Siena Poll: NYers Oppose NYC Mosque

I see the man spear-heading this whole Ground Zero "effort" as a rank sophist, denying that Hamas is a savage group of murders who kill lots of their own people besides others' civilians. I see him as a sophist for having "been quoted refusing to admit Muslims carried out the [9/11] attacks." That's not just common-place politics; that's apologizing for and/or denying heinous crimes against humanity. (He's on tape.)

Since when was the U.S. Constitution and American law intransigent and unchanging -- only when it suits some agenda? The Founders knew that they should create a framework that would adapt within limits, but still adapt. People can and should -- if they feel ethically bound -- oppose the building of a mosque ("community center") next to the hallowed ground of the 911 savage attacks. Fights like this happen all the time in the U.S. for various reasons, like over putting Christmas decorations on public land or refusing a church a building permit. Here's some food for thought -- as to why I disagree with absolute literalism:

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States:

... Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the opinion. Holmes observed that the constitutionality of all speech depends on the circumstances in which it is spoken. No reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment, Holmes said, protects utterances that have the effect of force. For example, Holmes opined that the Freedom of Speech Clause would not protect a man who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater. ...

http://www.salon.com/news/guantanamo/?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/08/11/khadr:

... That Obama has vigorously embraced and at times even exceeded some of Bush's most controversial and radical policies is simply indisputable. I'd request that anyone doubting that just review the very partial list I compiled in Update II yesterday. In that list, I neglected to mention numerous other compelling examples (recall Tim Dickinson's recent revelation that Interior employees call their Department under Ken Salazar's corporate-serving rule "the third Bush term"). Among my most prominent omissions was the Obama administration's Bush-copying use of military commissions rather than real courts to try "War on Terror" detainees. ...

(Is the above example constitutional or not, eh?)

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm:

"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion. ...