however. The President doesn't have the luxury of being able to make the distinction that I do because his entire job is designed to uphold that document, and any statement that he would make where that job would be qualified by a personal belief, would diminish what he was elected to do.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
But would he really be doing that DJ? I mean let's assume he came out and said "this should go somewhere else out of respect for the victims, their families, and the events of that day." (Now, that again falls into the "confusing all Islam with radical Islam", but that's another issue.) If he did that, would he really be saying that one group has less rights? It certainly doesn't seem that way to me. I think you are mistaken if you are advancing the position that you cannot be against building the center in that specific spot unless you are also against the Constitution. I don't think the two positions are at all mutually exclusive -- why do you?
I think Rick's post above yours really nailed it, and he certainly isn't an ally of the left.
You are misstating my position. I am personally against building the Mosque. I cannot, however, deny that it would be unconstitutuional to deny their right. Therefore, since I few the Constitution as a living, breathing thing, I believe the Mosque should be built. I am only Joe Smoe, however. The President doesn't have the luxury of being able to make the distinction that I do because his entire job is designed to uphold that document, and any statement that he would make where that job would be qualified by a personal belief, would diminish what he was elected to do.
I think that this debate is good and healthy and could lead to some overall healing within this community. ------------ others may have been down there like i was that day. maybe some lost people at WTC but there is no healing from that
i dont think this is a federal/constitutional issue. this is zoning laws, plain and simple. nyc okayed it, thats it. case closed. its in awful taste but has nothing to do with freedom of religion. this doesnt force a State sponsored religion on anyone (the intention of the 1st amendment), this also doesnt deny anyone the right to worship as they choose.
this is about a building
also, good luck to the Cordoba house trying to get something built in NYC without union labor. many of those same union guys worked on 9/11 cleanup. i doubt anything gets built anytime soon
0
I think that this debate is good and healthy and could lead to some overall healing within this community. ------------ others may have been down there like i was that day. maybe some lost people at WTC but there is no healing from that
i dont think this is a federal/constitutional issue. this is zoning laws, plain and simple. nyc okayed it, thats it. case closed. its in awful taste but has nothing to do with freedom of religion. this doesnt force a State sponsored religion on anyone (the intention of the 1st amendment), this also doesnt deny anyone the right to worship as they choose.
this is about a building
also, good luck to the Cordoba house trying to get something built in NYC without union labor. many of those same union guys worked on 9/11 cleanup. i doubt anything gets built anytime soon
I think Rick's post above yours really nailed it, and he certainly isn't an ally of the left.
You are misstating my position. I am personally against building the Mosque. I cannot, however, deny that it would be unconstitutuional to deny their right. Therefore, since I few the Constitution as a living, breathing thing, I believe the Mosque should be built. I am only Joe Smoe, however. The President doesn't have the luxury of being able to make the distinction that I do because his entire job is designed to uphold that document, and any statement that he would make where that job would be qualified by a personal belief, would diminish what he was elected to do.
DJ -- how would the President stating both your and my position be any different than his position on gay rights issues? He's said he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but has also said he doesn't think anyone should be prevented from marrying whoever they choose. Is there some distinction between these situations that I am not seeing?
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I think Rick's post above yours really nailed it, and he certainly isn't an ally of the left.
You are misstating my position. I am personally against building the Mosque. I cannot, however, deny that it would be unconstitutuional to deny their right. Therefore, since I few the Constitution as a living, breathing thing, I believe the Mosque should be built. I am only Joe Smoe, however. The President doesn't have the luxury of being able to make the distinction that I do because his entire job is designed to uphold that document, and any statement that he would make where that job would be qualified by a personal belief, would diminish what he was elected to do.
DJ -- how would the President stating both your and my position be any different than his position on gay rights issues? He's said he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but has also said he doesn't think anyone should be prevented from marrying whoever they choose. Is there some distinction between these situations that I am not seeing?
Extremist groups in Christianity? Really, which ones? You mean there are Christian groups who murder, rape and Pillage other peoples' in the name of their religion? Hamas has an equal in Christianity? I'd be happy to learn something here-- what group are your talking about?
This guy is either poorly read, or just doesnt read.
The Crusades, my friend, The Crusades. The bible also repeatedly makes references to how it is OK to brutalize women and children.
Did anyone else in here read Christopher Hitchens? Geez.
Just because you know one side of the argument doesnt mean that you should speak like you know the only side.
0
Quote Originally Posted by RichardA:
Extremist groups in Christianity? Really, which ones? You mean there are Christian groups who murder, rape and Pillage other peoples' in the name of their religion? Hamas has an equal in Christianity? I'd be happy to learn something here-- what group are your talking about?
This guy is either poorly read, or just doesnt read.
The Crusades, my friend, The Crusades. The bible also repeatedly makes references to how it is OK to brutalize women and children.
Did anyone else in here read Christopher Hitchens? Geez.
Just because you know one side of the argument doesnt mean that you should speak like you know the only side.
also, good luck to the Cordoba house trying to get something built in NYC without union labor. many of those same union guys worked on 9/11 cleanup. i doubt anything gets built anytime soon
This is what I do...I put up developments and buildings all over NYC.
Most recently the Breslin Hotel. Which I used about 40% Union contractors on.
Using, or not using, Union Contractors will not be an issue.
Mostly, I end up fixing Union work - right now doing the South Ferry Station because they cut a lot of corners. I am going to clear over 2mil and its all on repair work that should have been done right the first time.
Union doesnt mean anything. I have gotten worse work from Union guys than non-Union over the past 3-4 years. If you want to keep construction costs down and finish the project, chances are you go non-union, anyway. They have more responsibility for their work - and can be held directly responsible while trying to get a Union to fix their work is a nightmare.
It really depends on the building, though. The building management can state whatever they want about workers. They can mandate you use all union, non-union or a certain % union. If Building Management - Penmark, Stonehenge, Cooper Square etc - whoever is in charge of that building - its what they want. You really dont have control over it.
Just a little info for someone who does this for a living, right here in beautiful NYC.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
also, good luck to the Cordoba house trying to get something built in NYC without union labor. many of those same union guys worked on 9/11 cleanup. i doubt anything gets built anytime soon
This is what I do...I put up developments and buildings all over NYC.
Most recently the Breslin Hotel. Which I used about 40% Union contractors on.
Using, or not using, Union Contractors will not be an issue.
Mostly, I end up fixing Union work - right now doing the South Ferry Station because they cut a lot of corners. I am going to clear over 2mil and its all on repair work that should have been done right the first time.
Union doesnt mean anything. I have gotten worse work from Union guys than non-Union over the past 3-4 years. If you want to keep construction costs down and finish the project, chances are you go non-union, anyway. They have more responsibility for their work - and can be held directly responsible while trying to get a Union to fix their work is a nightmare.
It really depends on the building, though. The building management can state whatever they want about workers. They can mandate you use all union, non-union or a certain % union. If Building Management - Penmark, Stonehenge, Cooper Square etc - whoever is in charge of that building - its what they want. You really dont have control over it.
Just a little info for someone who does this for a living, right here in beautiful NYC.
DJ -- how would the President stating both your and my position be any different than his position on gay rights issues? He's said he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but has also said he doesn't think anyone should be prevented from marrying whoever they choose. Is there some distinction between these situations that I am not seeing?
I think you raise a good point. As I recall, and I didn't google this, the President stated within that speech that marriage was not a constitutional issue, which angered the gay community.
I think a comparison could be as follows: CT discusses outlawing the owning of handguns for all those who have been fired from a job following the last shooting. The correlation is the prevention of a constitutional right to a non-protected class of individuals. Even if statistics showed this would save lives, I would have a huge problem is the President made a statement like "it is unconstitutional, even though I personally support it" because he is inferring that his views can potentially be made to influence his job.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
DJ -- how would the President stating both your and my position be any different than his position on gay rights issues? He's said he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but has also said he doesn't think anyone should be prevented from marrying whoever they choose. Is there some distinction between these situations that I am not seeing?
I think you raise a good point. As I recall, and I didn't google this, the President stated within that speech that marriage was not a constitutional issue, which angered the gay community.
I think a comparison could be as follows: CT discusses outlawing the owning of handguns for all those who have been fired from a job following the last shooting. The correlation is the prevention of a constitutional right to a non-protected class of individuals. Even if statistics showed this would save lives, I would have a huge problem is the President made a statement like "it is unconstitutional, even though I personally support it" because he is inferring that his views can potentially be made to influence his job.
I think you raise a good point. As I recall, and I didn't google this, the President stated within that speech that marriage was not a constitutional issue, which angered the gay community.
I think a comparison could be as follows: CT discusses outlawing the owning of handguns for all those who have been fired from a job following the last shooting. The correlation is the prevention of a constitutional right to a non-protected class of individuals. Even if statistics showed this would save lives, I would have a huge problem is the President made a statement like "it is unconstitutional, even though I personally support it" because he is inferring that his views can potentially be made to influence his job.
protected class = sexist and racist
Non-protected class = white men
This terminology needs to be expunged from the US Government.
If everyone is equal, then EVERYONE IS EQUAL.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I think you raise a good point. As I recall, and I didn't google this, the President stated within that speech that marriage was not a constitutional issue, which angered the gay community.
I think a comparison could be as follows: CT discusses outlawing the owning of handguns for all those who have been fired from a job following the last shooting. The correlation is the prevention of a constitutional right to a non-protected class of individuals. Even if statistics showed this would save lives, I would have a huge problem is the President made a statement like "it is unconstitutional, even though I personally support it" because he is inferring that his views can potentially be made to influence his job.
protected class = sexist and racist
Non-protected class = white men
This terminology needs to be expunged from the US Government.
Obama's books have revealed his feelings and allegiance to Islam.
Obama has made admittances of his recognition of Sharia Law.
Obama may not believe personally that a mosque should be constructed...but I'm doubtful of that potentiality based upon his own words,spoken and written.
Maybe Obama sees this issue as "the glass being half full",favoring the construction of a mosque.
The "glass is half empty",as it pertains to most other issues that Americans disagree with.
0
Obama's books have revealed his feelings and allegiance to Islam.
Obama has made admittances of his recognition of Sharia Law.
Obama may not believe personally that a mosque should be constructed...but I'm doubtful of that potentiality based upon his own words,spoken and written.
Maybe Obama sees this issue as "the glass being half full",favoring the construction of a mosque.
The "glass is half empty",as it pertains to most other issues that Americans disagree with.
"Obama has made admittances of his recognition of Sharia Law."
I'm not one of Obama's fans, but I'm gonna have to ask you for a citation to that -- unless you mean he's recognized that it exists or that some other countries choose to follow certain aspects of Sharia law, cause that's a well known fact.
0
"Obama has made admittances of his recognition of Sharia Law."
I'm not one of Obama's fans, but I'm gonna have to ask you for a citation to that -- unless you mean he's recognized that it exists or that some other countries choose to follow certain aspects of Sharia law, cause that's a well known fact.
The New York Times is reporting that the "landing gear assembly of one of the planes used in the attack crashed through the roof of what was then a Burlington Coat Factory."
In short, this site is actually part of Ground Zero , not just a place -600 ft.- two blocks away..
0
The New York Times is reporting that the "landing gear assembly of one of the planes used in the attack crashed through the roof of what was then a Burlington Coat Factory."
In short, this site is actually part of Ground Zero , not just a place -600 ft.- two blocks away..
i don't think anyone really disagrees on this issue, in this thread or among politicians who have voiced an opinion, although i'm sure i haven't seen all of the opinions.
no one thinks it's a good idea to one degree or another and everyone understands there's no law that prevents it.
0
i don't think anyone really disagrees on this issue, in this thread or among politicians who have voiced an opinion, although i'm sure i haven't seen all of the opinions.
no one thinks it's a good idea to one degree or another and everyone understands there's no law that prevents it.
Tea Party sides with White Supremacists on immigration policy
,,and the Islamic Muslims side with the Tea Party and White Supremist ...on the immigration policy,that is allowing mostly Christians to illegally enter America ..
Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths...they don't want anymore non-believers to migrate to America ...
Religious freedom in un-Islamic ................
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
Tea Party sides with White Supremacists on immigration policy
,,and the Islamic Muslims side with the Tea Party and White Supremist ...on the immigration policy,that is allowing mostly Christians to illegally enter America ..
Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths...they don't want anymore non-believers to migrate to America ...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
