They shouldn't build that mosque near Ground Zero because a clear majority of Americans oppose it.

[Atticus]

And, they never should have recognized former slaves as citizens with equal rights because a clear majority of Americans opposed it.

They never should have allowed women to vote because---a clear majority of Americans opposed it.

Blacks and whites should never have been allowed to intermarry---

Workers should never have been allowed to form unions---

We should simply stick with policies that the majority of citizens support, like the internment of all those Japanese during World Was II and invading Iraq because they "knocked down our towers" and had "WMD's".

[FiveGoodMen]

1. !

:applause:

[Loki]

2. Amen

n/t

[bjobotts]

99. Repubs made this issue big to distract from their obstructionism and lack of economic solutions

[bjobotts]

100. It's a community center like a YMCA with a place for worship.Can't even see ground zero from it

[bjobotts]

103. Pose these questions to those who oppose it. "What is it were a coffee shop that

this Muslim wanted to put two blocks away from the edge of ground zero..."

But Feisal Abdul Rauf doesn't want a coffee shop or a nightclub. He found a location that used to house a Burlington Coat Factory -- not the Twin Towers -- and he wants to build a community center. The building would include a restaurant, a performing arts center, a place for worship, and a swimming pool. You'll notice that "terrorist training facility" is not included in the description.

For those who want to maintain the pretense that this isn't about religious liberty or discriminating against a minority faith, it's time for at least a shred of intellectual honesty. If the Cordoba House were to include a restaurant, a performing arts center, and a swimming pool -- without a place for worship -- would conservatives be so hysterical?

If the answer is "yes," they'd be every bit as incensed, then it's time to acknowledge that those who are whining incessantly about the community center would have to be just as outraged by the notion of Feisal Abdul Rauf's coffee shop. These are folks who, by all appearances, wouldn't want a Muslim American neighbor building anything in lower Manhattan, which is crazy, illegal, and at odds with how we do things in the United States.

If the answer is "no," they wouldn't be every bit as hysterical, and the inclusion of a place for prayer is what serves as a deal-breaker, then it's time to acknowledge that this has everything to do with religious liberty, and a desire to deny First Amendment protections to faith groups the right holds in contempt.-Steve Benen from the washingtonmonthly.com

[bobbolink]

3. The majority of Americans thought the Indians should be wiped out.

And they very nearly were.

The majority of Americans don't give a shit about homeless people.

So, we let them multiply.

[Solomon]

75. This morning I heard a radio host say that Native Americans

are not Native Americans: "nothing but mongrel Indians who lost and the world is better because of it."

As though we know what the world would be like if they had been able to develop themselves without interference. It's the same argument about Africa and slaves. "They're much better off" as though we know what the world would be if all the enormous resources, including people, had not been violently ripped out of Africa.

The arrogance is astonishing.

[bobbolink]

76. Was that quote from Babs "It's working out well for them" Bush?

Ignorance and hatefulness make such an ugly combination.

:nuke:

[howmad1]

83. The majority of Americans are dumber than shit.

What can you expect when we all live in the dumbest friggin country on the planet.

[era veteran]

90. Speaking of dumb shits we put up with assholes like

Fred Phelps, his issue and ilk because of the Constitution so! this country can suffer another downtown gym/ community center. Rights are rights aren't they? People are all looking up.

[era veteran]

87. I really would recommend the book by Charles C. Mann

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus This book is an education on the true state of the America's before the Europeans came. More homeless every year in my city.

[bobbolink]

104. Thank you for the recommendation. I have learned about some great books from DUers.

I have looked this up, and will get it from my library.

Much appreciated!

[elias7]

4. eggsactly!

Thanks

[Beaverhausen]

5. a majority of Americans supported Gore for president in 2000

[EFerrari]

6. K&R

[mmonk]

7. You got it.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. And now, apparently, the majority wants to scrap the

Constitution on a couple of different issues. And these are the "I want my freedom, save the Constitution" crowd. Duh.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Fucking A

[Gothmog]

10. We do not put fundamental rights up for a vote

We do not put fundamental rights up to a vote. The majority is not always right.

[csziggy]

41. Yes, we DO put fundamental rights up for a vote

Just ask slaves (pre and post Civil War), women, gays.....

We should NOT put fundamental rights up for a vote.

[cynatnite]

79. We shouldn't, but we do. n/t

[seabeyond]

11. exactly. the constitution is not up to popular vote. nt

[Caliman73]

12. It is always good to put stuff like this out there...

To show the fools who are running around on emotion and faulty logic how silly they sound.


Good post.

[madinmaryland]

13. Recommended!

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Two of the four are reality because people voted for it.

The other two are reality because courts ordered it.

None occurred because of a president's speechifying. And they certainly weren't done by a minority party.

Besides... the address of a cultural center is equivalent to suffrage or abolition? Seriously?

Our panties are in a knot about this because the teabaggers panties are. There's no other underlying reason.

[Atticus]

15. "None occurred because of a president's speechifying. And they certainly weren't done by a minority

party."

Why so eager to rebut a statement that was never made?

And, "the address of a cultural center" is all that's involved here? No constitutionally protected rights which were THE primary reason many originally fled to the "New World"? Seriously?

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Do you have a constitutional right to put a church where ever you please?

If someone was outlawing mosques, you might have a point.

The fact that there's already one two blocks from this one suggests that this isn't the kind of existential threat that merits Obama falling on his sword.

[Atticus]

20. Strawman, anyone?

You know the answer to the ridiculous question you posed.

The constitutional right in question here was very accurately and ably explained by former constitutional law professor Barack Obama last Friday.

The fact that there is already a muslim prayer center near where this mosque is to be built just serves to make it crystal clear that those opposing it are either political whores or simple-minded nervous Nellies. Why weren't they screaming about the muslim center that has actually been near the former World Trade Center since BEFORE 9-11-01?

Simply because wingnut Islamophobes like the disgusting Pamela Geller hadn't yet whipped them into a frenzy with her lies and exaggerations.

And, Obama didn't fall on his sword. He simply stood up for what was right and decent and constitutional despite knowing that the ignorant and bigoted would scream bloody murder and make fools of themselves. I'm sorry you can't or won't see that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. You're calling *my* argument a strawman?

No constitutionally protected rights which were THE primary reason many originally fled to the "New World"? Seriously?

Nope, you're absolutely right. If the zoning board decides that this cultural center can't build at that location, it's exactly the same as forcing the pilgrims to leave England. Or a crusade or something. :sarcasm:

No strawman there.

You are actually right about one thing. He didn't fall on his own sword, he stuck it in Reid, Boxer, Conway and Fisher.

[Atticus]

22. You can't help it, can you? We're done. nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. All the hurdles, including zoning have already been dealt

with.

Or you did not know the City Council approved it?

[Dorian Gray]

27. If the church

complies with zoning laws, the city approves it, then yes... you do have that right.

[csziggy]

43. It has been approved - the final approval was what sparked off the public controversy

Even though the various boards that had been considering it have taken months if not years to give their approvals. The last approval was whether or not the building was of significant enough historical importance to be preserved. It was decided that it was not.

Once that came through the right wing nuts ramped up their publicity against it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Given that all the zoning laws were complied with

strawman anyone?

[polmaven]

61. IT IS NOT A MOSQUE!!!!!!

It is a Community Center, with a gym, and other general public meeting rooms. if it were a Mosque, nothing else but worship would be allowed to occur in the building. There will be a room for prayer and reflection on an upper floor. Otherwise, it is open to anyone who wants to partake in the activities offered! IT IS NOT A MOSQUE!!!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. So the issue isn't religious freedom?

If we're not talking about "a place of Muslim worship" then I don't understand what the shouting's about.

[wookie72]

37. Actually, it's even simpler than that.

The Magna Carta. The idea that the government is subject to the rule of law.

There is no legal reason to keep them from building the community center/mosque/whatever.

[wookie72]

38. Actually, it's even simpler than that.

The Magna Carta. The idea that the government is subject to the rule of law.

There is no legal reason to keep them from building the community center/mosque/whatever.

[Posteritatis]

16. Plenty of DUers' panties are in the exact same knot as the teabaggers'

Just follow enough threads on this around here, you'll see enough idiots claiming a Sufi is exactly the same as a Wahabbist or that the entire Muslim population is guilty for 9/11.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. The lifecycle of a DU discussion

a) Did you read what those freepers are on about? They hate the muslims! They don't want a mosque at ground zero! Call your congressman! The news! Light the signal fires!
b) Obama must agree with the freepers, because he's still swimming in the gulf. That DINO.
c) Obama agrees with us! Yay! I never doubted his chess playing skill for one second!
d) Isn't it time for a purge? No real progressive would say that the President should have remained silent about some city's zoning board's actions. Besides, the freepers are all a-twitter, and if you're not with us, you must be with the freepers.
e) Everyone's mad at him? Well... so what? We can win elections without those dumb icky ignorant voters. I'd rather be smugly confident in my own ethical superiority than be empowered to create policy.
f) Why does the news keep playing this? Make it stop! Stinkin media.

The issue is long past whether the cultural center is appropriate at that location (I'm completely ambivalent on this point. It's not my city. I could not possibly care less.) The issue is now the patently obvious political stupidity of wading into an issue that Obama is impotent to influence.

We're marionettes. We dance a polka whenever they play a waltz - just on principle. We never seem to notice that regardless of the defiance we feel about our choice of dance steps, they're playing and we're dancing - but WE look ridiculous.

[tavalon]

25. You missed the last part of the "life cycle"

in which the horse becomes glue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. That changes little. Then we just beat the glue container. n/t

[tavalon]

111. Hah!

Ain't it the truth!!

[no limit]

28. You're ambivalent over whether the mosque should be built or not?

What exactly is the reason for your conflict? It seems pretty clear cut to me. A few idiots were responsible for 9/11 because they didn't like the politics of the united states. It had nothing to do with the Islamic religion. So I don't see how building a Islamic community center at a site of an old burlington coat factory would be in any way inappropriate. Please, explain.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I don't feel a need to explain.

That's just it. Just because someone I dislike thinks it's a bad idea, doesn't necessarily mean that I should feel obliged to march against them.

I don't see any difference between the zoning board deliberations for a mosque in NYC, a mormon temple in Peoria or a Shinto shrine in Minneapolis.

Let 'em do their job.

What I DO care about is losing a congressional majority by wading into an issue that is none of the President's business.

[no limit]

32. You originally said you're ambivalent about whether it's appropriate or not to place a mosque there

Yes, I do think you need to explain. Because that implies you have reason to think it's inappropriate which I think is totally wrong.

And a zoning board deciding on whether to allow a church because of the traffic it might cause is quite different from a zoning board deciding they don't want a muslim culture center because they don't like muslims.

And fuck your congressional majority, I'm tired of having to sacrifice what is right on issue after issue in the name of politics.

[jberryhill]

60. The "appropriateness" is simply a matter of personal opinion

...which doesn't require a reason for its justification, so long as you are not being asked to adopt that opinion.

For example, I married a person of the opposite sex. I do not care whether others marry persons of the opposite sex or the same sex. But I do not need to justify my choice to anyone - nor does anyone need to justify their choices to me.

There is a difference between "I do not think it is appropriate" and "YOU should not think it is appropriate". The second statement requires justification, the first statement does not.

[no limit]

65. So having the opinion that gays shouldn't marry would be appropriate?

Or that blacks shouldn't be allowed to drink from the same water fountains as whites?

I wanna make sure I follow your logic correctly.

[jberryhill]

69. Wow, can you deliberately mis-read any better?

Having any personal opinion isn't even a matter of "appropriate".

Asking, expecting, or requiring others to hold or act on that opinion is a different question.

That is the essential point around which freedom of opinion and the free exercise of religion revolves.

ANYONE is free to think whatever they want or hold any opinion they want.

Let me ask you this:

Does the KKK have the right to apply for a parade permit and hold a march where they want?

Absolutely they do.

Do you have to think it's a good idea?

Absolutely you don't.

And, no, I am not comparing anyone to the KKK, I am simply talking about the First Amendment, which I STRONGLY support. If the KKK were denied the right to assemble and speak, I would advocate FOR them to be able do so.

As an aside, I think the community center is a fine idea. But even thought I do think it is appropriate, I don't have a beef, nor is there a reason to have a beef with someone who thinks it is not appropriate. The argument starts when they think I should hold their opinion on whether it is appropriate.

And to try to make it clearer - whether I will support anyone's rights under the First Amendment has NOTHING to do with whether I do, or do not, happen to agree with whatever they are doing. That, to me, is a much larger issue.

As frequently comes up in these threads there are of course atheists who do not think ANY religious exercise is "appropriate" in the sense that they endorse or approve of it. Atheist activists do a great service in bringing court actions to reign in government endorsement or participation in religion, and I support their efforts every bit as vocally as I support the right of these folks to build this facility in lower Manhattan. A corollary is that I am HIGHLY suspicious that opposition here is driven by the worst form of bigotry.

So, in summary, anyone who does not believe it is "appropriate" is entitled under the same First Amendment to hold and express that opinion. Anyone wanting me to adopt that opinion is going to get an argument from me, but that has nothing to do with my strenuous support for ALL people to exercise their First Amendment rights.

My point was that I married someone of the opposite sex, but I do not go around telling other people whom they should marry, what gods if any they should worship or not, and so on.

And, finally, while bigots are certainly free to hold their opinion, I am certainly free to call them bigots.

Do you only support the First Amendment for things with which you personally agree?

[no limit]

74. But I have no idea what you are trying to argue.

The person was conflicted on whether or not the mosque being built there is appropriate. Nobody is arguing that person doesn't have a right to that opinion, all I want him/her to do is explain why they hold that opinion.

[jberryhill]

78. Yes, but...

It is practically tautological that a non-adherent of any faith would consider the construction of an edifice by that faith to be "inappropriate" at least in the sense that it is a waste of space.

Just about any religion teaches "We are right" and by necessary implication "you are wrong".

One of the central tenets of Christianity, for example, is "Jews don't understand their own religion".

All three of the major monotheistic faiths teach that worshipping falsely is not only not "appropriate", but a SIN!

Now, when something rises to the level of "inappropriateness" such that someone calls it a "sin", then that's pretty much redline on the meter, no?

I guess it is a matter of how substantively one wants to get into "appropriate".

For example, most flavors of Christianity boil down to "everyone is going to Hell unless they accept the forgiveness available through Christ", and while one can put a happy face on that in mixed company, why would a Christian then think anything else is "appropriate".

But I agree with you that the impulse here appears largely to arise from the same sort of "justified racism" logic that leads people to dislike minorities/sexes/whatevers, because one happened to be wronged by an instance of a member or members of that "other" group.

I'm just saying that members of religion X are entitled to believe that members of religion Y are engaging in mass sin, and that construction of an edifice in which to communally participate in that sin is not "appropriate" on some level. We can live with that, so long as it remains on the level of "live and let live". When, as here, it rises to the level of shouting "you shouldn't do that", as if anyone on the receiving end should bother or care, then we head for problems.

I guess what is bothering me is the blending of two distinct conversations. As a fundamental matter, I don't care if someone thinks it is "appropriate" or not. The basic American principle is that others have First Amendment rights, and one must agree to that, regardless of their view of the "appropriateness" of what ANYONE is doing under the First Amendment. Mixing in the "appropriate" conversation strikes me as a scent of qualifying the First Amendment.

[no limit]

95. If the person's issue is that they don't want any religious buildings anywhere, fine. Just say that

But you and I know that's now what this person meant. The implication that was made was that muslims shouldn't build anything near ground zero because it is insensitive to the people that died that day. I don't think I have to mention how flawed such thinking is.

[jberryhill]

96. It is flawed

Although I try not to "know" what someone is thinking unless they expressly state it.

[no limit]

97. The person made some very clear implications and when asked to clarify didn't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. Link to where "the person" suggested any such thing. n/t

[no limit]

109. Post 16 is where YOU suggested such a thing

post 32 is where I explained this to you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. 16 isn't me.I have never said nor implied any such thing.

I've never said that because I don't believe it. But I'm not going to waste any more time denying words that you are attempting to put in my mouth. You're going to continue to read minds (badly) anyway.

What I said, what I think, and what is demonstrably true, is that wading into this "debate" (it's not, because the center can be built if they can find funding) was a politically foolish thing to do.

[no limit]

120. Sorry 18 You said you were indifferent on whether or not it was appropriate to place a mosque there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. And you find that suitable justification to call me a bigot?

"The implication that was made was that muslims shouldn't build anything near ground zero because it is insensitive to the people that died that day."

[no limit]

122. So are you indifferent on whether its appropriate or not?

Why would you be indifferent? It's a simple question. One you refuse to answer. Saying it's up to the people in New York is bullshit, it implies this kind of thing should be put to a vote. So please, again, just answer why you would be indifferent.

And I never called you a bigot.

[verges]

112. I'm not sure, but I think

he meant to say indifferent rather than ambivalent. I could be wrong. I'm not (I swear) trying to put words in anybody's mouth. And this opinion is only my own. But that's the way it read to me.

[no limit]

113. Even indifferent is a cop out. How could you be indifferent? It's a simple issue

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. Yes.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ambivalent.html

I have always treated them as synonyms, apparently there is a subtle distinction.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. I'm an atheist.

My complete indifference on the placement of the community center is based neither on perceived "mass sin", nor "justified racism".

I think that all "edifices in which to communally participate" are simply businesses pandering to shared delusion.

What is NOT a delusion however, is the patently obvious reality that many Democrats in swing districts are feeling pressure to distance themselves from the president about an issue which he is not empowered to affect, nor needed to comment AND polling agencies now ask Americans if Obama is secretly a Muslim. 20% say yes.

Everything about DU is about one of two things:
a) policy
b) politics

The policy matter is settled. The NYC council approved their permit. If they get funding, they can build. If NYC pulls the plug, NYC will lose in court.
The political matter is the one about which I'm not indifferent. This is a clusterfuck.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. "ambivalent" means indifferent.

It doesn't imply anything beyond that I don't care what the city of NY decides.

If their decision infringes anyone's rights, they'll get their day in court.

I'm only expected to care because the teabaggers care. I'm not a marionette.

What I care about is that this was demonstrably a stupid political battle to choose, and now Democrats must distance themselves from it.

[no limit]

101. Ok, so you are under the belief that things like this should be put to a vote?

And being indifferent on whether or not this is appropriate is trying to make this issue much more complicated than it is. No, it's not appropriate, because we are not at war with muslims. If you don't agree to that then you are wrong. If you don't know what you think then you are full of shit, because you do. Simple as that.

And like I said, fuck your stupid political battles. This is about what is right and what is wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. You don't get to tell me that I have to have your opinion, or any opinion at all for that matter.

I'm not your monkey.

I don't care who gets to build any kind of church anywhere. I also don't care that you think I should.

The problem isn't policy; nothing about this is about policy, that was decided by the NYC council. If they can get funding, they'll build their community center. If they are prevented, they'll get their day in court.

It IS about politics. You need to grow up. You don't get to influence policy unless you win elections. Obama just lost this election for Boxer, Conway and probably Reid.

But hey... yay for the good guys, we lost with our heads held high. Now bring on the Social Security privatization, so we can have something else to be righteously indignant about yet impotent to influence.

What makes me confident that I'm right is the complete lack of any response on this topic except ridiculous hyperbole, transparent strawmen and childish ad hominems.

[no limit]

108. Oooh scary, by opposing racist assholes I'm going to get social security privatized

I appreciate that you finally played that card, I was expecting it sooner. Social security won't be privatized (they tried that when republicans had the senate, house, and the white house). But it will be cut. Not by the republicans, but by this administration. I'm sure when that happens you will be here telling us how important those cuts were because of the politics of it. And the people that will be pissed as a result need to grow up.

And it's not what I think you should think. It's the fact that you refuse to tell us what you think. You have an opinion on this, to pretend otherwise if absurd.

Finally, I'm sure whether it was giving women the right to vote, civil rights, or gay rights there was always someone like you there to remind us all how important politics are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. .

Senate seats will be lost because Obama spoke out about an issue that, a) is going to go the way he wants, and b) he is impotent to affect. The Republicans will use those gains to push their agenda which includes massive Social Security cuts and a hundred other destructive policies.

In his actions, Obama is obliged to uphold the constitution. He is not obliged to shout down everyone who disagrees.

And I've told you what I think. You simply find it annoying.

[no limit]

123. Obama shouted someone down? He was asked to comment, he did.

Waht is your problem with that?

Senate seats will be lost if we close Gitmo. Does that mean we shouldn't close Gitmo?

[polmaven]

64. The Constitution

is none of the President's business??? :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. If the constitution was of paramount importance...

... then gitmo detainees would be free, or at least would having a speedy trial judged by a jury of their peers instead of a military tribunal.

And THAT is something which is within his purview.

If the Cordoba people want to sue the city for (hypothetically) denying their permit, then the Justice department should help them. Beyond that, it isn't his problem.

[no limit]

110. Let me guess, you don't think he should close gitmo either?

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. Good guess!

Completely wrong and stupid, but it's obviously and unmistakably a guess. Well done!

[MsPithy]

93. It is the president's business and every other American's business because

THIS IS HOW WE FUCKING BEAT OSAMA BIN LADEN! We are the United States of America, God Damn It, and we don't give up our cherished freedom of religion because some two-bit, brain addled, cunt-faced, cave-dwelling COWARD can convince 19 dick-less imbeciles to slaughter innocent humans of all religions! As a matter of fact, I don't think the Burlington Coat Factory building is close enough to the site where Al Qaeda attacked my country in order to divide and destroy us from the inside out!

I say build the biggest mosque in the world directly on the 9/11 site and name it the FUCK YOU AL QAEDA MOSQUE AND CULTURAL CENTER! Any American who thinks Muslims are our enemy, who wants to stop building Mosques, who burns a Quran, YOU ARE HELPING AL QAEDA DESTROY AMERICA!

To those Americans, Howard Dean and Harry Reid included, who whine, "yeees, but is it approooopriate?" You are too stupid to realize the republicans are using you. They have no ideas to run on this fall, so they manufactured this OUTRAGE. and breathlessly repeat it over and over on their propaganda network. The dimwitted corporate news media runs along behind like an annoying kid brother, copying everything Fox does. Those of you who believe their shit are embarrassing, man. Other manufactured outrages of the past were kinda cute, Obama not wearing a flag pin or the birth certificate thing but, manufacturing discord between Christians and Muslims is serious shit! STOP IT, STOP IT RIGHT NOW!

[wookie72]

36. My "panties are in a knot"

Because once again the rule of law is being ignored when it's troubling to some groups.

[backtomn]

49. Maybe I missed something, but.....

Has anyone said that the mosque can NOT be built?? Has the city government in NY stopped the process?? Have a group of freepers stopped the process??

As far as I know, the proponents are continuing to search for funding of the project. They were asked to consider building it somewhere else and said "No", without any repercussions of which I am aware. Aside from a few crazies, most opponents agree that they have the right to build it, but some question whether it is a good idea, considering their claim to be for "building bridges", tolerance, and community outreach. Most proponents are merely saying that they have the right to build it and we should let them in the interest of our founding principles.

Maybe you can let us know where "the rule of law is being ignored".

[wookie72]

119. The opponents are trying to employ the "hecklers veto"

Basically the idea that if they scream loud enough, somebody will stop this.

In any case, I think that unless they're part of the zoning process, people should STFU. No, I can't enforce that, but whatever.

[AlbertCat]

68. Our panties are in a knot about this because the teabaggers panties are.

My panties (if I wore panties... GO COMMANDO!) are in a wad because people high up in my government who should know better are saying things like "Can we build it somewhere else" OK. How far away from ground zero is far enough away? And how is that determined? My panties are in a knot because there are absolute fools like never before (in my lifetime) who shouldn't be given a driver's license much less a seat at the Senate they are so stupid and clueless (and unscrupulous as well) My panties are in a Gordian Knot because we let magical Stone Age and Bronze Age mythologies determine policy.

[ScreamingMeemie]

80. Ahem...

I really hate the term panties.

Thank you. ;)

[Shanti Mama]

17. Tyranny of the majority. nt

[tavalon]

23. Thank you

The majority should never get to vote away the rights of a minority group. It may sound democratic, but it isn't, it's just wrong.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. thank you

[mwb970]

26. The majority of Americans are idiots.

If we are going to base our policies on polls, we would be better off doing the opposite of whatever the majority wants.

We live in a nation of nitwits. It's hard to believe there could be another country on the earth with dumber, fatter, less informed citizens.

[DirkGently]

29. Not far off from the "free market" mentality. The haves get to

abuse the have nots, the strong, the weak. And the rich get to abuse the poor. Because it's "natural." It's telling that we only hear these people talking about placing fundamental human rights above the will of the majority when it comes to guns.

[SOS]

33. The Nativist Attack of 1844

In Philadelphia, in 1844, hordes of nativists attacked the Irish.
They burned Irish churches, looted Irish homes and then torched the entire Kensington neighborhood.
St. Michael's Church, The Sisters of Charity and St. Augustine's Church were burned to the ground.

From the Chicago Post: "Scratch a convict or a pauper and the chances are that you tickle the skin of an Irish Catholic. Putting them on a boat and sending them home would end crime in this country."

Bigotry aimed at a religious group has a long history in this country.
And it always leaves a filthy stain on the nation and the constitution.

[liberation]

58. This country was founded on religious and social bigotry...

... ask the natives who were almost wiped out by those pious puritans, or the women,blacks,Indians and poor white men who were not considered "people" by the founding fathers (yeah, those guys had a very different idea of what the "people" in "we the people" were supposed to be)

[aquart]

34. Oh, don't be silly.

It wouldn't matter if everyone but me was wildly in favor of it. I would simply believe you'd all gone insane.

Legally, they can build what they want. You are LEGALLY ALLOWED to be tasteless, heartless, and completely insensitive in this country. You are. These particular Muslims want what they want and they are going to get it. As soon as they come up with the money.

Please be sure to donate to their cause.

on edit: Here's the link. It's the light blue button that says DONATE. http://www.cordobainitiative.org/

[W T F]

35. Since when, are Constitutional Rights subject to public opinion polls?

[csziggy]

44. Ask African Americans, women, and gays

Jim Crow laws once slavery was abolished. The difficulty of getting the vote and property rights for women. The defeat of ERA. The current fight for marriage equality.

Those were all subject to public opinion and we have a mixed bag on making sure those groups have full constitutional rights.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. That's right

They should never be, but they have been.

[ejpoeta]

62. when they don't correspond to what white christians want, that's when.

that's when the judges are suddenly activist judges too. and in fact it probably wouldn't even matter to them unless some talking head on faux news told them to get all upset about it.

[cleanhippie]

39. A Big K&R for you!

[kestrel91316]

40. Tyranny of the majority - it's the Amurkan Way(TM)!!!

[Turborama]

42. K&R Very well put! Nice bait and switch with the headline, too!

:applause:

[DainBramaged]

45. Clear majority, you mean FAUX Noise viewers, the only REAL Americans?

[AllTooEasy]

46. The Constitution Rules the US, not the majority!!!

...even when it works against me.

[JerseygirlCT]

50. And Obama should step down this afternoon, because so

many Tea Party members are very uncomfortable having a black president. Geez, he should be more sensitive!

:sarcasm:

[driver8]

51. May I borrow your post and post it on FB?

There are a few freepers that I want to piss off, and this will work perfectly.

Great post, by the way...

[HillbillyBob]

53. Yea let us vote on their rights

snark.

[cascadiance]

54. Hmm... Maybe we could a majority to support dissolving the Rethuglican Party!

I wonder if we could get that to happen... Start campaigning for that, and then demand that they be "dissolved"!

[FiveGoodMen]

85. One at a time, or as a group?

[Enthusiast]

55. K&R

But, Atticus, we simply can't overcome the overwhelming depths of American ignorance.

[liberation]

56. Maybe the US should stop blowing up ground zeros right next to mosques all over the Middle East...

I am sure most people in the middle East were opposed to that too :-)

[BrklynLiberal]

57. What a concept....

[uppityperson]

59. k&r with thanks atticus

[Rhiannon12866]

63. K&R!

Well said. :applause:

[hay rick]

66. K&R&Amen. nt

[AllTooEasy]

67. Anybody who calls it a Mosque is as stupid as Palin.

...regardless of whether you are a liberal or conservative.

[BetterThanNoSN]

70. DICK morris...

shoulda heard that douche on faux this morning. this mosque will be the terrorism center of the world

[Statistical]

71. Clear majority supported giving citizenship to slaves (14th) & voting right to women (19th)

Given they were amendments they required ratification by 3/4th of the states.
Not very good examples.

Workers should never have been allowed to form unions. Forming Union requires a majority once.
Also not a good example.

[democrank]

72. A-freaking-men

[NJmaverick]

73. K & R!

[sallyseven]

77. Majority of citizens are silly and act like Henney Penny

the sky is falling. No facts just whispered bull.

[jillan]

81. To which I add - George W should have never been President because a majority of Americans opposed

him.

[annabanana]

82. boy howdy that's the truth. . "unalienable rights" means

just that.

You don't get to vote on them.

[BootinUp]

84. K&R

I think its time for Obama to do another speech, and make it a beaut.

[FloriTexan]

86. May I plagerize your op for my facebook page? ....

Its so good it needs to go viral.

[baldguy]

92. It strikes me that the same people feigning outrage about the "Ground Zero Mosque"

Would shed no tears if the liberal bastion of New York City was wiped off the map.

[liberal N proud]

94. Isn't American great?

[arthritisR_US]

98. well said! n/t

[SalmonChantedEvening]

102. Ramen. K&R

[Tx4obama]

118. Because 100,000s American soldiers have died to protect Our U.S. Constitution and ....

the U.S. Constitution says the everyone has FREEDOM OF RELIGION!