Although on the other hand, it does seem like a symbol of conquest to put a mosque at such a place. Muslims don't respect free speech nor does it seem that many of them understand it. I'd be happy to support their freedom of expression they day they realize it's a two way street.

Shannon wrote:
Although on the other hand, it does seem like a symbol of conquest to put a mosque at such a place.

Yes, it does. Its been pointed out that the name Cordoba is a reference to a city in Spain with a large central building which was at one time a mosque. Like many cities in Europe, Cordoba bears the consequences of numerous conquering civilizations. The site was first a Roman Temple, and then a Visigothic Christian Church, and then a Mosque, and then it was converted into a Catholic church (which is what it remains today).

Its not clear to me what the motives of the individuals building this mosque are. Wikipedia has some interesting critical observations from other Muslims:

Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:

For us, a mosque was always a place to pray...—not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn’t be about promoting Islam. It’s the place where war was declared on us as Americans."[21] Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."[127]

Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:

We Muslims know the ... mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.[128]

There doesn't seem to be a smoking gun regarding this community center but there is a lot of smoke. Nevertheless, in a free country certain things are outside of the realm of politics and opposition to this mosque is one of those things. It should not be a political issue.

Muslims don't respect free speech

I think thats a silly generalization. Of course there are muslims who respect freedom of speech.

I'd be happy to support their freedom of expression they day they realize it's a two way street.

I don't think its a two way street. Freedom of speech means tolerating the expression of views you dislike. Let the totalitarians speak. Their ranting opposition to freedom of speech is easily refutable. People who are capable of independent critical thinking do not believe this sort of tripe, although unfortunately there are an aweful lot of people who fit into that category.

Decius wrote:

Muslims don't respect free speech

I think thats a silly generalization. Of course there are muslims who respect freedom of speech.

True, but most who do generally don't often use it to refute those who make death threats to those who do not believe in islam. The moderates usually stay out of the debate. The ones who want a mosque at ground zero are fundamentalist.

I don't think its a two way street. Freedom of speech means tolerating the expression of views you dislike. Let the totalitarians speak. Their ranting opposition to freedom of speech is easily refutable. People who are capable of independent critical thinking do not believe this sort of tripe, although unfortunately there are an aweful lot of people who fit into that category.

Evangelical Christians argue. Fundamentalist muslims bomb or at least threaten those who disagree with them. While both groups would like to control what people think, evangelicals are more likely to use the democratic process. You can refute a politician, but you can't refute a bomber. Most groups will play basketball with those who disagree. When you threaten to blow up the basketball court, your free speech ends as far as I'm concerned. When they are able to respect the rules of the game, they can play.

Shannon wrote:
The moderates usually stay out of the debate.

The ones I quoted are visible moderates. Unfortunately, the Canadian has been subjected to physical violence for taking the stand he has taken.

This reminds me of the violence faced by people in the south who stood up against segregation a generation ago. The KKK did not use the democratic process. The ideas they promoted were marginalized within an environment in which they could be freely expressed. We don't need to censor these people. We cannot lower ourselves to their level and begin using force to attack the expression of ideas that we do not like!

The whole problem with the way that Conservatives are going about this is that they are targeting muslims - they are targeting islam. Muslims are not the problem. Islam is not the problem. You can worship Allah and be perfectly peaceful.

The problem is religious statism. The whole purpose of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. The state is inherently about violence. A religious state is inherently about religious violence. If violence has no place in religion than the state can have no place in religion either.

At this point it ought to be just as clear to us that the idea of religious statism is wrong as it is that racism is wrong. Unfortunately, it isn't. Republicans are unclear on this point, and they have cultivated this idea within their community, so they are ill equipped to go after it, and the left doesn't seem to have the guts to call a spade a spade anymore.

If the problem is religious statism we must, as a first principal, uphold the right to freedom of religion. We cannot use the government to shut this mosque down. Doing so compromises the core of our argument. It would be totally hypocritical, and they would not hesitate to call us on it.

Decius wrote:

Shannon wrote:
The moderates usually stay out of the debate.

The ones I quoted are visible moderates. Unfortunately, the Canadian has been subjected to physical violence for taking the stand he has taken.

This reminds me of the violence faced by people in the south who stood up against segregation a generation ago. The KKK did not use the democratic process. The ideas they promoted were marginalized within an environment in which they could be freely expressed. We don't need to censor these people. We cannot lower ourselves to their level and begin using force to attack the expression of ideas that we do not like!

The whole problem with the way that Conservatives are going about this is that they are targeting muslims - they are targeting islam. Muslims are not the problem. Islam is not the problem. You can worship Allah and be perfectly peaceful.

George Friedman once said something to the effect of the nature of Islamic beliefs makes them an enemy. While most Muslims lead peaceful lives, I think Ayaan Hirsi does a good job of explaining how the political and social elements to Islam are quite different than the religion itself. Putting a mosque at ground zero is not about propagating the spirituality of Islam, and I think it's foolish to see it as something more than a political move. Unfortunately, Islam forces you to draw a line. I think it's better to force that line now, rather than waiting for it to get to here. Islam as a political movement seeks world domination through intimidation, subjugation and bullying rather than creating peace through discussion.

The problem is religious statism. The whole purpose of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. The state is inherently about violence. A religious state is inherently about religious violence. If violence has no place in religion than the state can have no place in religion either.

At this point it ought to be just as clear to us that the idea of religious statism is wrong as it is that racism is wrong. Unfortunately, it isn't. Republicans are unclear on this point, and they have cultivated this idea within their community, so they are ill equipped to go after it, and the left doesn't seem to have the guts to call a spade a spade anymore.

If the problem is religious statism we must, as a first principal, uphold the right to freedom of religion. We cannot use the government to shut this mosque down. Doing so compromises the core of our argument. It would be totally hypocritical, and they would not hesitate to call us on it.

I've mostly heard muslims explain free speech as a weakness in western culture, and this is how they exploit it. A mosque at ground zero is a symbol that they are winning this war to all those who are exposed to the "muslim street" propaganda. For the good of everyone, I think Islam needs to reform to the modern world not the other way around. If neo-nazis had bombed a holocaust museum, I think allowing them to build a Nazi memorial center over that ground would legitimize the act of violence. Desecrating a grave should not be tolerated as free speech even if it's under the guise of religion. Allowing a mosque there will show muslims that America admits defeat to totalitarian Islam. It is a purposeful act against what freedoms would allow it to exist. The message sent to muslims is that they are right, and American freedoms will eventually break to the will of Islam. If we don't allow it, political muslims will not cry about their freedom of speech. They will argue about the west being wrong about everything, but they do this anyway. They will gain ground (as they have in europe) if we allow this.

I gave up my imaginary friends when I was a kid. It's a shame so many people carry their's into adulthood. Seems like it causes such unnecessary strife.