So apparently 70% of Americans oppose the "mosque at Ground Zero" (even though it's more of a YMCA/office building for Muslims with a mosque and a 9/11 memorial in it...but shhh; details ruin a good story) but don't give two thoughts about this? Seriously?
Things like 9-11, Fort Hood, and the honor killings... these are possibly not isolated incidents," Dove World Outreach Center pastor Terry Jones said. "These are things that, if we don't stand up now, they can increase.
*Facepalm*
I hope somebody tells him, his followers, and his supporters that the same amendment to the Constitution that protects their freedom to do that also protects the freedom of somebody to build a mosque -- not just an islamic center, but a full blown mosque -- ANYWHERE.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
I agree that the trepidation over this "mosque" is getting a little ridiculous, and is borderline Islamic xenophobia; but we need to be careful when we start invoking the U.S. Constitution into what should be a State issue.
As much as I'd love to agree with you, you're unfortunately thinking in a bygone era. The SCOTUS has ruled that through incorporation, the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause apply to the states. We need to be careful, but careful is too late.
You can thank Justice Hugo Black for that.
On other issues where incorporation hasn't been used yet, then yeah, I think we can still be careful.
Very true. However, my perspective is that of the Founders which, in my mind, is the only perspective that should matter. It is a shame that we have strayed so far from the intent of the Constitution -- at least originally -- through incorporation thanks to the 14th Amendment bringing us gems of Federal power - the Incorporation Doctrine, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause for example. Though, my point -- which may have needed some clarification -- is that while I recognize the legal precedence for the intrusion of Federal power into what should be a State issue, I'd much prefer that we get out of the habit of continuously invoking the Constitution in places it was never intended to go, further legitimizing Federal power over the States. A Federal government that has the power to force the right to freedom of speech upon the States, concurrently has the power to take such a right away.
Maybe I do speak of a bygone era; maybe I don't. There's always the option for an Artivle V Convention! =)
Article* =/
So, theoretically speaking, if a group of citizens had an "organized" religion based around Timothy McVeigh and wanted to build a monument to their idol at or near the Oklahoma City bombing cite (Alfred P Murrah Bulding) You would have no problem with this?
KKK, or similar White Pride group, building a meeting center where MLK Jr got shot?
NAMBLA meeting near an elementary school?
All of these would have the similar right to.
As long as they aren't violating anyone else's rights (e.g. NAMBLA raping children or the KKK actually acting on their principles as they have in times past), then yeah, if they own the property, that's their right.
But there's a difference. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building; Islam didn't fly planes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon - Terrorist did. Would I personally have a problem with it? Sure. But thankfully I tend to -- as the Founders warned us -- leave my emotions out of decisions concerning personally liberties and freedoms. However, I do recognize the States -- laboratories for which democracy was to be practiced and refined -- having the ability to circumvent one's right to private property or religious practice given said State's Constitution does not explicitly limit such infringement. In this case I would imagine the right to private property and religious freedom is protected by New York's State Constitution, so if the "anti-mosque" crowd has a problem with the plans to build a "mosque" (community center, gym, pool...or whatever), then they have the right to protest; vote to have their State Constitution adjusted to limit religious freedom; or/and move elsewhere with like minded individuals.
That's "...personal liberties and freedoms." I've got fat fingers today. =/
I dont think the Pastor said anything about invoking the government to "stand up" against against his perception of Islam. His private church is having a private event on private property to burn their private property. He hasn't done anything more facepalm worthy than the Muslims who are seeking to build on the NYC site. There will always be stupid people in the world, whether theyre black, white, Christian, Muslim, whatever.
I never stated anything about that. It's facepalm worthy for the American public to be more concerned about a conglomoration of bricks and concrete than book burnings. I don't mean to pull a Glenn Beck here, but you know who else burned books? HITLER! And a lot of other insane authoritarians. It starts in little social movements like these. Should the government step in? Hell no. But should the public be outraged? Hell yes.
The entire libertarian movement is centered around letting people do what they want, even if its outrageous. Idk that YAL's role, while we're still trying to expand liberty's message, should be to approve of or condone private action. Church-going Gainesvillians vote too.
Considering the church will most probably have to purchase A LOT of Korans to burn, wouldn't this just boost sales of the book? Sounds like Backfire101.
Although everyone here is probably a Libertarian when it comes to the economy, I feel like there is a divide on social issues. You are probably socially liberal. I am a social conservative on abortion, gay marriage, and many other social issues. I do think marriage should be left up to the states. However, I support an amendment to the constitution making abortion illegal. It is murder. Why make it legal? You want to talk about rights. What about that child’s right to live?
They do have the constitutional right to build the mosque. That doesn't mean I support it. I find it disrespectful. Would you support Japanese Americans building a memorial on Pearl Harbor?
The Muslims have the right to build it. I just hope no construction workers agree to build it. This is not a political issue though. The government should not get involved.
I hope we all agree on Ron Paul 2012.
... I hate to break it to ya, but...
http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/08/17/shinto-shrine-near-pearl-harbor/
I find it sad that they would do this.
Hm. How do you feel about our monuments at Iwo Jima, or our bases in Okinawa and mainland Japan?
Touché.
I think we should bring all of our troops home.
That, sir, we certainly agree on! =)
Assuming you are indeed a sir, and not a ma'am. Tyler is one of those tricky names, and I can't view your profile. =)
Haha I am indeed a Sir.
Not saying youre wrong, but this isn't a fair comparison.
There is no legitimate reason to be upset about the fact that they are building a mosque near the former world trade center complex - none. If you are whining about it you are just a pathetic little emotional baby with no sense of perspective.
I say this unironically. You really are a little baby if you complain about this.
While I agree that the hoopla over this "mosque" is nearing a xenophobia level of ridiculousness, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the emotions behind some of the oppositions arguments; 9/11 remains a sore subject for many families and many Americans. The best we can do is remind people that we were not attacked by Islam, and we must -- as stewards of our precious civil liberties and freedoms -- must safeguard the right to private property and the sanctity of religious freedom, even for those whom we do not agree, lest we too become "unwitting victims of the darkness."
You'll excuse the double usage of "must" there...=)