In reply: Standing up for American Principles, even if you Stand Alone.

In reply: Legal Insurrection: Will They Now Call Harry Reid "Extremist"?. The post lists several liberal pundits expressing displeasure with Harry Reed's statement about the muslim cultural center being built in lower Manhattan, and for some reason wonders whether they will (or is it should?) call Harry Reed an extremist, based on what he said.

The post also elicited the following comments (among others, as of this posting):

The Ghost said...It always amazes me that the left sees critisim of their speech as someone telling them to shut up ... when in reality they are being disagreed with ...
I think what is really going on is that the left would love to tell us to shut up but they know that's a 1st Amendment thingy and they pull back so they assume that their critics really want to tell them to shut up ...
They all too often accuse others of doing exactly what they would like to do or are actually doing ...
August 17, 2010 10:00 AM

2421Rich said...
This is a great example of how the DUMBOCRAT Party does not allow any independent thought.
Dear Leader calls the tune and the spineless troops must follow the party line. Deviation is punished or if you stray you are ordered to shut up.
I know that once you get away from far left there are more Democrat voters that agree with Reid on this one. It's these people Reid is forced to pander to in order to save his job.
August 17, 2010 11:06 AM
---

I don't know why folks'd call Harry an extremist based on his wishy-washy support for the first amendment.

But wrong?

Sure... And if his objection is based on the religion of the folks who are building the cultural center--which it seem to be, given the absence of any other reason--I have no qualms about saying he's speaking like a bigot, either.

All those folks listed (and me, too) think he's wrong, and contrary to 2412Rich's assertions, there's pretty obviously no dictum saying it's against party rules to say so, otherwise those writers'd all be towing the party line, wouldn't they? (I'm not subscribed to either major party, m'self... They've gotten too big to stand for much of anything, anymore...)

I have little use for labels or for poll-tested or "majority rules" answers, either.

I see no asterisks attached to the free exercise clause that negate the thing, subject to anyone's feelings or sensitivities. (In fact, the first amendment pretty much guarantees that at some point, every American will be offended or at least have their feelings hurt by something someone says or does. That's kinda the point of the thing.) That these muslims have the right to build the center on ground they own, subject to local zoning laws and whatnot, should be the end of the story. There is no "but..." attached to the first amendment.

Folks who believe the cultural center shouldn't be built (or shouldn't be built there) have every right to speak up and to protest. And those who think that first group of folks are wrong--including those who think they're expressing bigotry while being wrong--have every right to say so, as well.
Even if folks don't like what the other side is saying.
Even if feelings get hurt.
And even if the pollsters say one side is faring better than the other, according to popular opinion.

(Being here on what is currently the "faring worse" side, I just keep reminding myself how often the mob has been wrong before, how we don't vote on constitutional rights, here in America, regardless, and how win or lose, I'm proudly standing on American principles I think are rock solid, and worth defending.)

Folks who hold all muslims responsible for what 19 extremist islamists did, and who therefore object to a muslim cultural center 2 blocks from Ground Zero on those grounds, are espousing the very definition of bigotry. (Those questioning financing or offended by something the imam once said, on the other hand, are not bigots... ...not that I can tell, anyway... only they know what's in their hearts. That's not to say that I agree with them either, but at least they're offering a legitimate reason for their opposition.)

If anyone is telling anyone else to shut up, I haven't seen it. It's all speech and rights and sensitivities, from where I'm standing... Messy, but just as the founders intended. In short, I'm not quite sure what the majority of the five visible comments before mine are trying to say, because I'm surely not seeing what they're seeing...