I’ve been avoiding the story, just because I think it indulges one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry and because it’s stupid. But apparently Tea Partiers get to decide what’s stupid and what isn’t in national political discourse. Pundits are suggesting that the phrase “Ground Zero Mosque” is going to be this year’s “death panels.“ Republicans are all over it and Democrats are already retreating. There is one voice of sanity in the Republican Party this time, though his blaming “both sides” for the controversy seems a little disingenuous.
So does anyone really believe that the Federal Government has any right to tell a religious organization where it can buy property and build a place of worship? Jon Stewart asks whether it’s appropriate to build a Catholic Church next to a playground.
43 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 17, 2010 at 11:43 am
Joe Blow
Jon Stewart makes a good point. Guess they’re going to have to either do away with the church or the playground at St. Bernards in Eureka.
This is what we call “freedom”? Scream about Constitutional Rights until the bigotry gets in the way?
August 17, 2010 at 11:59 am
brian
“Scream about constitutional rights unitil the bigotry gets in the way” Well said J.B.
August 17, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Anonymous
Are you two for real ???? I should say you three and include Eric.
Some people can’t get approval to remove a tree or trees from their property or approval to subdivide a parcel but if you want to get a quick OK, build a mosque.
This does make one thing obvious, BHO is an idiot! And his motives are very questionalbe.
I do wonder what paths your lives took to think the way you do? But you have the right to be a bonehead in America.
August 17, 2010 at 3:21 pm
scott LaMorte
It’s not just the conservatives, the mainstream media is also heavily promoting this as a controversy. Most articles and video clips I have seen omit such key details as the mosque isn’t a mosque, it’s a community center; it’s two blocks from ground zero, not at ground zero; it’s not visible from the ground zero site; and the building is already in use as a mosque.
I mentioned this on my FB page and a friend sent me this to illustrate the issue: http://i.imgur.com/3H4RR.jpg
Hilarious!
August 17, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Eric Kirk
Mosque or community center, it’s nobody’s business unless they’re going to do something which amounts to a nuisance against neighbors, violate zoning, etc. And that’s between the owners and Manhattan’s Department of Planning. Whether it’s at ground zero or a hundred miles away is also not anybody’s business. It’s a local issue to determine whether the structure and intended usage is compliant with local and state codes.
That we’re even discussing this as a national issue is just an indication as to how goofy politics have become since right wingers discovered the radio.
August 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Plain Jane
“Some people can’t get approval to remove a tree or trees from their property or approval to subdivide a parcel but if you want to get a quick OK, build a mosque.”
They already have approval, hence the bigoted outrage. They purchased the property in 2009 and just got approval to demolish the old coat factory.
August 17, 2010 at 7:38 pm
mresquan
Speaking of bigoted outrage Jane,here is a comment left on Rose’s coffee shop blog by a regular commenter there.Bigotry still runs deep in this country,this is a fine example of it right here.
” 7.8.10
Blogger Guy said…
Martha, I really have to wonder why you are so concerned about finding an “acceptable location” for these people to set up shop…
Personally, if what I’ve been reading is true, and I have every reason to believe that it is, the people behind this are not only anti-American, they are a major threat to our national security. They intend to support terrorist organizations like Hamas, and preach hatred toward America, Americans, and our way of life. There is NO acceptable place for anything like that anywhere, so I see no reason why it should be allowed at all. Freedom of religion does NOT include subversion or treason….
Ignoring the facts and allowing those who obviously mean us harm to hide behind a religious veil is foolish. It is becoming increasingly apparent to me, and many other Americans, that these people are intent on taking advantage of our free and open society to infiltrate and attack our country from within. They did just that on 9/11, and only an idiot would believe that they have changed their ways.
Allowing our enemies to establish bases of operation in every major city in America is absurd, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who supports them, or fails to DENOUNCE them is complicit, and a traitor.
I certainly hope that’s not you …”
17.8.10
August 17, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, yeah, but anonymous has only been involved with the issue for a week, so obviously it’s all been “quick.”
August 17, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Mr. Nice
This mosque is a travesty. As revenge, America should put a military base in either Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or one of the other countries responsible for 9/11.
August 17, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Eric Kirk
Mark – Rose’s blog does attract some colorful folk.
August 17, 2010 at 8:31 pm
joe the plumber
The fevered opposition to a Muslim community center near “ground zero” is beyond ridiculous. Obama got it right the first time – It is their Constitutional right. If you don’t like it, move to China you clueless, flag waving dolts.
August 17, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Joel Mielke
“…if you want to get a quick OK, build a mosque.”
Anonymous 3:09 must work hard to be so ignorant.
August 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Unsurprisingly, Harry Reid caved in to the bigots almost immediately, saying that he “thinks that the mosque should be built some place else.” Pathetic.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/reids-mosque-position-leaves-dems-raw.php
At least GW Bush stuck to “no comment.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/george-bush-stays-out-of-ground-zero-mosque-fray.php?ref=fpb
August 17, 2010 at 11:52 pm
moviedad
I was very disappointed to hear the “All Sides Now” on KMUD regarding the issue. Some folks who I tend to agree with on 99% of issues, go completely bonkers when the subject is Palestine, Israel or Muslims.
August 18, 2010 at 6:50 am
Jim Buoy
Not that facts ever get in the way of the Boom-box vox populi crowd, here’s the factual time line on how this controversy took off.
One other little item TP patriots might take into consideration: If we are now going to openly declare war on Islam here in America how do you think that’s going to play in Afghanistan and Iraq where, you know, all those troops you love with your whole being, are? Think they’ll be safer there because of your holy war here? Isn’t this exactly what the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been saying all along?
Is this your new strategy for bringing those troops home sooner so they can take up positions along the Mexican border where they belong? Elaborate please. Don’t leave us in suspense awaiting the conclusion of your stimulating thought process on this one.
August 18, 2010 at 7:18 am
Joel Mielke
“…how do you think that’s going to play in Afghanistan and Iraq…?”
You give teabaggers too much credit. They are incapable of thinking about consequences.
August 18, 2010 at 9:01 am
Plain Jane
Maybe someone should tell the bigots that they are aiding Al Qaeda in driving a wedge between the majority moderate Muslims and the US with this hysterical hate campaign. When even Michael Gerson writes a column criticizing the right for their religious intolerance, you know they have gone over the cliff.
August 18, 2010 at 9:05 am
Anonymous
Is it Joel Mielke or is it mresquan? Why the switchup? Identity crisis?
“incapable of thinking about consequences” …….. it’s good to know that the intelligent, the great, the all knowing mresquan is around to enlighten the ignorant lesser beings.
JM you seem to be a bit self absorbed.
August 18, 2010 at 9:55 am
anonymous
We were over the cliff when Halliburton was exposed as the voice of reason in the BP disaster.
August 18, 2010 at 9:57 am
moviedad
The New-American-Centurions not only support AlQueida, they created them through the criminal activities of the Reagan cartel.
It’s almost too easy to play the Prophet, but I see a Sarah Palin win in 2012, with the rigged election delivering the government to the Centurions. Then the gloves will be off regarding the Constitution. Which is a leftist manifesto to most of those….people.
As long as the Centurions own the media, they will be able to ratchet up the fear factor on those who already live in it. I already don’t recognize our country. I didn’t know how good we had it just a few decades ago. Now when I see a movie made before 1934, I am blown away by the leftist, liberal points of view. Contrast that with the fascist, fake-patriotism of the films from the 1940′s. I say “Fake-Patriotism” in regards to those controlling the media, the people of course, only know patriotism and loyalty in the the real sense. The media has always been able to pervert those virtues into a programmable, reactionary force; which it can steer towards those who dare to oppose capitalism.
I know I’m a broken record; but capitalism is wrong. No species on Earth can survive this method of survival. It is unsustainable. It supports injustice. It is destroying the Earth.
August 18, 2010 at 9:58 am
moviedad
No, I don’t mean the “Taliban” Thank you.
August 18, 2010 at 10:41 am
Dave Kirby
Read this morning that polls of the people in New York City are running 2 to 1 against the Islamic Center. Calling it a Mosque isn’t completely accurate. It would be a place of worship but also a cultural center. There are a fair number of folks in this country who feel Islam is “of the devil” and see this as a christian “jihad”. The fact that pilots of the 911 aircraft were chanting Allah Akbar when the hit is a vivid image for some. It’s not right but completely understandable why some oppose it. I suspect the citizens of New York will have the greatest impact on the project.
August 18, 2010 at 10:48 am
TheMedia
Ummm … teabaggers? You do know that there is actually a mosque a block away from the proposed site of the community center, right? A mosque that has been there for more than 40 years. You do know this, amirite?
August 18, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Chuck Finley
Guess you can add HOWARD DEAN to the list of bigots, eh? Even he isn’t buying all this bigot crap, identifies the placement of the “community center” as an “affront to all those that lost someone on 9/11″ and recommends some “compromise” to work out an alternate site. Now if he could just get the rest of you to take a time out from your progressive pavlovian responses.
August 18, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Mitch
I agree with Mr. Nice. If those bastards build a mosque on our hallowed ground, we should threaten to put a few Christian, Jewish, and non-believing soldiers on the territory of a Muslim country. Just because they act all nice and normal now doesn’t mean that they won’t turn into jihadists faster than you can say Ayatollah.
If these Muslims want to be accepted into the community of nations, they should learn to believe in God.
August 18, 2010 at 9:22 pm
mresquan
State court declares Roseville Galleria’s speech rules unconstitutional
By Denny Walsh
dwalsh@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Aug. 13, 2010 – 12:30 pm
Last Modified: Friday, Aug. 13, 2010 – 12:58 pm
A state appellate court has declared that rules regulating talk among strangers at the Galleria at Roseville violate California Constitution free speech guarantees.
A Placer County judge earlier had thrown out the case, finding that the owner’s rules of conduct pass constitutional muster.
But, in stark contrast, a three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal declared this week in a 43-page opinion that “the rules are unconstitutional on their face” under the state constitution.
The panel reversed Placer Superior Court Judge Larry D. Gaddis’ ruling in favor of Westfield LLC, and sent the case back to him for further proceedings.
The specific rule at issue prohibits a person in the center’s common areas from “approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests” of the mall or its tenants.
The case centered of efforts by Matthew Snatchko, a 27-year-old youth pastor, to share his Christian faith. Snatchko, a Roseville resident, often went to the Galleria, the largest shopping mall in Northern California. While in a common area one evening, he approached three young women who agreed to talk with him on subjects that included principles of his faith.
A store employee called security and an officer responded and told Snatchko to stop talking to the women or leave the mall. When he refused, the officer called for backup and a senior security officer responded and ordered Snatchko out. He again refused, and found himself under “citizen’s arrest,” handcuffed and turned over to Roseville police.
He was booked and released, and when he appeared in court for arraignment, all charges were dropped. The Placer County district attorney’s office agreed that Snatchko was “factually innocent,” and a Superior Court judge took the unusual step of issuing an order making a formal finding of factual innocence.
Snatchko sued Westfield, Professional Security Consultants, the security firm employed at the Galleria, and Richard Flores, the officer who made the arrest. He seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount for false imprisonment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, malicious prosecution, and a general violation of his rights under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Writing on behalf of the unanimous appellate panel, Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye concluded “the rules allow conversation between strangers on matters related to the Galleria….while prohibiting peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers in common areas of the mall on topics unrelated to the….mall.”
The rules also provide that an application may only be for proposed conversation between two persons, thus prohibiting altogether talk among more than two unacquainted persons on subjects other than the Galleria, she noted.
Westfield spokeswoman Katy Dickey said in a prepared statement: “We are disappointed that the court of appeals determined that the rules in question did not satisfy the required legal standard for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. We are reviewing the court’s decision and will consider our options….including appeal to the California Supreme Court.”
Matthew McReynolds, an attorney for Matthew Snatchko, a 27-year-old youth pastor who challenged the rules, hailed the decision as “a huge victory for free speech and common sense. The opinion is a great credit to Justice Cantil-Sakauye – very thorough, well thought-out.”
Acting Presiding Justice Ronald B. Robie and Associate Justice M. Kathleen Butz joined in the opinion.
August 18, 2010 at 9:24 pm
mresquan
I am sure that all who oppose having a Mosque at the WTC when they can have one two miles away would agree that this unconstitutionality ruling is B.S. because this guy could have taken his creed two miles away from the shopping center.
August 19, 2010 at 4:57 am
Jim Buoy
O, but you forget, mresquan, the mall is not hallowed ground as the encompassing area within a two blocks radius of Ground Zero is and always will be. Which is why, even today, you can not find a sushi bar within two blocks of battleship row.
August 19, 2010 at 7:55 am
Ben Schill
Are there Christian churches in Hiroshima? Nagasaki? The level of ignorance in 21st century America is truly frightening.
August 19, 2010 at 9:33 am
Anon
The First Amendment guarantees not that there will be no state religion. It also guarantees Free Speech. Funny how exercised some folks get when
people who disagree with them speak freely. As I read what is reported in the main stream media, most Americans recognize that there is no legal or bar to the mosque/ community center (right, there will be TONS of Christmas plays put on there, start auditioning for the role of Tiny Tim) its just a bad idea and in the poorest taste. According to some 60 plus percent of the People, exercising their right to Free Speech. But of course, Progressives freely exercise the right to tell the rest of us what neanderthals we are.
August 19, 2010 at 11:12 am
joe the plumber
…. and this just in from the latest Pew poll: nearly i in 5 Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. I vacillated between finding the gross ignorance of my fellow Americans hilarious and frightening. I guess it was funny until someone started a war and thousands died horrible deaths unnecessary, then I wasn’t laughing anymore.
August 19, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Mitch
Malls are America’s true hallowed ground.
August 19, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Anonymous
I think it would be rather nice to have an Islamic community center there if the neighbors are okay with it.
August 19, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Eric Kirk
I think it would be rather nice to have an Islamic community center there if the neighbors are okay with it.
From my perspective, whether the neighbors are okay with it is irrelevant. Some neighbors aren’t okay with nonwhite people moving next door. But that’s too bad.
August 19, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Eric Kirk
“approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests”
Man do I see potential for great civil disobedience!
August 19, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Eric Kirk
Guess you can add HOWARD DEAN to the list of bigots, eh? Even he isn’t buying all this bigot crap, identifies the placement of the “community center” as an “affront to all those that lost someone on 9/11″ and recommends some “compromise” to work out an alternate site. Now if he could just get the rest of you to take a time out from your progressive pavlovian responses.
Point is, it’s not Howard Dean’s business what the property owners do with their property.
As I asked on my radio show tonight, where are all the property rights conservatives?
August 20, 2010 at 8:41 am
Toohey
Point is they have the right to build the mosque but it is an insensitive gesture that is counter to their stated purpose.
August 20, 2010 at 11:12 am
Eric Kirk
Point is they have the right to build the mosque but it is an insensitive gesture that is counter to their stated purpose.
Why is it “insensitive?” They didn’t kill anybody.
Would it be insensitive to build a Christian Church two blocks from a Planned Parenthood Clinic which been bombed?
August 20, 2010 at 9:57 pm
scott LaMorte
Muslims are already meeting and praying in the basement of the Burlington Coat Factory, so it is already a de facto “mosque.” Is that insensitive too? Should they pray somewhere else? Or is it okay to pray there but only if it’s in a run down old basement that they never refurbish or rebuild?
August 21, 2010 at 9:02 am
Toohey
Come on your smart, think of a reversed situation and still tell me its isn’t insensitive.
August 21, 2010 at 9:05 am
Toohey
I might add the scale of the thing is part of why it sticks in people’s craw..
August 21, 2010 at 10:07 pm
ED Denson
So, are we at war with Muslims, or not? If we are, are we going to expel those who are in the USA, or compel conversion to some other faith? If we are not at war with them, what’s the problem with them building a mosque?
Bush initially announced a “crusade” to get revenge for the 9/11 attacks. He had to refigure his language, but was he really right? Is this really a crusade? Were the bombings the first shot of a vast war between the West and the Muslims?
I ask opponents of the mosque who write on this list to respond.
Thank you.
August 24, 2010 at 5:24 pm
kickinuptheirheals
um, i heard that if the NFL was in charge of this situation they would prohibit the building of this mosque b’cuz it is the same as an end zone victory dance… just saying….