The New Mosque

[we vs us]

Yes, and that would be a lie.  He could have said, and echoed majority sentiment on the issue:

"I agree that you should have the right to build a Mosque anywhere that it is legal to do so, but I disagree with the choice of this location as that it will serve to strain a relationship with Islam that we are trying so hard to develop, and in many cases repair."

"On this location, rather than a symbol of beauty and tranquility, I fear your Mosque will become a target for hatred, misunderstanding and darkness."

"I ask you, the leaders of your faith to reconsider.  Your choice now will serve as an example of your commitment to building not only a place of worship but a healing bond with those affected by the 9/11 attacks."

W T F?  Majority opinion?  Where did you get THAT?

Your argument about agreeing in principle to freedom of religion but disagreeing with it in practice is , well, unconstitutional.  It would be even moreso if the head of the executive branch were to espouse it publicly, even if it were masked, as you suggest, as a plea for civility.  As it is, he's simply done his duty, which is to reiterate American Muslims' constitutional rights.  

[Cats Cats Cats]

He said that you SHOULD be able to do it but he alluded that he thought it wasn't a good idea.  If I were them I would drop it and find a new location.  However, I bet finding a place to worship in NY isn't that easy (finding a building, be able to afford it etc etc.)

[we vs us]

I'll correct myself about the majority opinion thing.  A CNN poll released last week said a majority did oppose it.

[Gaspar]

W T F?  Majority opinion?  Where did you get THAT?

Your argument about agreeing in principle to freedom of religion but disagreeing with it in practice is , well, unconstitutional.  It would be even moreso if the head of the executive branch were to espouse it publicly, even if it were masked, as you suggest, as a plea for civility.  As it is, he's simply done his duty, which is to reiterate American Muslims' constitutional rights.  

I said nothing about "disagreeing with it in practice."  The disagreement is with the "choice."

Just like the President may agree with talk radio's right to offer commentary on the radio, but disagree with the "choice" of language as it relates to his job performance.

I don't think anyone is challenging the right of the Cordoba Institute to build a Mosque near Ground Zero.  That is simply not in question.  I do think that people disagree with the choice of location on the basis that is will serve only to inflame and divide.  It becomes political fodder, and food for increased hatred and misunderstanding.

If any elected official uttered that they "don't have a right" to build there, that official should resign or be removed from office for failure to honor the constitution.

[Gaspar]

He said that you SHOULD be able to do it but he alluded that he thought it wasn't a good idea.  If I were them I would drop it and find a new location.  However, I bet finding a place to worship in NY isn't that easy (finding a building, be able to afford it etc etc.)

Interestingly enough the location they have selected is in the middle of a commercial zone. 
There have been attempts to offer other properties to them with more appealing demographics (i.e. residential zoning).

[nathanm]

It has only become a poltical football because the nutters decided to make it one.

[Conan71]

It has only become a poltical football because the nutters decided to make it one.

So a majority of people oppose the location for this mosque (in re: wevus' CNN poll) and they are all nutters?

[Townsend]

So a majority of people oppose the location for this mosque (in re: wevus' CNN poll) and they are all nutters?

Well, I'm pretty sure the people in the poll might oppose it in differing degrees and for different reasons.  And most of them will not actually voice any opinion at all.

That may be where the "nutters" are rearing their heads.

[we vs us]

So a majority of people oppose the location for this mosque (in re: wevus' CNN poll) and they are all nutters?

It's been demagogued to such a degree so that the actual truth of what it is is probably obscured to a healthy amount of those folks.  The "majority" is undoubtedly comprised of the honest, the ignorant, and the reprehensible  (ie Gingrich, Palin, etc)

But in this case, the majority opinion doesn't -- or shouldn't -- matter.  It's precisely why we have things such things enshrined in the constitution, to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.   

[guido911]

Nearly 70% disapprove per CNN:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/overwhelming-majority-oppose-mosque-near-ground-zero/

[Townsend]

Nearly 70% disapprove per CNN:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/overwhelming-majority-oppose-mosque-near-ground-zero/

But can they give a good reason other than what they've heard on television or read online?

Their own opinion.

Probably not.

[guido911]

But can they give a good reason other than what they've heard on television or read online?

Probably not, because apparently 70% of Americans are "nutters".

[Breadburner]

I heard a "Sigi's Sausage Factory" is going in next door....

[Townsend]

Probably not, because apparently 70% of Americans are "nutters".

You might give then a little more credit than that.

[Gaspar]

Count me in!
I love Nutters.