[thecavemaster]

We all agree, right, that Constitutionally speaking, that the folks have a right to build the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero?

We probably mostly agree that to place a mosque there might not be the most tasteful thing to do?

Surely, with those two principles agreed upon, we can diminish the level of animosity and actually talk about a solution?

[Amun-Ra]

I can agree with that. And the solution to me would be no mosque anywhere.

[Hoot Gibson]

Did we really need a second thread on this same subject?

The people who own the property near Ground Zero have the constitutional right to build a mosque there if they want - but that does not make it the right thing to do. This is not a case of bad taste. This is a case of a group of anti-American zealots who support Al Qaeda intentionally poking Americans in the eye as they lie repeatedly about their motive for building their mosque.

The Justice Department should (and would if it was doing its job) investigate the financing for the new mosque to try to ensure that no money from known terrorist groups is being used in the planning or construction of the new site. Beyond that, I do not think that there is any role for the federal government to play in this decision.

It is a shame that the Ground Zero site is still empty. The Twin Towers should have been rebuilt immediately just as was done in the case of the damaged section of the Pentagon.

I toured the Pentagon a few weeks ago and learned that this country was extremely fortunate that many more lives were not lost there on 9/11. I knew that the section of the building that was hit was undergoing renovations but I was not aware that the wall that was struck had already been reinforced. Had the plane struck another side of the building, an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people might have died there because the plane would have penetrated much deeper into the building.

I had to go to the Pentagon yesterday on business and each time I have been there I am struck at just how nuts the 9/11 deniers really are. There is the equivalent of a small city working inside of that building and it is clearly visible from many vantage points. For a person to think that no plane struck the building and that the government successfully conspired to keep such a fact from becoming known is one of the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted.

[Matman]

I think the question is more than just bad taste. Does it cause a public safety risk?

[thecavemaster]

Did we really need a second thread on this same subject?

The people who own the property near Ground Zero have the constitutional right to build a mosque there if they want - but that does not make it the right thing to do. This is not a case of bad taste. This is a case of a group of anti-American zealots who support Al Qaeda intentionally poking Americans in the eye as they lie repeatedly about their motive for building their mosque.

The Justice Department should (and would if it was doing its job) investigate the financing for the new mosque to try to ensure that no money from known terrorist groups is being used in the planning or construction of the new site. Beyond that, I do not think that there is any role for the federal government to play in this decision.

It is a shame that the Ground Zero site is still empty. The Twin Towers should have been rebuilt immediately just as was done in the case of the damaged section of the Pentagon.

I toured the Pentagon a few weeks ago and learned that this country was extremely fortunate that many more lives were not lost there on 9/11. I knew that the section of the building that was hit was undergoing renovations but I was not aware that the wall that was struck had already been reinforced. Had the plane struck another side of the building, an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people might have died there because the plane would have penetrated much deeper into the building.

I had to go to the Pentagon yesterday on business and each time I have been there I am struck at just how nuts the 9/11 deniers really are. There is the equivalent of a small city working inside of that building and it is clearly visible from many vantage points. For a person to think that no plane struck the building and that the government successfully conspired to keep such a fact from becoming known is one of the craziest conspiracy theories ever concocted.

I think it is incorrect to suggest that simply because a man points to policy failures in the middle east by the United States may lead to "angry young men picking up a gun or a brick or a stone," makes one a supporter of Islamic terrorism. To understand why a man commits murder is not to condone the murder. If an Islamic Center is placed there, it will be the most closely surveillanced organization in America...not a real security threat.

[Hoot Gibson]

I think it is incorrect to suggest that simply because a man points to policy failures in the middle east by the United States may lead to "angry young men picking up a gun or a brick or a stone," makes one a supporter of Islamic terrorism. To understand why a man commits murder is not to condone the murder. If an Islamic Center is placed there, it will be the most closely surveillanced organization in America...not a real security threat.

Any fool should be able to understand why the mosque was proposed to open on 9/11/11 two blocks from Ground Zero. The people who are pushing this agenda are supporting Islamic terrorism whether you like it or not.

[thecavemaster]

Any fool should be able to understand why the mosque was proposed to open on 9/11/11 two blocks from Ground Zero. The people who are pushing this agenda are supporting Islamic terrorism whether you like it or not.

Wouldn't it be pretty for you, Hoot, if Glenn or Sean or Rush or Bill simply saying so actually made it so. I favor Governor Patterson's plan to sit everyone involved down and come up with an alternate location. However, in Constitutional principle, this multi-use facility (a prayer room included but not exactly a "mosque") cannot be prohibited. Your "any fool..." rhetoric is simpletonism in clear relief.

[Hoot Gibson]

Wouldn't it be pretty for you, Hoot, if Glenn or Sean or Rush or Bill simply saying so actually made it so. I favor Governor Patterson's plan to sit everyone involved down and come up with an alternate location. However, in Constitutional principle, this multi-use facility (a prayer room included but not exactly a "mosque") cannot be prohibited. Your "any fool..." rhetoric is simpletonism in clear relief.

I already said that the radical Islamists pushing for a Ground Zero mosque to open on 9/11/11 have the constitutional right to do so. If you want to continue to play the fool's role, then go right ahead - but stop mischaracterizing my posts.

Exercising a right and doing the right thing are two entirely different animals. Building a Ground Zero mosque is the wrong thing to do and most Americans have no trouble understanding why.

[Matman]

Do they have the right to build it if it presents a public safety risk?