One thing is certain: the mosque will now be a hot issue in the midterm elections and a litmus test for candidates across the country. It would serve Obama right if he loses his House and Senate majorities over his support.
There was a better way. It came from Gov. Paterson, whose offer to help the mosque developers find another location held the potential for a harmonious settlement.
But without even a serious conversation, they rejected the offer, reinforcing suspicion that provocation to the memory of 9/11 is part of the developers' plan. --Quoted at AOSHQ
4 comments:
This isn't going anywhere, and most folks understand that. The real question is, shouldn't conservatives be arguing that deciding the suitability of a location for building a house of worship is best made at the local level? Do we really want criteria such as whether some might be offended by such a building to be used in making these decisions? Could the political will of a majority hinder the construction of my church's new sanctuary, a synagogue or a Buddhist retreat?
Or are we just concerned with generating some more phony outrage? Who cares what gets built where in NYC? Certainly not you, who heckle the city's importance to the country whenever the opportunity arises.
Here's a thought - why not build a casbah in Rangel's Harlem office space after he's booted from the House and no longer needs it?
I oppose the placement of the mosque for exactly the reason that ALL Conservatives do: it is unseemly.
Legal, but unseemly.
You have a problem with that? Then put money into Gutfeld's gay-bar next door.
See how long it lasts.
Why, that would be like putting a playground next to a Catholic church!
Bringing your usual mature and enlightened arguments to the debate, I see.
Here's a hint: More Muslims support and applauded the terrorism and deaths on 9/11 than there were abusive priests.
But you get an "A" for effort.
Post a Comment