I would go along with that, except it seems to me that nobody weighing in is actually there. Hypothetical sensitivity shouldn't count.

Thanks Erika

According to polls, People actually living in the neighborhood support the community center. Opposition seems come mostly from people living elsewhere on their behalf.

Going with Typo Boy, here. My Street has : white families, vietnamiese family , two interracial family,a family from Sweden( not American ) at least one atheist family, a number of conservative Christians, one right wing family, a bunch of liberal intellectuals , senior sinners ( live together not married, blue collar , whit collar, pink collar , musicians , auto mechanics--- and that is just the 8 houses or so I can think of. If I go out side of the street - well lets just say you can't really do anything with out someone thinking you are crossing a line. and there are six flavors of churches - at least. And that's in the 2 mile radius -- less then 5 to add a mosque and a sikh temple

The argument goes something like - sure it's legal but it's disrespectful so it shouldn't be allowed

You know what's really fucking disrespectful? Jack-hole former politicians from Georgia and Alaska telling people in lower Manhattan who breathed the ashes of their neighbors as they fled for their lives what they should and should not put on their own fucking block.

The Scary Scary Muslims aren't the interlopers here.

God I'm getting sick of this.

Trudy, I was just saying to Matt that that is the strongest argument

eta: my fingers and eyes should pay more attention

people in lower Manhattan who breathed the ashes of their neighbors as the fled for their lives what they should and should not put in their own fucking neighborhood.

That pretty much covers how I feel. If the people in that neighborhood are cool with it, that's all that matters. A Muslim community center in lower Manhattan will have utterly no effect on some yahoo in (for instance) Alaska.

I edited and am cranky so I'll repeat myself.

The Scary Scary Muslims aren't the interlopers here.

And on a much happier note, sj, the inn is lovely.

The Boy is now measuring the house for specs to give to Heating/Cooling (especially COOLING) folks.

*I* am eating fancy chocolates as a chaser to Ambien. All my pleasure receptors just went from 0 to 60. Bing!

And, full up on fancy chocolate, the Queen of Avoiding Things is going to bed. Perhaps with Little Women. It always makes me feel better.

t delurk

The argument goes something like - sure it's legal but it's disrespectful so it shouldn't be allowed.

If disrespect, fear of giving offense, and popular sentiment were given primacy over Constitutional principles, women still wouldn't have the right to vote, people of different ethnic/religions/appearances wouldn't be able to marry, and some people would be obligated to pay poll taxes because popular sentiment suggested they should.

Prevention of that kind of behavior is part of what the Constitution is about - equal protection under the law....and popular sentiment which demands that popular sentiment be given primacy over the law deeply and meaningfully undermines the Constitution.

An open society requires running the risk that someone's going to use the openness against you. There's no problem with reasonable caution, but it's not as though there are hordes of Islamic people preparing to storm lower Manhattan. Even if the people building the mosque were radical, fire-breathing Islamic fundamentalists, THEY'D STILL HAVE THE RIGHT, whether or not it opened old wounds. As an atheist, I don't care for religion of any type, but that doesn't give me the right to to tell someone they can't build a church in my neighborhood. I can tell them I am not interested in their message, but I can't shut them down because I don't like their belief system.

And IMHO, that's what the mosque furor is ultimately about - having the courage that the principles of openness and fairness will ultimately result in a better, more tolerant society.

t /relurk