'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less provocative

[TheDude]

But if it is simply laws that are the limits of rights, then rights are completely arbitrary and meaningless. Legislators, judges, etc can define rights however they see fit and can exclude this Mosque from any 1st Amendment concerns if they are so inclined.

Rights have to come from an authority higher then the government; especially in our unique system. Otherwise, liberty is completely subjective and meaningless.

So, to simply point to laws as the limit of the scope of rights is missing the point. Laws only reflect the limits of rights.



So, finding fault with something is only legitimate if what you are finding fault with is illegal?

Name one advanced society that functions that way.

Considering it's also a place a worship, they'd have to do a good job at circumventing the 1st Amendment/Constitution.

I understand you're getting at "God" or "God given rights". Yet in a previous post, you eloquently said those can be taken away too. Which is true.

No, you can find fault with it for any reason(s) you like; why I said "personal". EG You hate Muslims, you see the building as an aesthetic eye-sore, you'd rather have a donut shop etc. Those just don't do away with the Constitution though, well, least they shouldn't.

What's you point on this though, you don't want it built; why shouldn't it?

 

[shagdrum]

Considering it's also a place a worship, they'd have to do a good job at circumventing the 1st Amendment/Constitution.

It all depends on the argument and what the point of contention is.

FYI: I am not endorsing looking for any and every quazi-legitimate reason to legally challenge this. Unless there is some clear violation of rights in building the mosque, no legal action should be taken to prevent it. At most, the peer-pressure of public sentiment and non-violent protest is all that should be applied to voice dissent and promote relocating the mosque.

I understand you're getting at "God" or "God given rights". Yet in a previous post, you eloquently said those can be taken away too. Which is true.

Yes. Through due process rights can be taken away on a individual basis and in the name of justice. However, under the idea of Natural Rights, those rights serve as a limit on government. That is not the case when rights extend from the government; positive law.

Weather or not rights are view as coming from God is somewhat incidental. While the Framers understood Natural Right to extend from God (our "Creator") the theory still logically stands if God is taken out of the equation; rights are inherent to being human and thus precede and supersede any government. However, I think the appeal to a transcendent Deity make for a stronger argument.

No, you can find fault with it for any reason(s) you like; why I said "personal". EG You hate Muslims, you see the building as an aesthetic eye-sore, you'd rather have a donut shop etc. Those just don't do away with the Constitution though, well, least they shouldn't.

Agreed.

What's you point on this though, you don't want it built; why shouldn't it?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. This mosque clearly offends a number of people.

In fact, this Mosque issue presents a unique opportunity to "build bridges" on the part of the Islamic community by not building the Mosque here when they can because it offends so many; to abstain from building it out of respect for those whom it would offend (most of America).

 

[foxpaws]

Weather or not rights are view as coming from God is somewhat incidental. While the Framers understood Natural Right to extend from God (our "Creator") the theory still logically stands if God is taken out of the equation; rights are inherent to being human and thus precede and supersede any government. However, I think the appeal to a transcendent Deity make for a stronger argument.

Shag-odd that you bring this up again - we discussed this quite a bit - and it is interesting to see you in some form accept that perhaps rights should be considered inherent to just 'being human'. You balked at this before.

Isn't it better if God is taken out of the equation - then you not only remove government but religion as well, and leave it to just being human - something that is universal - we are all human, a common denominator - we may not all believe in a deity, and we certainly don't all believe in a common deity or set of deities, we have different forms of government throughout the world, but our 'humanism' does tie everyone together.

In fact, this Mosque issue presents a unique opportunity to "build bridges" on the part of the Islamic community by not building the Mosque here when they can because it offends so many; to abstain from building it out of respect for those whom it would offend (most of America).

And wouldn't it show how we actually can live by the words of our constitution if we, the people, wouldn't make such a big deal about the mosque. Those words our founding fathers wrote are not for cases when it is easy, but they are really for the instances when it is hard to live by them. That is how we should show the world that we are the best - live up to those words when it isn't easy.

 

[hrmwrm]

shag-odd that you bring this up again - we discussed this quite a bit - and it is interesting to see you in some form accept that perhaps rights should be considered inherent to just 'being human'. You balked at this before.

Isn't it better if god is taken out of the equation - then you not only remove government but religion as well, and leave it to just being human - something that is universal - we are all human, a common denominator - we may not all believe in a deity, and we certainly don't all believe in a common deity or set of deities, we have different forms of government throughout the world, but our 'humanism' does tie everyone together.

+1

 

[fossten]

GZM Imam exposed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-hqVOLEgec&feature