This is a pretty good analogy of how Obama thinks. I think this is so spot on that it’s frightening. I don’t know whether or not that he still “believes” in what he is doing or simply he’s just trying to prolong his downward spiral, but regardless, the people don’t like it. If he knew *anything* about the free market and economics he would have stayed out of the automotive, financial, and health care industries. Or, because he knows how the free markets truly work, he intervened for far different reasons. But, I won’t go there.

As for doing what the community wants …. the community is quite split. The initial polls had ‘against the mosque’ as being stronger, but I don’t think everybody really knew all of the facts then. Plus, I don’t believe just because the majority thinks it, it automatically becomes correct. Anyway, I completely agree with you on the second part. Thats why a mosque shouldn’t be built on ground zero … nobody is building a mosque on ground zero though. That makes it completely different in my opinion.

I started to make some comments about the gay marriage, but I realize now its pointless due to our largely different beliefs and backgrounds. I understand that much of my moral background is created from religion, even if I’m not religious, but God’s word is not my basis for morality. Sorry, I understand religion is used for many great things in this world, but I will never accept it as a reason to judge others. Thus nearly all of your points mean nothing to me and we will never see eye to eye.

PS I am curious as to how drunk you have to be for it to count as a sin?

On the issue of the mosque – A lot of this comes down to discernment. Are we as a society permitted to see right and wrong? Should organizations proclaiming their interest in unity and community service listen to and respect the community they wish to impact positively? To add another to the seeming glut of imperfect analogies consider this hypothetical: A boston preist has molested boys for many years and over that time eventually recruited confidants and other priests with the same detestable penchant. As time went along and their numbers grew they were emboldened to purchase property where they could take young boys in secret. Eventually this practice came to light and a stand off with authorities occurs at the property with a dozen or so boys held hostage. The situation tragically ends in the massacre of priests and boys in a fire started by one of the priests. Years later the local diocese decides to purchase the same land to raise a new church/community center. Appropriate or not? Outcry justified or not? Families considered or trampled? Obviously there are some differences, especially in that the niether the church nor the bible promotes or sanctions these horrible crimes. However, can you even imagine the church being so boneheaded as to try something this abrasive? I have no particular love for the catholic church, but I can’t imagine them doing this. And I have no doubt the media would explode in opposition to such blatant disregard for the community.

On gay marriage – I largely agree with AJ. Though I appreciate the rheorical trick of equating the differing uses of the word ‘gay’ with the attempt to fundamentally change the definition of marriage as an institution, I can’t agree with your overall point. There are almost too many inconsistencies to count in the ‘pro gay marriage’ position, but I’ll try to touch on a few. Generally speaking those on the left are more likely to support gay marriage. They are also generally more likely to have faith in the theory of evolution. I have yet to hear any defense of the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality or the promotion thereof. Also, many leaders within the gay community have over the years come out against gay marriage and wondered at the hypocrisy of those pushing for it. They point out that homosexuality is a counterculture movement, not a mainstream one, and as such they should be developing their own customs instead of begging for, borrowing and parrotting societal norms as their own. People with this point of view have included Harvey Milk and Elton John among others. What is your answer to this line of thinking? Dan, you are not alone in your incredulity over anyone’s lack of support for gay marriage. This is curious to me. It seems that the left is slowly but steadily assuming a position of arbiter of moral legitimacy. As a Christian and a realist I believe in absolutes. I believe in right and wrong and believe that God clearly tells us what that means. When I site my God and his word as reason that murder, stealing, lying, or adultery are wrong, noone bats an eye. If, from this same standard for morality, I ascertain that homosexuality is also wrong, I am suddenly a bigot and way off base. Let me be clear. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that lying and drunkeness are wrong. Am I to judge anyone more harshly based on some sort of sliding scale of graded sins? Certainly not! A sin is a sin is a sin. A person crosses over from morally aware to bigotted when they somehow discount a person’s humanity or value based on something like homosexuality. I am an equal in transgressions with any man alive no matter the name of the sin. But I must still call a spade a spade. If something is wrong I will not exalt it because it is vogue to do so. You might respond by saying ‘you are discounting their humanity by not letting them marry’. To which I would respond, “Not in the slightest” What I am doing is including them in society as we have all agreed it is structured. I am saying you are no more important or favored than any man, and as such must make your way in the world as any other does, abiding by certain customs and rules as you see fit and spurning them when you choose as well. What I am not saying is, ‘here is a class of weak and oppressed people in need of redefining all of society for their comfort and self-esteem’s sake’.

I heard (don’t remember where) that the Muslim community is overcrowded in that area and other Mosques, Islamic centers, etc have to turn people away. I imagine real estate in NYC isn’t very easy to come by, so I don’t think just move away is practical for this situation. I’m sure their intentions are good, and honestly, if I was in their shoes, I would be kinda pissed at the extreme outcry, they didn’t do anything wrong.

On the mosque, you make a strong argument, and a very good point (specifically in your last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph). On the OK City site argument, which I have heard many times now, it needs to be noted that this is quite different. Timothy McVeigh did not attack the building out of an explicit command from his religion, nor did he claim as much. 9/11, by contrast, was executed as a directive of radical Islam, so a Mosque on that site takes a much different tone than a church at the OK City site.

However, your point about where we draw the line is a strong point. In the end, I think we can both agree that there is a line to be drawn when it comes to the zoning concept of appropriateness. On where that line is drawn, however, we might continue to disagree. But, I must admit I’m not adament in my views on this one, and you’ve taken me closer to the other side. Having direct local zoning experience, I’m acutely aware of the importance of local opinion and representation. That being said, if the local community finds this inappropriate and offensive because of its location, I find it perfectly Constitutional and reasonable for the local zoning board to request the mosque be built elsewhere. On a side note, I also have questions of the Muslim community with regard to sensitivity on this issue. If their aim is to integrate into the community, promote peace, and attract others to their religion, why not simply hear the painful cries of victems’ families and move the mosque? It feels like they’re simply trying to make a statement.

Since you are against gay marriage (by the way the gay part would be dropped once we didn’t have to define it anymore), are you for civil unions so that gay people can be with their loved ones and still get the exact same legal benefits? If you against them, why can’t they have those benefits too? If you are for them, why does it have to be separate? What’s the point of having two of the exact same thing, but one doesn’t include a group of people? Sounds similar to separate but equal to me. Do you feel it threatens your marriage in anyway? I don’t see how you could be tolerant of gay people and see them as a threat at the same time.