Location, Location, Location / Locution, Locution, Locution

The play on words in the title uses “Locution” to refer to the incessant blabbering by New York City Mayor Bloomberg and the others supporting the Ground Zero Mosque, as it has come to be known, and “Location” is obviously the ‘not at Ground Zero’ sensitivity of those opposed to the Cordoba Mosque, as it is to be named. Those on the Locution side are expressing the argument on freedom of religion and freedom to gather where and when one pleases while those on the Location side express the insensitivity to the point of insult to the memory of those innocent Americans and the rest who were victims of the horrendous attack in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001. The one truth in this whole debate is that neither side can say they do not understand or even see the reasons and logic of the other side. The other truth is they also would be hard pressed after stating this truth not to add a large “BUT…” at the end of the statement. As it now stands, the politically empowered are winning this argument as they control the furnishing of permits and licenses for construction, tax status, and everything bureaucratic.

Now I have tasked myself with the unenviable task of attempting to logically and fairly determine which side has the more valid and principled argument. The Locution side is quite correct in that the Bill of Rights grants freedom of religion and assembly. But would the lack of this one center prevent Moslems from the practice of their religion in New York City, or even in Lower Manhattan might be a more relevant question. A quick check on MapQuest shows the Islamic Society Mosque in Mid Manhattan at 154 E 55th St. as well as more than a half dozen Mosques spread around the New York City area. Apparently, this new Mosque might add some convenience but is in no way an absolute necessity. On the other hand, the Locution side asks would the Location people be upset with a Church, Synagogue, or Temple build that close to Ground Zero? And the return answer is that it is an apples and oranges comparison as the September 11, 2001 attacks were not perpetrated by followers of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any religion other than Islam. These kinds of arguments can go back and forth endlessly. The Location side stresses the insensitivity and perceived insult that building an Islamic Mosque and Community Center so close to Ground Zero will generate. The Locution side stands for the rights we must respect by allowing the building of the Mosque and Community Center regardless of its chosen location. One way of expressing the Locution vs. Location argument is actually a Rights vs. Respect argument, which boils down to a law driven logic vs. emotion driven feelings of disrespect. As is usually the case, there is no actually correct side and each side will have their supporters.

So, how will this conflict get resolved? Unfortunately for the Location side, the Locution side has the political and legal powers to grant all the necessary paperwork, licenses, permits, and other legal niceties even in the face of any amount or form of opposition. The only recourse the Location side has is public opinion, which might be used to pressure a judge should they mount a court challenge. The initial step would be to have sizeable daily protests at the future sight of the Cordoba Mosque and also find a lawyer and some technicality of the law with which to challenge the construction of this Mosque. Without these, it is unlikely that the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, as it has come to be known, appears to be unstoppable.

In my opinion, the desire of this Imam in establishing this particular Mosque is truly being built as a declaration of Islamic supremacy and to mark and celebrate their so-called victory of bringing down the World Trade Towers, a representation of western imperial mastery. The name, Cordoba House, is a reference to the Great Mosque of Cordoba that was founded in Andalusia, Islamic conquered Spain, by transforming the Cathedral of Cordoba Spain, which was one of the greatest Catholic Cathedrals of Spain. The Great Mosque of Cordoba was intended to be the physical representation of the superiority of Islam over Christianity and a material display that Islam had conquered Spain. The transformation of Cathedral of Cordoba Spain into the Great Mosque of Cordoba was just further insult to the renaming of Spain as Andalusia. My opinion that the best answer that could be presented as an truly American answer to the Cordoba House Mosque Complex would be to build a series of Churches, Synagogues, Temples and other Religious Buildings and build them larger and more grandly ornate on the surrounding grounds. This would be a truly American answer, simply doing something one better and more majestic. What do you think?

how in the world could anyone thats been elected mayor of NYC support such a tacky development proposal - a mosque at the spot where muslim fanatics killed three thousand people?

It couldn’t possibly more clear, even to anyone with a better than room temperature IQ, that the ONLY reason the Muslims are building this mosque is to stick their thumb in the eye of America. Period.

Any other words on the subject are superfluous.

MoHamHeadism is incompatible with Liberty and Justice, and is, in fact, diametrically opposed to it.

MoHamHeadism is NOT a religion.

It is a violently seditious political movement masquerading as a religion.

Their objective is to subjugate us all under the scimitar of “islam”.

Conversion, Enlsavement, or DEATH are the only options permitted for those outside of “islam”.

DEATH is also the punishment for not being “islamic” enough, or for “apostasy” from the death cult.

There is NO WAY that this SICK CULT OF DEATH should EVER be given 1st Amendment religious or speech protection, since the Cult’s aim is to ELIMINATE the same for everybody else.

We Are Those People

I have abhorred the wars and despised the liars, laughed at the frightened
And forecast victory; never one moment’s doubt.
But now not far, over the backs of some crawling years, the next
Great war’s column of dust and fire writhes
Up the sides of the sky: it becomes clear that we too may suffer
What others have, the brutal horror of defeat—
Or if not in the next, then in the next—therefore watch Germany
And read the future. We wish, of course, that our women
Would die like biting rats in the cellars, our men like wolves on the mountain:
It will not be so. Our men will curse, cringe, obey;
Our women uncover themselves to the grinning victors for bits of chocolate.

- Robinson Jeffers

Nice 5-dollar word. The only other time I have ever heard the word used in a sentence was by Frank Zappa in his Roxy and Elsewhere album. In the song “Penguin In Bondage” he talked about something he was circumlocuting at this time in order to get the text on television.

I am all for individuality in religion and such, and I tend to probably be a bit more liberal than some when it comes to having an open mind, but this too rubs me the wrong way.

It’s the principle, stupid!

So much for “sensitivity” to a collective people’s feelings. I guess the hipocrisy is lost on those that desire to appease.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.