this mosque thing is blowin up for Barry

[RIJIMMY]

quick and simple questions for Johnny D and Spence -
1. Do you want anti- abortion protestors at Planned Parenthood heckling girls as they enter?
2. Do you want anti-military protestors at the funerals of service men/women KIA?

The fact is they have the constitutional right to do those things. However most people dont think its the right thing to do. Exact same thing as this mosque, simple concept that you do not seem to be able to grasp.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

quick and simple questions for Johnny D and Spence -
1. Do you want anti- abortion protestors at Planned Parenthood heckling girls as they enter?
2. Do you want anti-military protestors at the funerals of service men/women KIA?

The fact is they have the constitutional right to do those things. However most people dont think its the right thing to do. Exact same thing as this mosque, simple concept that you do not seem to be able to grasp.

I think you're missing with this one.

In both cases, the protests can be considered out of the mainstream. Perhaps less so for anti-abortion advocates , but certainly the groups protesting the military are way, way out there.

The abortion issue may be closer as there is a large % of Americans that do believe in the right to life issue, but the majority wouldn't join a picket line. But when you think about it, drawing a parallel between when life begins and religious fanaticism is a really big stretch!

So same issue I say they are not.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

quick and simple questions for Johnny D and Spence -
1. Do you want anti- abortion protestors at Planned Parenthood heckling girls as they enter?
2. Do you want anti-military protestors at the funerals of service men/women KIA?

The fact is they have the constitutional right to do those things. However most people dont think its the right thing to do. Exact same thing as this mosque, simple concept that you do not seem to be able to grasp.

1. Nope
2. Nope

The difference in your example is that 1 and 2 are Constitutional. Telling a particular religion that it cannot build a Muslim community center somewhere because it is offensive is not Constitutional.

It's not even close to the exact same thing because you're switching up who the antagonist is when comparing 1, 2 and the Mosque.

In 1 and 2, the protesters are the antagonists. They are being offensive with the goal of getting in the face of their opposition and either being offensive or bringing change. The Muslims trying to build their compound have not displayed an intent to offend or be antagonistic in any way. The people who don't think building this Center is the right thing, are the antagonists.

The fact is should this have been a Christian Community Center, it would have been approved quickly and there would be no news coverage. The fact is that the only reason this is a major controversy is because of the religious group involved.

My wants, needs, desires and what I am offended by have no bearing on the law. *I* am not the Constitution - *I* am not the law - *I* do not declare what is right and what is wrong; and that goes for every single person involved with this discussion. Politicians already buckle at the slightest sign a demographic might be *offended*. All this PC bulls#t is a result of people being offended. Growing up, if something offended me, I was told to suck it up... that's life. It'll be a frozen day in hell when I spend my day-to-day life walking on eggshells out of fear of offending someone and I wouldn't expect anyone else to walk on eggshells out of fear for offending me.


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

People are allowed to be pissed about the Center and they should be allowed to voice their opinion. On the other hand, that shouldn't be a reason to prevent development of the Center.