The current discussion about the building of a mosque near "ground zero" in lower Manhattan has me a bit confused. Nearly all of the discussion has to do with the First Amendment of the Constitution, quoted above.

I am not a lawyer. I have not studied the Constitution at a prestigious university on our East Coast. I did, however, once be intimate with a local female barrister at a well-known national chain motel. Which experience might have made me the wiser I cannot determine.

I do suspect that our government, on a wide variety of levels, would be interested, and would become involved with, a religion that might espouse and practice -

• Cannibalism;
• Torture and non-humane slaughter of animals (anti-Kashrut);
• Revival of ancient Aztec rituals of human sacrifice;
• Marriage of prepubescent children to adults.

That list could go on and on. I also believe that governments have an interest in, and do actively regulate, the materials and design of church buildings. I am sure that churches have a duty to put up "exit" signs just as do secular buildings. Plumbing and electrical work are subject to inspection.

Now, the matter in Manhattan has everything to do with "sensitivities" and nothing about plumbing. That I readily acknowlege. However, a prohibition regarding the playing of bells from a church steeple at 225 db 24 times a day would also be directly related to the "sensitivities" of the neighbors. I believe that such a practice would be either prohibited or regulated.

Why the bleatings from the mayor of New York and from our muslim-born president? Is there anyone here that believes this to be appeasement? I certainly do, and I do not like it one bit.

End of rant.

In the American tradition, religion is, more or less, a choice. I don't know of any time that Obama chose to become a muslim, as child or adult; in fact, he picked what is in my opinion a particularly noxious Christian church, which he later left.

I am not quite sure how another post on this site, in which I acknowledge that government regulations are necessary (but question how intrustive they need to be) applies here. Possibly the issue is with me, and not the point I made. I would hope not. That would tend to cloud the issue, and to bring in a straw man of sorts.

As Joel so kindly pointed out, in the esteemed traditions of the Muslim religion, the father's religion dictates what is considered the defacto religion of the offspring. Combined with the fact that part of the schooling our president received in Indonesia was in a muslim school, I question his objectivity in making his observations regarding building a mosque close to ground zero. I believe I am free to raise that as a legitimate question.

It merely serves to illustrate what I see as a bit of hypocrisy- the idea that government regulation is bad, unless it prohibits something I have a problem with. If you, personally, don't espouse this, then it wasn't aimed at you, personally.



Everyone's got a right to be incorrect, yes.

No, bad place for their own PR. Better to move it a few blocks away

A few blocks away from what?

Once again, this seems to be all about me and not about the subject. I do not know if that is to simply deflect dealing with the question with facts and reason, or if it is merely a personal issue. Interesting.

o·pin·ion   /əˈpɪnyən/ [uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

If it can't be debated, don't stick it out there.

So, opinions are not allowed here?

I do not believe there was an attempt to debate or discuss the issues presented in the OP. I suspect that a separate thread was referenced in an inaccurate manner in order to discredit the poster and not deal with the content. I suspect that might be because of an assumption of political leanings.

If it can't be debated, don't stick it out there.

Nice graphic, BTW. I lost all respect for the Nobel committee after that load of BS.