Do you want the fed to determine where Churches can be built?

Jarod said:
ANd Scalia? Thomas usually just says, "Whatever Scalia says I agree with it..."
Click to expand...

thomas may mimic scalia in alot of decisions, but when it comes to clear cut constitutionality, thomas comes down on the side of the constitution. read his dissent in gonzalez v. raich.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
thomas may mimic scalia in alot of decisions, but when it comes to clear cut constitutionality, thomas comes down on the side of the constitution. read his dissent in gonzalez v. raich.
Click to expand...

I just read some of Gonzalez... I suspect that was written by a clerk, not Thomas. Well written and thought out... Very unlike Thomas.
 
Rana said:
How about green or purple, I am tired of pink it has been four years and right now I am trying to pretend it never happened!
Click to expand...

While at college, I noticed the sports teams going out in pink once a year. By showing up early for the men's basketball game, and catching the women's, I got to wintess a lot of cuteness on the court. The ladies wear the pink much more nicely! :cof1:
 
Damocles said:
Let me be Devil's advocate (I've already argued ad-hominem that if we truly believe in religious freedom then we would allow them to build if they get the permits.):

Maybe they are thinking a bit of taste should come into play. Even with "freedom of speech" would it be okay for a Christian church to be built in Mecca? A Nazi memorial in Jerusalem? Should the Japanese be able to build memorials in China where they "tested" their gas bombs, or where their soldiers threw the kids in the air and stabbed them with bayonets?

With "Freedom of Speech" and/or "Religion" any of these things could be possible, but should they be done?
Click to expand...

A Nazi memorial or the memorial in China would be a direct memorial to an act of war or an atrocity. That is not what is happening here.

The mosque is to be built a few blocks from the former site of the World Trade Centers. They keep saying "ground zero" but that is inaccurate.

Should it be done? The site is in a muslim community. It will serve them as their community place of worship. It is not as trophy, a "fuck you" or any sort of memorial for the 9/11 attack.

My question to answer your question would be:

How far should muslims in that community have to travel to go to their church and not offend New Yorkers?
 
Southern Man said:
If they build the mosque at ground zero, the terrorists win.
Click to expand...

Just the opposite. Not allowing american citizens to actually be free because of bigotry and irrational fear is when the terrorists win.

Convicting an entire faith based on the actions of a tiny minority is when the terrorists win.

Suspending the US Constitution out of unfounded fears is when the terrorists win.




Allowing these people to build their mosque a few blocks away from ground zero shows the terrorists that they cannot change our culture, take away our freedoms or ruin our nation. In other words, we win.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, it takes the willingness to defend yourself to be free.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. But you defend yourself from an attack. This mosque is not an attack. This mosque is a place of worship.




A much better quote than the ones used would be:

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." B. Franklin
 
Damocles said:
It compares to all those things. Each is an example of something that could cause the same type of controversy.
Click to expand...

It does not compare. In kind maybe, but not in degree. Since you are arguing that the mosque supporters should simply walk away from the area out of respect the degree is signficant.


Before it was a furniture store. Furniture stores don't seem to have the same type of controversy attached to them.
Click to expand...

The Warren Stree Mosque has been in the area for over ten years. Is there something important about the building?

This is ignorant of the fact that one of those groups most outspoken against it are a group of family members.
Click to expand...

What group? I am sure you can find them on both sides. But only those who side with hate deserve "tolerance," I guess?

As I said, there was a process followed to hear these concerns. This is mostly up to the neighborhood. The victims of the family do not own the land. I am absolutely certain the residents feel for them and consider their concerns, but it is the choice of the residents and property owners.

Which is all fine, but that doesn't change the sentiment that I have stated. It should be legal, but probably shouldn't have been done. Those who seek tolerance should practice it.
Click to expand...

The sentiment you are stating is hogwash. Tolerance does not mean that we must bow to hate mongers and consider their feewings. That's what you seem to want to do on marriage too, which makes little sense.

This is being driven by the fever swamps. Listen to the rhetoric. It's not about the families of the victims. It's about some crazed nonsense that the Muslims are doing this as some show of dominance.
 
Ohh the terrorists are comming, lm scared... Lets trash the constitution and make this country a military state with no religous freedom.....

Then we can beat them.
 
Jarod said:
I just read some of Gonzalez... I suspect that was written by a clerk, not Thomas. Well written and thought out... Very unlike Thomas.
Click to expand...

Ehhh, it fits. He does not ask many questions, he does not interject with his opinions except when he feels he needs to say something of importance. He does often agree with Scalia, but not always and usually disagrees when Scalia goes into his nutty partisan rants. Look at Thomas in Lawrence, though I disagree with him, his dissent shows that he is not the partisan that Scalia is.

In my opinion Thomas is the ONLY one of the conservatives that makes any sense. He was right in his disagreement with them in McDonald v Chicago, as sty notes, and in a way that forms coherence with his other opinions that I do not necessarily agree with (e.g., Lawrence). The other conservatives only decide on a partisan basis which makes them unimportant. Thomas is the only rational conservative on the court.

I think you are mistaken.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top