I have two videos for your viewing pleasure today.
In the total wingnut corner we have this “patriotic” anthem by Trade Martin making the rounds in conservative circles. It reminds us why graduating from college is so important in the modern day:
<
p>
<
p>And in the opposing corner we have this video by Malini Sur, a surgery resident / singer songwriter in New York:
<
p>
I read a nice quote on blogger Andrew Sullivan’s site yesterday:
“[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom… was finally passed,… a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67 [Link]
Well, I guess there was a good reason why the conservative school board in Texas decided to expunge Jefferson from textbooks.
Dude, given that post #99 was the first cogent and worthwhile thing you’ve said all thread, perhaps you should remove the plank from your own eye before you point out the speck in your brother’s?
Thanks for piping up, Yoga Fire. Your comment was, as always, very helpful. Now where’s your contribution? Maybe it’s your biases, but it’s a pity you can’t see the inherent contradictions and hypocrisies in the opposition to the mosque that I’ve pointed out in my earlier comments.
yoga, who died and made you king? you haven’t said any shit of any value on the thread. and you have the balls to speak of specks and logs. mind your own business or have the balls to say what you think instead of hiding behind some bs refereeing
With Rahul beating a hasty retreat after having been forced to misuse words in common parlance, mistake freedom of speech for free exercise of religion, bandy terms like loon and raging, and when all else fails pathetically claw after grammar rather than confront substance of argument, I will conclude with this (assuming rahul’s inclination for schoolyard antics does not get the better of him):
Civil liberties and accusations are not mere bats to bludgeon legitimate dissent when it exists. And it is utterly appalling that moderate muslims such as Raza and Fateh are accused of surrendering to mobs when they bravely stand up to voice their opinion (never mind the abuse that tolerant and pluralist non-muslims who find the proposal to be insensitive are subjected to). I can understand the passion that a few ill-informed liberals have to defend the rights of the disenfranchised, which is not the case here. However, this is not a question of law, but a question of common sense. To ignore history and to hide behind facile arguments of civil liberties, when anyone with a third grade knowledge of cordoba and the moors in spain knows better, not only demonstrates insensitivity, but rank cowardice. To dismiss the feelings of victims of a tragedy and to compare them to cartoon fundamentalists, smacks of sheer gall. Furthermore, this attempt to cow down the very muslim moderates needed to speak up to prevent the spread of fundamentalism in the community of concern, is utterly irresponsible. It is curtailing the very freedom of expression that self-styled defenders of civil liberties profess to safeguard. What they’re saying is free speech only applies when it’s approved by them.
Regardless of personal passion, it is possible to debate respectfully. It may be tempting to fall back on convenient labels when backed into a logical corner, but tread not the path of sophists. For those who argue rightly that we are all Americans, need also remember it is American to respectfully dissent on this as well.
And so we go back to comment 50. Lather, rinse, repeat. And goodnight.
Yoga,
Fear not old friend. Rahul’s tantrums are designed to intimidate when all his silly little antics fail. But since he cannot argue fact, he has to vent his frustration by name-calling or grammar-picking (generally a sign of desperation). He can yell “inherent contradictions” all he wants, but the fact is he and everyone here knows he has failed to prove it. He has even curiously taken to insulting the moderate muslims who spoke up in the Ottawa Citizen article, dubiously exposing himself to the bigot and anti-muslim labels he himself uses to muzzle others. I wouldn’t count on an explanation for it though. Just kick back and enjoy the show as he implodes.
Rahul,
Nothing has been more amusing than to watch you twist and turn in ill-constructed argument and desperate artifice (and as the dhimmi episode showed–utter ignorance). You inject the very rancor you incredulously now decry and then accuse others of childishness when you yourself were never intending on–or academically equipped for–reasoned discussion. You can posture all you want, but without facts or logic, your own intellectual bankruptcy is revealed. It’s like watching a spider get caught in its own web. What a tangled web you’ve weaved…
A worthwhile read fisking the oft repeated crap (Satyajit is probably repeating Newt’s claims here) about Cordoba being a sign of triumphalism: http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html
So what should modern Christians think when they hear a Muslim use the word “Cordoba”? Well, I know that Newt hasn’t been a Catholic for very long now, but maybe his priest ought to direct him to read a little thing called “The Catholic Encyclopedia”. Allow me to quote from the 1917 edition (which has the virtue of being in the public domain and easily searchable) and its entry on Cordoba:
The article then discusses the persecution of the Christians under Abd-ar-Ramman II, which included the martyrdom of St. Eulogius. Then it continues with the rule of those rulers who expanded the Mosque:
So it’s easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it “The Cordoba House” They’re not, as Gingrich hopes we would believe, discreetly laughing at us because “Cordoba” is some double-secret Islamist code for “conquest”; rather, they’re hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side.
Satyajit, I will just point out that you haven’t pointed out a single error in what I’ve said (your claims about my freedom of expression phrase are just plain wrong). Instead, you’ve slandered Muslims, made contradictory and incoherent claims about tolerance and offense, and opportunistically leapt from justification to justification to try and make your case. It is actually kind of sad to watch you desperately hang on to that article in the Ottawa Citizen, as if that somehow justifies your bigotry. And if you really don’t understand the dhimmitude statement, then I will withdraw claims that you are a bigot, you are just dimwitted.
I thought it was over but it’s not %
I dunno. Mufasa?
Or I could point out that your buddy up there has done nothing but toss out glib one-liner chum in every thread he has ever posted in and it’s tiresome. The English language scarcely has words to describe how little I care about where these people build their mosque or whose panties are getting in a twist over it. It has a lot of words to describe how I feel about people who can’t actually hold a discussion about any political issue without intimating that their interlocutor is secretly an agent of evil though. That kind of attitude is precisely why politics in this country is thoroughly fucked.
i guess it hurts your ass if you dont agree with him. if you dont have anything to contribute, shut up instead of offering commentary about those who are saying stuff. referees are not worth shit.
yet you dont care when wry equates mosque support to islamic extremists – what is more poisonous than that
Yoga Fire, your public editor function is invaluable. Where would Sepia Mutiny be without your gratis services?
omg, Rahul, you really do put the ass in asinine. Oh no wait, there’s only one s in asinine not two. Quick Rahul, point it out to score brownie points when the facts aren’t on your side!
You want me to point out something outright: victory mosques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques
“In the 11th century, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim ordered the demolition of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.[94]”
And to disprove something outright: You do realize that Christians and Jews lived as dhimmis in cordoba. Second class citizens. If you bothered to even open the wiki article on dhimmis you would see that outright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
‘In the 12th century, rulers of the Almohad dynasty purged Muslims who would not submit to their particular brand of Islam, and killed or forcibly converted Jews and Christians in Al-Andalus and the Maghreb, putting an end to the existence of Christian communities in North Africa outside Egypt.[80] In an effort to survive under Almohads, most Jews resorted to practicing Islam outwardly, while remaining faithful to Judaism; they openly reverted to Judaism after Almohad persecutions passed.[81] Maimonides, the great Jewish author and philosopher, was among those forced to profess allegiance to Islam for a period of time. He wrote about the theological basis for the outward practice of Islam by Jews in terms of the perceived similarities between the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam as compared to Christianity.[82]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides
“The Almohades conquered Córdoba in 1148, and threatened the Jewish community with the choice of conversion to Islam, death, or exile.[7] Maimonides’s family, along with most other Jews, chose exile. For the next ten years they moved about in southern Spain, avoiding the conquering Almohades, but eventually settled in Fes in Morocco, where he studied at the University of Al-Karaouine. During this time, he composed his acclaimed commentary on the Mishnah in the years 1166–1168.[8]”
Maimonides was from the city of Cordoba. So please, do not compare Spain under the Moors to the United States (that was what I wrote above). Even the less oppressive caliphate of cordoba (if that is even what you were referring to rather than the later almohads) converted and destroyed churches and treated Christians and Jews as second class citizens. Period. Don’t deny it. It’s fact
Defeat, sir. It’s staring you right in the face.
And on dhimmitude–keep fighting it dude–you’re plain wrong. Crack open a book, scroll down the link i posted, do a google search, do something. You’ve misused the word entirely–even in its modern context. And you haven’t disproven me on anything. Please, you’re just embarrassing yourself now. Quit while you have some sense of self-respect remaining (dignity was never your strong point anyways).
For the rest of you, the point of this isn’t to somehow criticize moderate muslims for a history long since recorded. The point is to disprove those who skim read history without even a basic understanding of it or world affairs for that matter.
omg, Rahul, you really do put the ass in asinine. Oh no wait, there’s only one s in asinine not two. Quick Rahul, point it out to score brownie points when the facts aren’t on your side!
You want me to point out something outright: victory mosques (note I initially put links but blog owner has to approve)
Wikipedia the following: Hagia Sophia Church of the holy sepulchre Somnath See article: conversion of nonmuslim places of worship
“In the 11th century, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim ordered the demolition of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.[94]”
And to disprove something outright: You do realize that Christians and Jews lived as dhimmis in cordoba. Second class citizens. If you bothered to even open the wiki article on dhimmis you would see that outright:
From the wiki dhimmi article:
‘In the 12th century, rulers of the Almohad dynasty purged Muslims who would not submit to their particular brand of Islam, and killed or forcibly converted Jews and Christians in Al-Andalus and the Maghreb, putting an end to the existence of Christian communities in North Africa outside Egypt.[80] In an effort to survive under Almohads, most Jews resorted to practicing Islam outwardly, while remaining faithful to Judaism; they openly reverted to Judaism after Almohad persecutions passed.[81] Maimonides, the great Jewish author and philosopher, was among those forced to profess allegiance to Islam for a period of time. He wrote about the theological basis for the outward practice of Islam by Jews in terms of the perceived similarities between the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam as compared to Christianity.[82]”
Maimonides article
“The Almohades conquered Córdoba in 1148, and threatened the Jewish community with the choice of conversion to Islam, death, or exile.[7] Maimonides’s family, along with most other Jews, chose exile. For the next ten years they moved about in southern Spain, avoiding the conquering Almohades, but eventually settled in Fes in Morocco, where he studied at the University of Al-Karaouine. During this time, he composed his acclaimed commentary on the Mishnah in the years 1166–1168.[8]”
Maimonides was from the city of Cordoba. So please, do not compare Spain under the Moors to the United States (that was what I wrote above). Even the less oppressive caliphate of cordoba (if that is even what you were referring to rather than the later almohads) converted and destroyed churches and treated Christians and Jews as second class citizens. Period. Don’t deny it. It’s fact.
Defeat, sir. It’s staring you right in the face.
And on dhimmitude–keep fighting it dude–you’re plain wrong. Crack open a book, scroll down the link i posted, do a google search, do something. You’ve misused the word entirely–even in its modern context. And you haven’t disproven me on anything. Please, you’re just embarrassing yourself now. Quit while you have some sense of self-respect remaining (dignity was never your strong point anyways).
For the rest of you, the point of this isn’t to somehow criticize moderate muslims for a history long since recorded. The point is to disprove those who skim read history without even a basic understanding of it or world affairs for that matter.
Rahul, your desperation is really tragic. I’ve already disproven your comical use of the word dhimmi. The word refers to non-muslims treated as second class citizens under muslim regimes. They are subject to the jizya tax and face restrictions (generally severe) on practicing their faith or even repairing existing places of worship. You used the term for muslims in america. That’s just wrong–period. Stop denying it. It’s comical that you even are. Even in its modern use, it refers to nonmuslims who support the claims of radical islam in a sycophantic manner.
Point out one place here where I’ve “slandered muslims”. One. You’ve got nothing. Your lie is clear to everyone here. Just slither away to save whatever face you have.
“I, however, conclude with great optimism that your advocacy of dhimmitude by the minority community”
That’s you at 60. Just let it go, beta. Let it go…
(it should be clear by now to everybody that Rahul’s only tactic is to smear since he can’t defend. my words way above established my respect for our muslim friends here. but mutual respect and tolerance doesn’t mean history can’t be frankly discussed, and every religion has its mistakes. hinduism and the tragedy of untouchability need no introduction. but let’s not let the sophists further polarize an already polarizing debate. my post on history was only meant to disprove rahul, though he would have you believe that any discussion of history unfavorable to his narrative is slander. )
i realize rewriting history is a game to you, you do it all the time during discussions on india 🙂
it is well acknowledged that what was left after the 11th century was remnants of the caliphate. the caliphate of cordoba ended in 1030, and the only evidence you are able to produce is the small kingdoms post the caliphate, which is itself the high point of islamic culture in spain and is what is commonly understood by respectable scholars when they hear the reference cordoba.
imam rauf has been seen by multiple presidents as a moderate ambassador between the middle east and the u.s. and hacks, ideologues and bigots have tarred him as a triumphalist extremist. good job. way to treat muslim americans as equals.
no, you are not raving or unhinged at all 🙂
Ok, maybe you are just slow then 🙂 The idea that minority communities live at the sufferance of the majority is clearly what i was referring to as dhimmitude. this is exactly the dire future both american conservatives and the hindutva right prognosticate lest any quarter be given to muslims, and they see this as an opportunity to practice exactly what they claim to dread.
The fatimid and almohad caliphates, whose examples you provide, were both based in africa (egypt and morocco respectively), and are not what are associated with cordoba in islamic consciousness. the fact that critics lie and grasp to make this point and paint this project as a triumphalist fundamentalist one shows their true motivations.
Really Rahul? I’ve rewritten history? Where? Please, point it out. You’re so enlightened after all, with that dearth of facts at your disposal.
You’ve completely ignored all examples listed, whether it’s the hagia sophia or the church of the holy sepulchre. Dude, it’s staring you in the face. Just accept it. You’re wrong. You don’t even bring facts to counter. You just trot out the “oh you’re rewriting history” routine without any evidence of your own. The Hagia Sophia was converted to a mosque–fact. Greeks and Turks alike will be reduced to peals of laughter due to your ignorance.
It’s also ironic that you’re decrying the attitudes of mere sufferance of the minority by the majority but hold up the cordoba caliphate as the exemplar in this respect even though, in spite of your protestations, it practiced it.
And dude, really..smiley faces? Poor form. you can post rather ridiculous smiley faces all you want, that doesn’t make your hollow case any more convincing. If I’m slow, you’re at a complete standstill–your idiocy astonishes.
Rahul, the Umayyads ruled from Damascus. It is only in exile that Cordoba became their capital. And I referred to their rule, not the fatimids’, since it is the Umayyads who conquered Spain from the visigoths. Whether it is the Emirs or later Caliphs, the rulers of Cordoba imposed dhimmitude on non-muslims in stark contrast to muslims in america. Period. Good job, dude…
Now if you think not constructing this building is tantamount to the humiliation of jizya and the assorted array of aspects that also accompany genuine, historical dhimmitude (slavery, sexual subjugation, church/temple demolishment etc, etc), I think it’s clear to everyone that you’ve really gone off your rocker. But that’s no surprise to us. Just don’t think your ridiculous tactics are going to scare anyone off. Since you’ve made an utter fool of yourself in this debate, I’ll just leave you with that valediction you love oh so much: Adieu.
Since Rahul’s cognitive dissonance appears to have tired him out, resulting in his timely retreat, I will take this moment to just note that this post will likely be locked out tomorrow, so I probably won’t be able to respond to Rahul’s prevarications in time. I do urge those of you who have been following to fact check independently what he posts. From his clumsy use of the word dhimmitude to his failure to acknowledge the existence of victory mosques to his sad line about rewriting history, just independently check what he says instead of accepting at face value.
With respect to the debate, since this will likely be my closing remarks, I’ll just note that the point of wasting all these hours disproving the rantings of an historical illiterate was to point out that people should never be cowed down by labels or insinuations during reasoned debate. Though he oddly ended up looking the part himself, Rahul did his utmost to brand opponents of the proposed constructions as anti-muslim. My use of that Citizen article was to point out that there are moderate muslim americans opposed to the mosque, making his position patently ridiculous. Are there some bigots against the construction? Yes. But that doesn’t mean everyone opposing it is a bigot when muslims, non-muslims, centrists, liberals, and atheists are all speaking out. To call people that muzzles debate and intimidates dissent. Civil liberties is more than just about proving things in court or free exercise of religion (another oversight by rahul), but also about reasoned debate in the public square. I brought out the cageprisoners argument to show that rahul and his ilk can easily be branded as radical leftists supporting fundamentalists, because that was what happened in the cageprisoners debacle. He obviously can’t understand that nuance (though he expects us to accept his rhetorical gymnastics in the dhimmitude incident). But as I wrote at the beginning, cognitive dissonance is his specialty…and we have grown to expect nothing less from our lil champion.
Rahul!!! It’s great to see you around these parts after so long. I hope you stick around, there are more gems to be unearthed.
And please, everyone: your commentary is appreciated, but please keep it nice or keep it to yourself. When you get b*tchy, delete fingers gets itchy.
Exactly, The mosque should fit right in next to those establishments. Good shopping for the members. As I said, I am all for them building it. Just that the builders and supporters should be prepared for the final price.
If the “Build, baby, build” frenzy is centered on 1st amendment rights, Dr. Laura should not be chastised for using the ‘n’ word. There is something to be said for good sense and wisdom. I commend the pope for not letting the nuns build a church at Auschwitz. It would be nice if the mosque builders would refrain from “fitna”. Peace be on the imams.
No, your comment 113 was all about caliphates way after Cordoba to make the claim that… Cordoba was a sign of Islamic subjugation of Christians and Jews.
your constant depiction of this project as a triumphalist project and comparison with several other such examples from history says everything.
and since you seem to have been caught out one too many times and are reduced to making keynote addresses to the masses, i will just say as my parting words.
Yes, please do.
I come to praise Satyajit Wry, not to bury him. He is an honorable man. He has unfortunately been compelled to make:
incorrect claims about Cordoba claims that muslims are fundamentalist and mosque supporters are enabling fundamentalism and sharia law claims that this mosque is triumphalist and equating it to somnath claims ranging from triumphalism to decency to sensitivity to 9/11 firefighters to bad PR for muslims
Thanks, DJDP. It’s been fun to be back. Although shooting trolls is a guilty pleasure, and shouldn’t be indulged in too much or for too long.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ground_zero_mosque_poll
The mosque sponsors should waste no time in breaking ground for their construction before November ! This is fantastic, after all NYC prides itself on being such a liberal and open place. The poll is obviously skewed by a few wing nuts who oppose the mosque. They obviously need to be investigated as Pelosi just announced. Just watch those line items adding up on that bill…
Why are all the polls asking support or oppose? Is there a “Don’t give a flying fuck” option?
@127
Here you go… a poll with a 3rd option. I guess that’s close enough for the disinterested aerial fornication option ?
http://politics.polls.newsvine.com/_question/2010/08/16/4905795-do-you-think-a-mosque-should-allowed-to-be-built-two-blocks-from-ground-zero
It should be inaugurated on September 11th. That would build quite a few bridges.
I never thought anyone could make the BP executives and PR team look good, but it seems the Park51 (Area 51 ?) team has succeeded. Awesome.
This is what you wrote at 115:
“the caliphate of cordoba ended in 1030, and the only evidence you are able to produce is the small kingdoms post the caliphate, which is itself the high point of islamic culture in spain and is what is commonly understood by respectable scholars when they hear the reference cordoba.”
This is from the cordoba initiative site. You can find it in the section about muslim-west engagement under the heading “what creates the divideâ€.
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/about-muslim-west-engagement
“For nearly 800 years, the city of Cordoba in Spain endured as a shining example of tolerance among the three monotheistic religions. Muslim, Christian and Jew cohabited in prosperity during a period known for its outstanding literary and scientific productivity.”
Because you’ve spent most of the lecture in the corner with a dunce cap, I’ll just simplify it for you:
In spite of your baseless remarks about what Cordoba could mean, Cordoba evokes more than just the umayyad caliphate as clearly demonstrated there by the Cordoba Initiative’s own page. But thank you for injecting it with your own meaning to suit your own purposes. Checkmate. You’ve been proven wrong outright.
So let’s recap for our audience 1.   Dhimmitude-it’s been proven, no point in fuming about it. The wiki page on dhimmi even establishes the modern connotations for the word, which you clumsily attempt to obfuscate with rhetorical gymnastics. 2.   First amendment–astonishing ignorance that you continue to deny 3.   Ignored victory mosques at hagia sophia, church of the holy sepulchre, somnath, etc, etc. This is the basis for sensitivity and the reason why muslim moderates, centrists and other nonbigots agree that the proposal should be reconsidered. 4.   Just flat out lied (or just embarrassingly lacking in basic reasoning skills) about what the word Cordoba actually evokes. The Cordoba Initiatives site itself refers specifically to the 800 year history of the city and not just the 100 year caliphate. 5. Even if you hide behind the umayyad caliphate of cordoba–it was still an islamic polity (unlike secular america). That is the point I was making. Religious states do not qualify as ideal types for this country. Pointing that out doesn’t make someone a bigot no matter how many times you say otherwise. 6. SW:I’ve said nothing about imam rauf anywhere so how could I have slandered him?
R:”your constant depiction of this project as a triumphalist project and comparison with several other such examples from history says everything.”
–No it doesn’t. I’ve said nothing about the man. I’m just talking about the implications of the construction proposal given historical context. Hmm, you got negged on both defamation and free exercise of religion. Well done on the first amendment, dude.
Oh and way to wuss out on putting your money where your mouth is: 1. Here’s your statement at 115:” i realize rewriting history is a game to you, you do it all the time during discussions on india :)” 2. Here’s my challenge at 119: “Really Rahul? I’ve rewritten history? Where? Please, point it out. You’re so enlightened after all, with that dearth of facts at your disposal.” 3. [Â Â Â Â Â ] This blank space here represents your deafening silence on that topic. Instead of trying to tar people as bigots, why don’t you actually provide at least a modicum of evidence for your amusing fabrications…
Alas, dear rahul we already delivered your eulogy above, so be at peace. You can dissimulate all you want, but you haven’t caught me out on anything (in spite of your frequent proclamations of victory). You however were clearly disproven on your cordoba remarks and obviously are somewhat lacking in intestinal fortitude, otherwise you would have responded to my dismissal of your baseless rewriting history accusation.
BTW, the eulogy may be over, but here’s an epitaph in your honor:
“Rahul–a dullard, but a sweet dullard. Charming in his general ignorance, amusing in his frequent bitterness.”
Satyajit Wry,Rahul is right about the free expression, and you are wrong in insisting that there is an error in his statement. There is a long line of cases decided in U.S courts on free speech grounds when it comes to religion. A close analogy to this case, for example is the recent case decided in favor of Fortress Bible church which was decided on free speech, not establishment clause, grounds.
http://www.scarsdale10583.com/201008151007/village-voices/court-finds-greenburgh-guilty-in-fortress-bible-church-case.html
Other examples include Lamb’s Chapel v Center Moriches, Marsh v Alabama, and other religion cases decided in SCOTUS in favor of free speech.
Lawyer,
Marsh v. Alabama dealt with the distribution of religious materials on a sidewalk and was concerned with a trespassing statute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District dealt with religious films being shown at a public school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb%27s_Chapel_v._Center_Moriches_Union_Free_School_District
Please see the holdings under both–they are very narrow and they both deal specifically with the issue of speech.
Additionally, here is the court’s ruling in your own Fortress Bible case: http://www.scarsdale10583.com/images/stories/FortressBibles.pdf
Here are the court’s remarks on the inclusion of Free Speech as a grounds for the claim on page 187:
“Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deprived them of their right to free speech by discriminating against them based on the religious nature of their expression, inhibiting their right to freely express their faith to their worshippers and the community unreasonable, and applying land use regulations in a manner to delay, obstruct, and unreasonably deny Plaintiffs the ability to use their Property for expressive purposes. See Sec. Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 116-119. Plaintiffs claims here are, in essence, the same as their claims under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and indeed, are better construed as such. The Court considers Plaintiffs’ claims here to have been intrinsically and completely addressed by the above Free Exercise analysis. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause are dismissed. “
The Court dismissed the claims under the Free Speech Clause and said they are better construed under Free Exercise of Religion grounds and accepted the claims under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.
The central point of contention in the Cordoba case is not speech delivered within the confines of the building or adjacent to it, but the building itself and whether or not it should be constructed at all. A completely different question than your first two cases.
Additionally, as I mentioned to Rahul, our debate is not centered on the legality of the building. They absolutely have that constitutional right under free exercise of religion. It is an ethical and societal question as to whether a construction on the premises is just. That is the core of the debate. His contentions on that count have already been demolished.
You are wrong on that count, but I am not interested in getting into unproductive debates about fictional histories, or double standards in application of sensitivity towards different religious communities.
SW: “Additionally, as I mentioned to Rahul, our debate is not centered on the legality of the building. They absolutely have that constitutional right under free exercise of religion. It is an ethical and societal question as to whether a construction on the premises is just. That is the core of the debate. His contentions on that count have already been demolished.”
L:”You are wrong on that count, but I am not interested in getting into unproductive debates about fictional histories, or double standards in application of sensitivity towards different religious communities.”
Lawyer,
Considering the very case you touted as analogous to ours actually dismissed the freedom of speech claim, and the other cases were not even applicable, I don’t think your observations (legal or dialectical) are reliable at this stage. The facts speak for themselves, and our lil champion’s deafening silence on the Cordoba Institute website’s own claims is telling enough in spite of your efforts to spin otherwise. Please don’t pull a Rahul and linger on long after you have been hoisted by your own petard. I am trying to give you a dignified exit, sir. I suggest you take it. Adieu.
Thank you but your condescension is uncalled for given your egregious factual errors.
Lawyer,
 Not only have you not been able to point out a single factual error on my part, but you committed egregious blunders in the context of your own avowed profession–and I used your own link (the news article contained the ruling) to prove it. Your own case disproved your contention. Saying something is wrong over and over again, doesn’t make it so. Take a hint and leave with some grace. You’re making a mockery of yourself.
With all his stripes and lovely coat, Rahul has already made a fine rug for my dialectical den. You’re shaping up to be a fine addition to the mantle. But the troll safari is over. Good day, sir.
Satyajit Wry, in a previous life?
Yoga Fire,
If I recall, you were quite the oompa loompa back then too:
This is waaaaaaaaaay off-topic, so apologies and feel free to delete.
What’s your stance on the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, Satyajit Wry?
Here is the background information for those who are not familiar with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque
A mosque was built over a destroyed temple, as the Archaeological Survey of India report indicated. It was later razed in 1992 by hindu activists, a few years after Rajiv Gandhi had opened the locks to the mosque to allow Hindu worship there in acknowledgment of the claim. What is your stance, vivek?
Btw, you’re welcome to bring up this topic to “indulge your curiosity” or attempt to score rhetorical points, but it will probably detract from the argument you will, presumably, make.
Oh, I didn’t know you had a monopoly on rhetorical points. I’ll keep that in mind next time. And since you took the cop-out, I declare victory.
You just got BRPWNED.
Happy Friday, everyone!
Ummmm, ok vivek. First I’ll have to advise that you take your ritalin. Next, I am more than happy to discuss my position, but since you brought up the topic let’s hear what you have to say first. Otherwise, I’ll assume it is you who have copped out in fear of exposing your ignorance as you did on the Nukistan post, and it is I who will have to sign off with:
“You just got BRPWNED.
Happy Friday, everyone!”
Aww, poor vivek, Couldn’t stand the heat so he got out of the kitchen with a declaration of victory that was oh so premature. If you ever work up the courage though, vivek, I’ll be around.
To all the lurkers out there, I hope this thread at least served to demonstrate why you shouldn’t be cowed down by brainless commenters (rahul), dubiously trained legal professionals (lawyer), or illogical bloggers (vivek) with baseless accusations of bigotry (or misunderstood case precedent in lawyer’s case). Not only does this tactic result in undemocratic muzzling of dissent and reasoned debate, but it dilutes the abhorrence of genuine bigotry and intolerance. So whatever your opinion, do have the courage to speak up, because as the demagogues here have shown, they’ll just keep declaring victory until proven wrong, at which point they’ll run with their tails between their legs. In spite of these characters, however, there are people on both sides of this issue with their hearts in the right place. Let’s respect this.  And with that, I hope you’ve appreciated the performance of our cast this week. Tune in next time for when vivek blogs on how pakistan’s ISI-jihadi complex has actually advanced the cause of liberal democracy in south asia. Adieu.
SW: your wrong about this not being a free expression case. in recent years, the vast majority of cases regarding religious freedom have been argued under the “free speech” not the “free exercise” clause, like say boy scouts vs dale or st paddy’s day parade case. Its an important constitutional development because it puts religion on par with secular beliefs, whereas earlier const law–the sherbert test–privileged religion.
But no more (tho recent religious freedom acts do that). Interesting this has been lead by conservatives (scalia, thomoas) who wanted to make sure the Establishment clause wasn’t used to justify discriminating against religion, as left-wing justices often did…as with public school teachers can’t wear a turban b/c of excessive entanglement of state and religion. In the course of doing this they gutted sherbet…whichhad held that even neutrally applied laws unconstitutional if they burden a religion (see scalia opinion in the peyote case).
so expression is important b/c under the the free speech clause you must demonstrate you are an expressive group. so, a city has a lot of leeway to deny a bar a zoning permit, b/c its not expressive (except to libertarian purists) but less to a religious or political group. in the boy scouts case (and they are a nominally religious group), 4 leftists judges and the authoritarian left sought to deny the scouts free speech rights, ie the right to discriminate against gays (which is a freedom of association right existing under free-speech as well) by saying they are not an expressive group, or that the expression (anti-gay) was not central to their dogma, or (in the case of the NYTimes) even if it were the state had a compelling govt interest to restrict free speech.
also, expression is relevant b/c the speech in question may not be speech per say, but rather another form of communication, which is held to be protected under the first.
But will anyone build it
haha. the grandstanding of wry continues. if you can’t hammer the facts, hammer the table as they say.
Manju,
We can do this all night, but it’s probably prudent to just let sleeping dogs lie. Either way, here is the brief for BSA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale
Here is the holding in that case:
A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.
You’re going to have to give me a cite on the St. Paddy’s Day case though.
As noted in the Fortress Bible ruling, there is some overlap between speech and the free exercise clause (religious expression), but this case is better construed under the latter for all the reasons mentioned above. Lawyer was right that there were similarities between Fortress and Cordoba, just wrong about the claims that the court ultimately accepted. The question was not whether freedom of speech can be used to argue (nominally) religious cases based on a relevant fact pattern, but whether this specific case was better suited for a claim under free exercise due to the more expansive nature of the right. It’s why Southern District Court of New York dismissed the claims under free speech. Were this not the case, it would have accepted the claims. Therefore, we can distinguish between the precedent you’ve offered and the facts of this case.
So no, Manju, I am not wrong.
Your other factoids are interesting, however. Feel free to keep them coming. Btw, I know this is waaay off topic, but in the spirit of vivek’s randomness, what are your thoughts on twombly?