Monday, August 16, 2010

On the Ground Zero Mosque

A few things to consider about the Ground Zero Mosque....

1) Do the people who want to build the mosque own the land in question?  Or is the landlord willing to let them open a mosque in the existing building? 

2) Will the mosque put anyone in danger? 

3)  Do we want grandstanding politicians involved in decisions about how we can and cannot use private property? 

4)  If you owned a piece of land, would you want its usage to be put up for a vote? 

5)  It is illegal to open a synagogue in many Muslim countries.  Ditto for a church.  Would putting a U.S. ban on mosques help or hurt this situation? 

6)  When you were a kid, did you ever learn the rhyme "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?  Does this apply to buildings? 

7)  Has the Islamic Witch Doctor in charge of this stunt already gotten far more free publicity than he deserves? 

8)  Is this a GREAT wedge issue for Republicans who want Americans to worry about tribalism instead of our $14,000,000,000,000.00 debt? 

9)  Which building is more likely to do you harm:  The Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, or a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero? 

10)  Does Barack Obama's willingness to get sucked into this issue prove that he is a silly person? 

5 comments:

Harper said...

1.Yes,the developer owns the land, 2. The building itself - no, but the teachings, maybe yes, 3. Hell no, 4. Trick question. If the law is against me but the 'vote' would go my way, then of course I want a 'vote'. I'm shallow and selfish that way, 5. Banning mosques is unconstitutional, so 'hurt',6. It does not apply if the building is housing an Imam who teaches extremist Islamic views and condones violent jihad, 7. Hell yes, 8. See answer # 7, 9. Immediate term, The Fed, longer term, could be a tie (depends on the teachings and congregants - location notwithstanding), 10. 'Silly' seems a little kind, but yes.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

1. Not yet. They have paid X dollars for the privilege of paying the local government (the de facto owners of ALL property in so called private hands) rent er taxes on it. This will change when it becomes religious real estate.
2. Yes. If it is Sunni it will be in danger from a Shi'ite suicide bomber and vice versa.
3. Non sequitur. We are already there. See zoning boards etc.
4. Non sequitur. See 3 above.
5. Yes. Ditto yes. It would help. "Don't get mad, get even". It feels so goood!
6. Yes, but I think you need to rethink this "question".
7. Yes, but he will be issuing a fatwa ordering your death.
8. Probably yes but the debt is FAR beyond worrying about. We are already SCREWED by it.
9. Allen, Allen, Allen. Buildings do NOT cause harm! It's the OCCUPANTS and it's a tossup.
10. He has already been sucked empty by the fellating media.

trencherbone said...

Does any politician seriously think that allowing the Muslims to build this Victory Mosque will pacify them or prevent further attacks? In fact, it will only encourage them, in the same way that allowing the Nazis to occupy the Rhineland led to their occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and then the whole of Europe.

The politicians should read the links under 'Appeasement' at EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ISLAM

Nick Rowe said...

Agree.

Of all the issues we could choose to discuss, this is among the most trivial.

And for the President, it is also the most out-of-bounds. This is entirely a local, not a federal issue. If the President's opinion on fundamental American liberty is necessary, we've got serious problems.

EdgyJuneCleaver said...

Thank you Thank you Alan for taking all the spin off this issue and turning it into ten bullet points.

The only thing sillier than Obama in this situation? The people who don't hink preventing building a place of worship on privately held land is a threat to our freedom of religion.