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

I can respect Cindy's opinion (though I disagree)--because she clearly understands the difference between having a right to do it, and something being a little ooky to some people. I think it's OK for some people to be upset. Heck--forget the space AROUND Ground Zero--I'm sure some (many?) people are/will be upset by what the memorial at the actual Ground Zero looks like, when that happens. And that's OK. They have a right to their opinions, and they may even have a point (...all theoretical in my mind here, since I have no idea what any memorial will look like or encompass). Say if one group wanted to list everyone's names, and another group wanted to just have a more abstract memorial. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't BE a memorial, or that either group couldn't eventually ...remember(? do whatever you do at a memorial) there.

Hey, Steph, if you gotta spend the money, opt for the most efficient thing you can get; it`s worth it if you can swing it. And remember to put any air conditioning unit in the shade if possible, that`ll reduce your bills going forward as well.

WellI won't be getting any of my answers because he's declared the conversation over since we both understand each others positions.

Even though I honestly don't understand his position. He says it's provocative but can't give me a good reason except some people are offended.