Cultural Center near Ground Zero

insert facepalm.jpg at Onestdv

"Obama holds the "rights" of foreign peoples over the palpable anguish of the vast majority of American citizens."

Unclear. Or am I to assume muslims by definition cannot be American citizens?

"The left frames this as an issue of fundamental rights and I admittedly can not offer an opposing argument in this regard. Freedom of religion applies to all in every circumstance. But is a nation defined solely by its laws and legal principles or do the people occasionally supersede these guidelines? Do widespread cultural and social desires allow us to occasionally circumvent these principles? And what circumstances warrant subverting our laws?"

lulz. So it seems you agree that it's a fundamental right and cannot give an argument against it, but then disagree that it's a fundamental right. Most people are probably scratching their heads at the contradiction already. Or I guess to frame his opposition in regards to another fundamental right. Should the 5th amendment really be applied in all cases? Aren't there cases where the crimes are so heinous and the outcry from the public is so loud and emotional that the defendant or defendants should be forced to testify?

"The conservative opposition to the mosque is primarily concerned with our collective "sensitivity". They take the position that emotional consensus concerning this event justifies opposition. I agree with them, yet the left does persuasively counter by noting the universality of religious freedom and the nebulous precedent advocated in this instance. Mainly, I disagree with the specificity of the conservative opposition, an inexorable aspect of the debate caused by the prevailing mainstream discourse."

The emotional consensus doesn't justify opposition because it's, quite frankly, an appeal to emotion and is not a valid argument. Of course, then he goes on to question the fundamental right, which he already agrees with, and you can see my previous paragraph about that and then he finishes it up with, "...I disagree with the specificity of the conservative opposition...". Not sure what he means by this at this point and whether he supports a broader campaign to stop mosques or opposition to muslims in general.

"Instead of focusing on this particular mosque, an important issue for sure, the Right needs to take a more general approach about the fabric of this nation and what constitutes "American principles". The "proposition nation" fails due to its inherent globalism; the Mosque supporters use this embedded concept, one ignored by pusillanimous conservatives, as justification for their project and their triumphalist edifice. This debate isn't necessarily about Ground Zero, but rather about the national capitulation we must endure if diversity and tolerance, instead of national vigor, become the highest values. Too much of a great thing, constitutional republicanism, can ultimately cause a nation's downfall."

I think we already know about his "American Principles" and that is that they can be superseded by emotional appeals. "Proposition Nation"? I don't know what he means by this. "Triumphalist edifice"? Now there are probably only two ways to come to this conclusion one is by associating any muslims or anything islamic with islamic terrorism (specifically 9/11), which is fallacious, or coming from a broader ethnocentric stance. Judging from his post I would suspect both. I also agree it's not about ground zero because what's being built isn't going to be at ground zero. "National vigor" is vague but I would assume it's based upon ethnocentrism.

"Allowing this mosque represents a vile insult against the American people. Surely we cherish the founding concepts of this nation and owe our predominance to these freedoms. But a nation exists independent of its laws; it's an amalgamation of cultural mores, traditions, social bonds, collective pride, national folklore, and, yes, an incorporeal spirit. A nation is founded upon laws, but a nation is defined by its people, a concept illustrated by the most basic thought experiments. (Walk from your local Bodega to Little Italy.) This mosque abides by our laws, but it enervates our nationhood. It's an ostentatious display implying that America must willfully acquiesce, even welcome, that which disturbs their solidarity and upsets them greatly. Only to the liberal reductionist, obstinately beholden to "diversity" and "tolerance", would the emotional spirit of a people and the death of a cohesive civilization matter so little."

Blah Blah Blah more appeal to emotions Blah Blah Blah. However, I got a good lulz at nation states having incorporeal spirits. Since when did nation states have spirits? There's some other stuff in there I could talk about but, I'm wasting too much time on this already. I also got a good lulz at the last line too. My favorite lulz was...if they build this cultural center then it's the collapse "of a cohesive civilization." lulz. Slippery slope much?