Anyone who would blame a female rape victim for her attacker's actions assumes the following:

(1) Women are responsible not only for maintaining their own sphere of sexual propriety, but that too of men's.

(2) Men are animals (not in the anthropological or even biological sense that we, as homo sapiens sapiens, are actually "animals," but rather, are animal-like in that they lack the consciousness to dominate their biological drives).

(3) A woman who dresses provocatively "invites" sexual anyone's sexual advances.

To accept this premise is to say that men are incapable of overcoming the biological need to "mate" with a woman upon being aroused. This diminutive take on male sexuality reduces them as rational humans, effectively stripping them of accountability with regard to sex acts. I struggle to even label "rape" as a sex act. To say this would make it difficult to distinguish non-rapists from rapists, since every male with a functionally erect penis is a potential "rapist."

I do not believe that rape is essentially sexual, but rather, a sexual vehicle of power, humiliation, and subjugation--that being said, not every male who honors and respects female sexuality (be it a matter of identity or expression of sexual power vis-a-vis dressing "sexy") is a potential rapist. Although there are different pathologies, rapists are not overcome by a force they cannot resist in the presence of a "near naked" (read: provocative) woman, rather, these men selectively deny these women's agency as rational, emotional beings and objectify her body to suit their own ends: power over, humiliation towards, subjugation of, etc. These particular types of assailants accomplish the same task with as little as groping a woman or talking to her like she was sexually available. The act of rape emerges at the risk that she will rebel or show resistance, a concept he cannot accept because she is a woman.

What pheramones a woman's body exudes while she is in estrus is not up to her; when and where and how a woman chooses to have sex with a man is what is consensual. A person made the point earlier, which I believe makes an important claim regarding the baselessness critics of confident or even insecure women have regarding their bodies:

Even a woman walking naked in the United States down a crowded cannot be said to be inviting her own rape.

I'll leave what such a demonstration might represent to women themselves, since as a male, I do not believe that I have a place to define the significance of how a woman chooses to display, cover, or use her own body.

Sure, let's get rid of money. But we should clarify what necessities money pays for are worthy of being called "human rights," that way we're not forcing companies who control those resources to allocate them to those who were once considered "wealthy" by virtue of how much money they possessed.

Also take into consideration those whose material possessions will use up more of those resources. If a family owns a large, $700,000 home, they'll also be clocking more electricity and gas needed to keep their home heated, cooled, lit, etc. Is it really helpful to get rid of money but allow other disparities of "wealth" to exist?

If you're going to get rid of money, repossess the country's wealth in a central-clearing house whose mission is to reconstruct every person's social strata. I'm not really afraid of communism since I don't take any issue with people--all peoples--having equal access and possession of quality living, food, education, health-care, et al, but I can't imagine a state of affairs in which "money" becomes void and resources aren't allocated based a system of favoritism or elitism.

For example, what is to stop the currently "wealthy" from making the case that those with more education be the ones most entitled to natural resources and housing because they, after all, are the ones with the social devices (i.e. education and motivation) to see this new society into a sustainable existence?

Even if the possession of a lot of money ceased to be an issue of inequality, people don't really require "more" material sustenance--they need a system of justice that ensures that no person or group can position themselves above anyone in such a way that their authority comes at the cost of exploiting other humans, profiting from their labor, and denying them access into those public spheres of activity while sustaining that person/group's power.

I think I started blabbing without asking an essential question: WHAT is the aim of getting rid of money?

"Extra Bunch of Cells?"

Maybe not to the same extent as, say, scraping the inside of your cheek or scratching a layer of epidermis with your fingernails, but they lack any human fetus or vertebrae features until well into 3 months of development. Otherwise, what you'd see under a microscope really would just be unremarkable "cell" reproduction.

I'm sure what Hollow more accurately meant to say was "blastocyst," which is really just a scientific term for the pre-fetus stage of conception in which the developing embryo really IS just a clump of cells that begin reproducing after the fertilized ovum has attached itself to the uteran wall. For the technical definition, see:

Blastocyst: A thin-walled hollow structure in early embryonic development that contains a cluster of cells called the inner cell mass from which the embryo arises. The outer layer of cells gives rise to the placenta and other supporting tissues needed for fetal development within the uterus while the inner cell mass cells gives rise to the tissues of the body.

(http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18258)

And if you're confused by what an "embryo" is:

A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either: the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears, and has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178746?ordinalpos=5&itool;=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

I don't follow your "bridge" analogy? Could you elaborate? It doesn't claim or argue anything and I don't see the relevance to the debate. Constitutional rights exist as matters of equality and freedom, not special interests, hobbies, etc. I also haven't suggested we all go erect establishments to offend people. However, I'll play your silly game to illustrate the seriousness of constitutional rights as they are/should be upheld:

No, I would not jump off a bridge if everyone whose right to jump off bridges started jumping off bridges. I would defend their right to do so! I'd remain consistent in my initial statement regarding constitutional rights to do so, because I have already set the standard by which a constitutional right is a guaranteed "freedom." Namely--these bridge jumpers would not be under any duress or obligation to jump from a bridge and they would not be impeding on anyone's freedom or civil liberties by jumping off a bridge. There.

Now let's make a mature examination of your response...

I may not have a definite answer, but the induction is more reasonable than your speculation. We're talking about an organized religion. Organized religions in the United States operate on private donations from their constituency and members. We can both agree on those base inferences without speculating (read: fear mongering) about ties to terrorist organizations. To suggest that the Muslim center has ties to terrorists--and to demand that they show their books to the public--is discriminatory and baseless. If you're actually worried about what "they" are doing on their property, perhaps you can have some peace of mind when you remind yourself that the Patriot Act gives the government observation, surveillance, and seizure powers over any public/private domain it believes to be an epicenter of terrorist activity (international or domestic). If nothing else, the fact that there are "concerns" isn't going to go unnoticed and you can expect the Muslim center to be under quite a bit of scrutiny.

I agree that the families of the victims of the WTC attack experienced great tragedy, but the country should not base public policy on their personal prejudices (I mean this in the most general sense: as a perspective or unfavorable opinion). If those victims are your utmost concern, then you should really be going to bat for their health benefits (which were voted down), a gift of the country for living through one of our nation's tragedies. But I should re-state my position: as tragic and hurtful these experiences were for these people, it is neither the purpose of law nor appropriate to legislate discrimination (i.e. violating religious freedom to organize, exist, and openly worship) to honor victims.

I'll repeat something others have said: this is a Muslim community center, not strictly a mosque. And should we extend your standard of condemning their practices and choice to live as Muslims to Christians, whose earlier institutions (or, to make it more relevant--their extremist groups) did terrible things/continue to do terrible things? If the basis of your argument is disrespecting victims, then why not also refuse Mormon Centers the right the exist in New York City, a thriving LGBT community who would be offended by all the anti-gay propaganda that the LDS group has produced?

Great, I'm an atheist too. But I'm a responsible and respectful atheist. I believe that a free-thinking society cannot and should not regulate free belief, representation, and access to justice.

Why there? Because they have the legal and constitutional right to assemble and build on that property. The space probably provided the features for what they wanted to accomplish: a community center with many specs.

Why now? Who knows. Getting authorized for a loan can take time. Getting paperwork together and having all the officials in the organization signed (and all collateral appraised) takes a lot of time.

Where did they get the money? Probably the same way that churches get all of theirs: by people submitting a ridiculous tithe (i.e. a portion of their income) to their religious leaders, organizations, or instutitions.

Let me guess: you also want to deny them exemption from taxes? If so, be ready to show some consistency by turning that standard on all Christian and Jewish establishments as well.

I think Nuclear made an important point of clarification: The mosque was NOT President Obama's idea. A more accurate question might be, "Do you support Obama's decision not to block/deny the construction of a Muslim mosque in New York City?"

Whoever framed this question needs to research the facts before contributing to further Islamaphobic fear-mongering.

The mosque is not really a mosque; it's going to be a community center (much like a New York City version of the Family Y): it's going to have recreational rooms and courts, offices, classrooms, fountains...and yes, rooms designated for prayer.

Also: the center is not going to be built on Ground Zero--but blocks away. Resilience to its construction is not acceptable, nor is denying its construction constitutional. The constitution of the United States protects freedom of religion in the 1st amendment. We cannot and should not, as Americans, resort to denying the presence and freedom to openly worship to ANY identifiable religious group--insofar as their practices do not impede on the freedoms of others. These people are legally purchasing property and using that property as a community space for their faith tradition. New York City is racially and culturally diverse; it is not remarkable that you'd travel one block and be in an Italian neighborhood, travel to the next one and be surrounded by Jewish schools. To deny the construction of the Muslim community center is racially motivated and unconstitutional.

This is a perfect opportunity for Americans (as WELL as Muslims) to give a new and positive definition to Islam as it is practiced in the United States. We should not respond with hatred and/or prejudice, but acceptance and bridges of understanding and open and respectful dialog.

I understand that there may be angry sentiments surrounding the attack on the WTC on 9/11, but keep in mind that these horrible acts were committed by Muslims who were part of a violent extremist group. When the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, no one seemed the least bit troubled to hear that Timothy McVay was associated with a violent extremist, Christian group. In fact, no one after that started saying we should stop building churches in Oklahoma City to encourage the terror! You see? Stop being bigots and embrace the freedoms you enjoy--and should extend!--of our Constitution.

I think what we're really asking here is not a question of personal curiosity (i.e. What does President Obama believe personally?) but, rather, a means to raise suspicions about our Presidents because anti-Islam sentiments are so high in the United States since 9/11. FOX News has been guilty of fear-mongering, equaiting Muslim with "terrorist" on many occasions, effectively stripping the religion of Islam of its dignity in America and scaring gullable Americans into believing that "Muslim" is equal to "evil."

It's shameful.

In what regard? How has Prseident Obama showed any favortism or "appeasement" towards Muslims as a general practice of his presidency?

If, say, your only argument is his position on the New York City mosque, then you've only failed in understanding the principles of your Constitution and the freedoms we as Americans are guaranteed. Although Obama has not been explicit about his position on the mosque, he has said that he will not challenge the construction or give in to pressure to oppose the building plans.

He truly is a Constitutional and freedom-loving President.

No, President Obama is not a Muslim. The Obamas have attended a Christian church. The Muslim controversy was started by Fox News as an attempt to discredit Obama in the election. What else could be expected from the news network that accused Michelle Obama of being a terrorist for "fist bumping" her husband?

If Barack Obama is a Muslim, he has an interesting way of demonstrating that he is anything but: not observing Muslim practices, not discussing Islam or Allah in state of the union addresses, not responding the fatwas or engaging in any jihad activity. I believe the subject of the President's faith tradition (or lack thereof) should be moot. He is our country's leader and a prime exemplar of American values, however the face of American Values is dynamic and changes and changes and changes.

We are a melting pot of ideas and creeds and beliefs and experiences. I, for one, would admire a secular president who affirms humanist values of respect, dignity, and the observation of undeniability of human rights for all. Those values are not particular to ANY religion.