Is the U.S. Losing Its Freedom of Speech?

[turbo]

"Almost all of the opposition stems from people assigning ..."? You know most think this way how?

Do you have any links to polls that show that an "overwhelming majority" of Americans oppose the construction of a Muslim-funded community center in lower Manhattan? If you pose poll questions in inventive ways to support your ideology, you can produce about any outcome you like. How about an honest poll? Got anything?

If you link to a poll, please link to the questions that the poll presented. It's only fair.

I have already asked once. Please link us to your sources, with the questions that produced the "poll" numbers. Forum rules state that you must provide substantiation for such claims.

 

[drankin]

I have already asked once. Please link us to your sources, with the questions that produced the "poll" numbers. Forum rules state that you must provide substantiation for such claims.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011799,00.html

Can I help?

 

[mheslep]

I have already asked once. Please link us to your sources, with the questions that produced the "poll" numbers. Forum rules state that you must provide substantiation for such claims.

Yes I provided a link in post 98 for New Yorkers:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873955&postcount=98
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...community-center-recognize-constitutionality/

 

[turbo]

Yes I provided a link in post 98 for New Yorkers:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873955&postcount=98
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...community-center-recognize-constitutionality/

The story does not explain what questions the poll was based on, which is critical to how such polls are steered. Still, it is clear that NYC residents support the right for the community center to be built. The right is construing such opinions very loosely, in order to portray the Democrats and Obama as radicals. Can you do better than that?

 

[drankin]

The story does not explain what questions the poll was based on, which is critical to how such polls are steered. Still, it is clear that NYC residents support the right for the community center to be built. The right is construing such opinions very loosely, in order to portray the Democrats and Obama as radicals. Can you do better than that?

He, gave you a poll. Can we move on?

 

[Jack21222]

I'd say the poll doesn't actually matter. Even if 99% of the population thought the location of the community center was offensive, I'd call that 99% of the population irrational.

 

[JaredJames]

Out of curiosity, in a democratic society, if say 99% of the population opposed the community centre, does that not count as a majority rule? Could action be taken to prevent it (despite the 'rights' of the people building it), due to the fact the majority could vote against it?

 

[mheslep]

The story does not explain what questions the poll was based on, which is critical to how such polls are steered. Still, it is clear that NYC residents support the right for the community center to be built. The right is construing such opinions very loosely, in order to portray the Democrats and Obama as radicals. Can you do better than that?

Poll questions on page 6 here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siena.edu%2Fuploadedfiles%2Fhome%2Fparents_and_community%2Fcommunity_page%2Fsri%2Fsny_poll%2F10%2520August%2520SNY%2520Poll%2520Release%2520--%2520FINAL.pdf&ei=E5aJTKjxCcb_lgf9rtTnCA&usg=AFQjCNG_Dq8JVdlEewVp7kfv4vkZoan6xw&sig2=JrgAh-NfiZ9L7bKxiftEFg

 

[turbo]

He, gave you a poll. Can we move on?

There are polls, and "polls". I have gotten innumerable calls from "number not known" sources that ask me to take a poll, and then pose ridiculously slanted questions of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" type. Such "polls" can give a political organization fictitious "results" that they can quote in the more compliant areas of the press. If you have enough money, you can buy exposure for lies almost anywhere.

What questions were asked? What was the initial set-up? Who agreed to be polled?

 

[Jack21222]

Out of curiosity, in a democratic society, if say 99% of the population opposed the community centre, does that not count as a majority rule? Could action be taken to prevent it (despite the 'rights' of the people building it), due to the fact the majority could vote against it?

Depends on the specific form of government you're talking about. In a constitutional republic, probably not.

 

[mheslep]

He, gave you a poll. Can we move on?

I was happy to respond. turbo's completely in keeping with the PF way of doing things to ask for a source, and even to keep going and to ask for original source material when there's suspicion that the source is misleading or misrepresented by the poster (accidentally or otherwise). IMO we should be doing more backtracking of sources, not less.

 

[DaveC426913]

Out of curiosity, in a democratic society, if say 99% of the population opposed the community centre, does that not count as a majority rule? Could action be taken to prevent it (despite the 'rights' of the people building it), due to the fact the majority could vote against it?

Majority rule does not trump law, and it does not trump human rights.

And it is not up for vote.

 

[mheslep]

Out of curiosity, in a democratic society, if say 99% of the population opposed the community centre, does that not count as a majority rule? Could action be taken to prevent it (despite the 'rights' of the people building it), due to the fact the majority could vote against it?

Depends on the specific form of government you're talking about. In a constitutional republic, probably not.

Exactly. In this constitutional republic there are some protections against which the majority may not infringe.

 

[drankin]

I was happy to respond. turbo's completely in keeping with the PF way of doing things to ask for a source, and even to keep going and to ask for original source material when there's suspicion that the source is misleading or misrepresented by the poster (accidentally or otherwise). IMO we should be doing more backtracking of sources, not less.

Well let this be a lesson for ya!

 

[JaredJames]

Majority rule does not trump law, and it does not trump human rights.

And it is not up for vote.

But surely majority rule can change laws? Again, human rights are laughable, any situation can be turned to show human rights violations.

What about in terms of the UK (where I am)? I don't even know what type of society we have, it's supposed to be democratic but that's debatable.

Although slow, surely if people voted in enough members of parliament who agreed with their view of say, banning all religious clothing, they could get a law passed.

 

[talk2glenn]

I'd say the poll doesn't actually matter. Even if 99% of the population thought the location of the community center was offensive, I'd call that 99% of the population irrational.

Wait, what?

Is it your claim that any opposition to the building of something somewhere is inherently "irrational", on the basis of property rights? By such a philosophy, there is no rational reason to object to building strip clubs across the street from elementary schools.

If you do agree that zoning regulations are inherently rational - that is, there are good and compelling reasons for community decency and local self-destiny to supercede property rights - then you cannot call the suggestion that the location of the community center be changed "irrational".

You may disagree with the conclusions, but those conclusions are soundly reached. This is the logical fallacy of attacking the arguer (calling them irrational), and not the argument. This is especially true in light of the fact that pretty much everyone agrees that there are property and religious rights at play in the argument, which is why things are generally framed in the context of what the Park51 group ought to do, versus what they must do.

 

[Proton Soup]

But surely majority rule can change laws? Again, human rights are laughable, any situation can be turned to show human rights violations.

What about in terms of the UK (where I am)? I don't even know what type of society we have, it's supposed to be democratic but that's debatable.

Although slow, surely if people voted in enough members of parliament who agreed with their view of say, banning all religious clothing, they could get a law passed.

what you posed would be unconstitutional in the US. we would have to amend the constitution. which is unlikely. it would take something especially grievous to sway national opinion that far, i think.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wait, what?

Is it your claim that any opposition to the building of something somewhere is inherently "irrational", on the basis of property rights?

No. He is not saying that at all.

What he is saying is that there is no rational reason for not letting the centre be built there. There are emotional reasons, but not rational ones.

Emotional reasons don't cut it here. They don't trump the right to freedom of practicing religion.

 

[Jack21222]

Wait, what?

Is it your claim that any opposition to the building of something somewhere is inherently "irrational", on the basis of property rights? By such a philosophy, there is no rational reason to object to building strip clubs across the street from elementary schools.

If you do agree that zoning regulations are inherently rational - that is, there are good and compelling reasons for community decency and local self-destiny to supercede property rights - then you cannot call the suggestion that the location of the community center be changed "irrational".

You may disagree with the conclusions, but those conclusions are soundly reached. This is the logical fallacy of attacking the arguer (calling them irrational), and not the argument. This is especially true in light of the fact that pretty much everyone agrees that there are property and religious rights at play in the argument, which is why things are generally framed in the context of what the Park51 group ought to do, versus what they must do.

If you read my other posts in the thread, you would have seen me state that I've never seen a rationally argument against it, only emotional ones. That is attacking the argument.

 

[talk2glenn]

If you read my other posts in the thread, you would have seen me state that I've never seen a rationally argument against it, only emotional ones. That is attacking the argument.

Sure it's emotional, but so is a lot of zoning. I'm not aware of any study linking strip joints near elementary schools to teenage suicide. But we tolerate ordinances prohibiting them there because parents find them emotionally objectionable - it just feels wrong, whether or not somebody can establish the fact.

Rough parallels are hard to draw, because it doesn't happen very often in history that you find one party acting with such blatant disregard for local cultural sensitivity and the other party allowing it (only in america, mmm), but I think a rough parallel would be a sushi restaurant opening near the Arizona memorial in 1950. Again, never would have happened, but what if somebody had tried? Would we say that was Ok?

How about an American Cultural Center in Hiroshima in 1954?

A Nazi Community Center in Poland?

A synagogue on the Temple Rock?

One could go on. These are all culturally, emotionally discouraged activities that have never been an issue because the minority/foreign party is too respectful to try and/or threaten to blow themselves up over it, or if they do, they are met with overwhelming international and local resistance. I can almost guarantee, based on your politics, that you would have serious objections to at least some of these activities. Why are your objections more "rational" than these other poor ignorant rednecks'?

What is special about Muslims as a group, and America as a country, that it's different this time?

 

[Jack21222]

How about an American Cultural Center in Hiroshima in 1954?

Americans bombed Hiroshima. Sufis didn't attack New York.

A Nazi Community Center in Poland?

Nazis attacked Poland. Sufis didn't attack New York.

A synagogue on the Temple Rock?

There are plenty nearby, I'm sure.

What is special about Muslims as a group, and America as a country, that it's different this time?

"Muslim" is too coarse of a bin to use. There are over a billion of them, sometimes with vastly different beliefs and values. You are proving the point I've been trying to make in this thread; that opponents of this community center are treating Muslims as a homogeneous group.

 

[talk2glenn]

Americans bombed Hiroshima. Sufis didn't attack New York. Repeated a lot for effect.

Oh come, you're drawing arbitrary distinctions based on meaningless classifications. Some Americans bombed Hiroshima. There are over 300 million of them, with diverse and competing opinions. Yet still its nay for them, yay for some different them.

You've betrayed the weakness of your argument.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh come, you're drawing arbitrary distinctions based on meaningless classifications. Some Americans bombed Hiroshima. There are over 300 million of them, with diverse and competing opinions. Yet still its nay for them, yay for some different them.

You've betrayed the weakness of your argument.

Countries bomb other countries on behalf of their citizens, and opinion doesn't matter. It's not as though most people KNEW that the bombing was going to occur until after it was done, so opinion after the fact is meaningless. The bombing, debate as anyone will, was an action undertaken by a very few people.

That said, your argument beyond this one decent point is insulting and absurd. You're talking about a mix of acts of war, criminal acts of war, and a religious issue... all transnational. We're talking about building a center in real estate that's a financial center, complete with strip joints. Note that the Japanese built over the wreckage of Hiroshima, and Poland recovered... we don't need to enshrine every death, just because they were concentrated in one place.

This thread should be summarily shot in the medulla oblongata and swept away for the dross it is.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh, and here's a thought... maybe the "softness" here is how hard Americans are whining about how special a place is, because there was a terrorist attack there. Reformulate that in the "tough-guy" talk I've seen here, for another country and you'd probably tell them to suck it up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

[Timothy] McVeigh [who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, and killed 168 people, including 19 children] dissociated himself from his boyhood friend, Steve Hodge, by sending a 23-page farewell letter to him. He proclaimed his devotion to the United States Declaration of Independence, explaining in detail what each sentence meant to him. McVeigh declared that:

Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.

It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being.

I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, Steve. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

How dare they fly US flags, or build Christian churches or banks, within sight of the US Federal Building memorial! Clearly patriotism, capitalism, and Christianity, are responsible for this horrific act.

 

[mugaliens]

If you pose poll questions in inventive ways to support your ideology, you can produce about any outcome you like.

You're right about how polls are framed has a huge outcome on their results. Creating truly objective poll questions remains a bastion of literary and logical art in the mathematical world of statistics.

Consider the following two very different examples:

1. Do you support the right of members of the Islam faith to build a community center on property which they either own or have secured building rights?

2. Do you think Muslims should be allowed to build their mosque on the grounds of the World Trade Center that was destroyed by Islamic terrorists on 9/11?

Most Americans would respond with a "yes" to the first and a "no" to the second.

There are two ways to arrive at reasonably accurate polls:

1. Keep them very simple while leaving out any amplifying information while allowing for a relief valve. Example:

Are you for or against the proposed mosque in New York City?
- For
- Against
- Don't know / no opinion / prefer not to respond

2. Make them very complicated, including internal and external controls mensurated with similarly complex polls.

The first is inexpensive, and decent results can be had with just a few dozen responses. The latter is very expensive, and requires thousands of responses.

 

[mugaliens]

turbo's completely in keeping with the PF way of doing things to ask for a source, and even to keep going and to ask for original source material when there's suspicion that the source is misleading or misrepresented by the poster (accidentally or otherwise). IMO we should be doing more backtracking of sources, not less.

You are correct. As much as I tend to throw pretty darn good information out there without backing it up, my knowledge and experience in a few key areas matters little, except that it can help me find objective, peer-reviewed third-party sources rather quickly.

These days, "everyone's an expert," and while the ability to write well tends to lend credibility, it does not replace the need for verifiable information, even if the information being put forth is spot on.

Majority rule does not trump law, and it does not trump human rights.

And it is not up for vote.

Actually, it is. Currently international on human rights were voted on by various leagues of nations, usually in the wake of World Wars or other major conflicts, and most nations party to those agreements similarly voted the measures into their own law. The line between what's considered "acceptible" today has changed from what it was just 30 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, and will continue to change over time. Thus, law isn't set in concrete. It's more like "stiff mud," according to my law professor in a couple of classes I took in college. She used to say, "first you have to thorough saturate the ground with new ideas before you can scrap the old away and replace it with the new." Throughout history, that's precisely what we humans have been doing.

When our country is twice as old as it is today, we're likely to look back on these times with as much horror as we look back on the force-on-force warfare as it has largely existed throughout the ages.

Exactly. In this constitutional republic there are some protections against which the majority may not infringe.

The Constitution isn't set in stone, either, and it, too, is subject to majority rule. Getting it changed is difficult, as it was designed to be, but it can be done, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution" . Most cases these changes were relatively minor, but required for clarification, usually to combat injustice.

But this is just the relative black and white of Constitutional law. When you get into federal, state, and local laws, things are far more cloudy, and are widely subject to a judge's interpretation.

Then there's the difference between statutory law and case law. In our country, there's actually not much of the former, which tends to be reasonably straightforward, but there are many, many times the volume of the latter, and it's a huge quagmire, with conflicting opinions depending upon which judge presided over the issue, when, and by what rule of statutory, or most likely, precedent was presented to them upon which they can rule.

If a lawyer can convince the judge, and the judge sees more legal benefit towards ruling x instead of y, without any major legal hurdles, they'll often rule contrary to previous case law. What they're mostly concerned about is what will hold up in successive rulings over time, particularly for any appeals processes.

So you see, we have a vote on our representatives, sometimes judges, and executive leadership. They have their own votes at all their levels. And when matters go to court, both the lawyers as well as the judges have a vote.

Matters such as these are always up for a vote. Just not "let's take a vote today and come up with a majority rule" sort of vote. Fortunately, the winds of change are rather firmly anchored in a system of law which takes years to change.

 

[russ_watters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

How dare they fly US flags, or build Christian churches or banks, within sight of the US Federal Building memorial! Clearly patriotism, capitalism, and Christianity, are responsible for this horrific act.

That sounds like serious sarcasm...but it is pretty silly. I'm sure you must see why that isn't analagous, don't you? When someone insults someone else who is under the same umbrella of ideology, you basically get a divide by zero error trying to apply that logic.

But tell me this: if you always use such logic to determine whether someone's feeling of being offended is reasonable, does that mean you still call black people "colored"?

And if death threats against American troops make Obama's opposition to the Koran burning reasonable, does that mean that if credible death threats were to occur against the Iman leading the Muslim center project in NY then opposition to the center would become reasonable?

 

[russ_watters]

What I'm hearing here is that since being offended by the Islamic center is illogical/unreasonable, their feelings should not be considered. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[FlexGunship]

So you are an anarchist. You believe the very notion of 'civilization' is not something we are entitled to. OK.

Heinlein invented a great political body called "rational anarchy." It's not practical, but the ideology may ring true with many here: "create no law and take no action that is not for the sole purpose of protecting the freedom and safety of an individual or their property." Almost has a vaguely... constitutional... ring to it.

I'd say the poll doesn't actually matter. Even if 99% of the population thought the location of the community center was offensive, I'd call that 99% of the population irrational.

Convenient that you get to decide who is irrational. If 99% of people thought I was irrational I would either re evaluate my position, or come up with new arguments. I certainly wouldn't just dig in my heels.

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with that statement?

Out of curiosity, in a democratic society, if say 99% of the population opposed the community centre, does that not count as a majority rule? Could action be taken to prevent it (despite the 'rights' of the people building it), due to the fact the majority could vote against it?

No! That's the awesome thing about the U.S.! We don't live on Vulcan; the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few! The protection of individual rights and safety trump majority rule.

There are polls, and "polls".

A true statement, but a very slippery slope.

 

[Jack21222]

What I'm hearing here is that since being offended by the Islamic center is illogical/unreasonable, their feelings should not be considered. Is that a fair assessment?

Actually, yes.

I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

 

[Jack21222]

Convenient that you get to decide who is irrational. If 99% of people thought I was irrational I would either re evaluate my position, or come up with new arguments. I certainly wouldn't just dig in my heels.

Close to 99% of the people in the world believe I'm wrong about my (lack of) faith/religion, and I think all of those people are irrational. This isn't a threadjack, and I don't want to explore that further, I'm just pointing out that it isn't an uncommon situation that atheists have to deal with.

If you explored yourself, I'm sure you'd find a deep conviction that you hold that 99% of the world would disagree with you on, but wouldn't change even if you knew how many disagreed with you.

 

[FlexGunship]

Actually, yes.

I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

Well, if they bought the property it doesn't really matter. Construction costs, property laws, and ownership rights aren't emotionally driven. However, you can't simply say "you shouldn't feel like that." Try saying that to a crying girlfriend or wife.

Maybe this will make the first extremists out of atheists...

...probably not, though.

 

[FlexGunship]

Close to 99% of the people in the world believe I'm wrong about my (lack of) faith/religion, and I think all of those people are irrational. This isn't a threadjack, and I don't want to explore that further, I'm just pointing out that it isn't an uncommon situation that atheists have to deal with.

If you explored yourself, I'm sure you'd find a deep conviction that you hold that 99% of the world would disagree with you on, but wouldn't change even if you knew how many disagreed with you.

Yeah, well, the issue of religion is a tough one since it involves indoctrination of children and the wishful-thinking complex combined with fear of death. But that's a factual concern with a lack of evidence to support your position.

And I do have a deep conviction that 99% disagree with. I think the human animal should be free to succeed and fail in a society that does nothing but provide a framework to protect the freedoms of individuals. And I, too, am fighting the wishful-thinking complex. (A liberal utopia might as well be a religion.)

I guess I have to give you the point on this.

 

[Jack21222]

Try saying that to a crying girlfriend or wife.

NOW you tell me. That explains a lot...