Hello:

So, how are you with that? I'd especially like to hear from those Constitution loving Tea Partiers.

excon

The Mosque is going to be 2 blocks away from Ground Zero ,not at Ground Zero .

There are already many mosques in NYC... many already linked to jihadistan and terrorist organizations .I support Peter King's call for an investigation into the funding of the mosque. If it passes a clean bill of health ,and this edifice is not housing jihadist front groups ,then they have a right to build the mosque.

But I suspect King knows something that he wants revealed that way. Not to worry NY AG Andrew Cuomo is on top of it.

Maybe after it's built it will be the venue of choice by Eric Holder to try KSM .

Sadly Government incompetence and bureaucratic inertia brings us to a point where a mosque will be constructed in the area before the memorial is built . No doubt the effort to build the mosque will be streamlined while the city still delays the rebuilding of the WTC site over the most minor details .

those Constitution loving Tea Partiers.

Like turncoat Scott Brown ? Twinkie called that one right .

Seems appropriate to me.

like turncoat Scott Brown ? Twinkie called that one right .

A compliment coming from you Tomder is well taken.

*******deep bow from the waist*********

Thank you. Some days the old lady gets stuff right.

What do I think of the mosque near ground zero? I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Many years ago before there was a World Trade Center Twin Towers Complex I would ride around NYC in a car on the weekends and look at all the boarded up Jewish shops and tenements ready for demolition where the Twin Towers Complex was to be located. This was the old Jewish community in NYC and was there for decades. I found it quite sad that all the people had to be relocated in those neighborhoods who had lived there for many years. Then I would drive around and watch the digging of the sub basements, then the street level, and then watch as the buildings took shape but had no occupants in it yet.

For the people who lived on that site prior to having their homes demolished I feel it would be wrong, wrong, wrong to have a mosque anywhere near the ground zero site.

I would make this akin to having the Statue of Liberty statue bombed and obliterated and then erecting a (mosque, church, temple or whatever) on Bedloe's Island facing an empty pedestal where the SOL once stood.

I think whoever's idea that was placing a mosque to close to the site needs their head examined with a grenade shoved down their throat.

*******steps off her rickety soap box*******

What in the world is happening to this country if they allow this?

I'm furious! That's all just furious.

What do I think of the mosque near ground zero? I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong.




I agree with you but for the reason that it disrespects the memory of those killed by muslim fundamentalism. The way muslims stamp their place on the territory is by erecting a mosque, they did it in Jerusalem and because it is there they claim possession,and now they want to do it in NY

Muslims are exploiting the political correctness of Western countries and playing us for fools. They know that elites are too afraid too stand up to them and will coddle them and excuse their behavior no matter how far they go. It's up to regular people to start electing politicians who will defend our rights and stop pandering to Muslims.

It's up to regular people to start electing politicians who will defend our rights and stop pandering to Muslims.Hello earl:

Who is the "our" you refer to above?

excon

Good luck on finding politicians who will stand up for anything.

The name of the Mosque was to be called the Cordoba House . Why is that name significant ? Because Cordoba is the city in Spain (Andalusia) first conquered by the Jihadists in 711 and became the capital of the Caliphate in Europe.

A large Mosque was built in Cordoba ;as has been the practice of political jihadism ,building mosques on conquered territory... often on what is considered "sacred ground"... simular to the construction of a mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is not on the site of the WTC itself ,but the top floor looms over it.

The developers of the mosque decided to change the name this week because it was too obvious a connection . The new name is 'Park51' ;named for the address of the building .

The development group is still 'The Cordoba Project.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the chairman of the Cordoba Initiative. The group claims to be "moderate " ;but some of his public statements have been far from it. I'm looking closer at that aspect of this story.


Historic St Nicholas Greek Orthodox church was buried when the Twin towers came down . Only a handful of damaged icons and religious items were found amongst the rubble.

It was founded 1916 by Greek immigrants .Efforts to rebuild the church has been stalled in the overall delays I already spoke of ;endless negotiations, design disputes, delays and mounting costs.
The developers of the Cordoba mosque plan on completing the project for an opening date of Sept. 11, 2011... the 10th anniversary of the attack. Rumors of a planned 757 flyover have not been confirmed.

Hello tom:

Cool. Now I know the name. What I DON'T know is if you think the mosque should go in, EVEN if it's a couple blocks away. What I REALLY want to know is your stand on freedom of religion, and whether you think it means YOUR religion should be free, but NOT the others..

excon

Well the name is significant given the symbolism and history behind the name . It's the equivalent of naming a Cathedral in Mecca St. James the Moor Slayer.

It is a transparent insult ,a taqqiya,to suggest that this would represent tolerance and understanding The name mocks that suggestion.

This has nothing to do with religious freedom. No one is saying Muslims can't worship . As far as Constitutional issues ,the 1st Amendment is clear . It restricts Congress from making laws restricting the free exercise of religion.It doesn't say a local government cannot place zoning restrictions on where a place of worship can be constructed.
As I already stated ,there are hundreds of mosques in and around NYC . There is even one already in the WTC area . It's been there since 1970.

I think the people of the area have a complete right to decide if another one should be there. In this case I could argue that the community would be in complete compliance with the "compelling interest" doctrine SCOTUS adopted in cases like this.

Let me ask you . When people are fined by local governments because they violated the zoning rules when they hold prayer meetings in their private homes ,are you out front supporting their right to do so ? That is something that happens frequently . The Jewish communities in the NY area frequently get into zoning disputes with townships over the placement of Yeshiva. In fact ,every year hundreds of proposed houses of worship are turned down by local governments due to far less reason. You see ;since we make the mistake of making religion a tax free enterprise ,municipalities often see prime real estate untaxed while they are still compelled to provide the services like traffic control to the structures... often assigning police presence during hours of worship.
Imagine the extra security costs alone for NYC if this is permitted .

Now I expect that NYC will most likely approve this plan. The local advisory board has already recommended it.

The only thing that will prevent it is public opinion. In England the people blocked the building of a huge mosque on the site of the Olympic village. It can be done ;and it can be done constitutionally .

Let me ask you . When people are fined by local governments because they violated the zoning rules when they hold prayer meetings in their private homes ,are you out front supporting their right to do so ? That is something that happens frequently .Hello again, tom:

Bull pucky. SHOW ME!

excon

It happens all the time . This is one example that was posted here .

ADF - News Release (http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3886)

Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego (http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html)

And more

Liberty Magazine | Under the Watchful Eye: Free Exercise of Religion in the Home? (http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=464)

firstamendmentcenter.org: news (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20455)

http://www.uchastings.edu/site_files/cslgl/402_F_3d_342.pdf

Hello again, tom:

Wow. You poor persecuted Christians. I can't imagine how you've managed to survive as the dominate religion when you're under sooooo much government assault...

For the record, I am a supporter of our First Amendment, as you might imagine. Consequently, a zoning board CAN limit HOW a building is built. But, assuming a mosque is built just like the building across the street is, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a zoning board to outlaw it BECAUSE of the faith of the users.

Toward that same end, if a private home is REGULARLY being used like a commercial building, then the zoning board DOES have jurisdiction. Those regulations, too, should not be enforced based upon the REASONS the home is being used commercially.

Having said that, pursuant to the First Amendment, people are allowed to pray ANYWHERE they choose - especially in their own homes. Certainly, these violations didn't occur because a family or even a pastor had a spontaneous prayer meeting. Nope, I suspect their houses were treated more like churches with REGULAR meetings.

And, if they weren't, and these were simply people praying in their homes, the cop was wrong, wrong, wrong.

excon

It's related to the NASA Administrator Ret. Marine General/Astronaut Bolden, saying that the President charged him with reaching out to the Muslim world and engaging much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science, math, and engineering.
Maybe locating the mosque near WTC location will help to boost the esteem of Muslims knowing that there are no hard feelings about the 9/11 situation?
Ex, do you think that a Retired Marine Gen. feels good when he praises Muslims while his fellow Marines are dying at the hands of Muslims in two or more Muslim countries?
He evidently does because he smiled broadly when he told Al-Jazeera that he was assigned to do the feel good tours even before he became NASA chief.

This is a carton depicting NASA giving an esteem balloon to a Muslim.

To better understand the Mosque at ground zero issue, picture Bloomberg in place of the balloon toting astronaut. The CIC may have had a discussion with him similar to the NASA chief pep talk.

We have the politically correct concept down pat. It is time we had some patriotic correctness.

The founders did not envision the day when our enemies would use the openness of our culture to kill us, while we praise them. Or that terroists would prey on the goodwill of Americans. I think if they saw that it does that, they would vote to make some changes. But more likely, they would "discipline the geniuses" who have misinterpreted their
Document.

Smear case . I call it the hidden Mordred in our system. I assume you are familiar with the story of Camelot and how Arthur's son used the "system " Arthur devised to bring Camelot down .

Hello again,

So, I guess the answer to my question is that you believe in freedom of religion as long as it's YOUR religion... I also guess that you think that belief makes you American. It doesn't.

excon

Let me sum it up one more time.

There is a guarantee for the free exericise of religion . There is no guarantee you can build a house of worship anywhere you want to.

I can't make my position any clearer than that. IF the community approves it ,then whether I think it should go there or not is irrelevant.

So, I guess the answer to my question is that you believe in freedom of religion as long as it's YOUR religion... I also guess that you think that belief makes you American. It doesn't.

You're just baiting him, ex. Tom answered your question in his first reply.

let me sum it up one more time.

There is a guarantee for the free exericise of religion . There is no guarantee you can build a house of worship anywhere you want to.

I can't make my position any clearer than that. IF the community approves it ,then whether I think it should go there or not is irrelevent.Hello again, tom:

Thank you for that summation. Your position is clear. Mine's different...

As I said before, if your commercial building is EXACTLY like the building next door, nobody can stop you from putting a church/mosque there. NOBODY. That is freedom of religion at work!

Which brings up my SECOND rebuttal to your summation. The CONSTITUTION rules - NOT the community. You seem to think the community gets a vote. WRONG!!

excon

As I said before, if your commercial building is EXACTLY like the building next door, nobody can stop you from putting a church/mosque there. NOBODY. That is freedom of religion at work!

Wrong . As previously mentioned religion for some strange reason is a tax free enterprise in the US . They have no right to build as big as they want any more than any other business had a right to build as high as the WTC were .

Can a business be discriminated against in zoning laws ? Certainly... happens all the time.Zoning in my neighborhood prevents commercial businesses completely .

NYC cleaned up Time Square that way. Many citys outright ban adult entertainment.


Which brings up my SECOND rebuttal to your summation. The CONSTITUTION rules - NOT the community. You seem to think the community gets a vote. WRONG!!


Really ? Ask the Mormons about religious freedom .

Freedom of religion does not give you carte blanche to build anywhere you want. The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) in fact requires zoning that specifies where houses of worship can and can't be built . Is this Federal law Constitutional ? I guess that remains to be seen. But at the time of it's passage it actually gave religious institutions greater leeway.

Like I mentioned already .This is a mute point since the only thing that will prevent this is public pressure compelling a reversal for an approval that was already made.

As I said before, if your commercial building is EXACTLY like the building next door, nobody can stop you from putting a church/mosque there. NOBODY. That is freedom of religion at work!

Wrong. Zoning laws have use restrictions. You can't build or convert a building to an adult entertainment venue anywhere near a school in these parts, or do you think that would be OK, too?

Freedom of religion does not give you carte blanche to build anywhere you want. The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) in fact requires zoning that specifies where houses of worship can and can't be built . Is this Federal law Constitutional ? I guess that remains to be seen.Hello again, tom:

We disagree. My argument is simple. The federal government cannot establish a religion. Consequently, it can't say what a church ISN'T without saying what a church IS. As previously mentioned, it can't say what a church IS, because THAT establishes a religion.

Therefore, the government can't make ANY laws that regulate church's. I didn't stutter. That's an absolute. That's why the tax code on church's is ONE SENTENCE LONG. It say's simply, "church's are exempt". So, when the government looks out upon its minions, it doesn't see church's. It is Constitutionally prohibited from doing so.

Oh, it DOES see their BUILDINGS. Those can be regulated. But, I say again, as long as the building meets the BUILDING requirements of the local zoning board, and the activities within the building are not CRIMINAL in nature, the government, local, state, or federal, CANNOT prohibit what goes on there.

Does that mean the federal government CANNOT tell a group of people that they CAN'T establish a church based upon their lord and savior, POPEYE? Yes, it does. So, I'll repeat my question to you. Do you believe in freedom of religion for your church, but NOT those crazy Popeye nuts??

excon

Still wrong. If the tax code is one sentence long why do so many churches have to incorporate, have bylaws, hold business meetings and otherwise act similarly to businesses? A church is only exempt if (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/index.html) it complies with the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Again we agree that Congress can make no laws regarding establishment or the free exercise .(although Mormons and groups like Rastafarians may say huh? )

This is an irrelevant point and Steve is right that you are trying to bait me into giving some greater status to my religion over others .

In this sentence is where we disagree
Oh, it DOES see their BUILDINGS. Those can be regulated. But, I say again, as long as the building meets the BUILDING requirements of the local zoning board, and the activities within the building are not CRIMINAL in nature, the government, local, state, or federal, CANNOT prohibit what goes on there.


This is untrue . I already gave you examples where legal business unrelated to religion are routinely restricted . I cannot place an industrial business in a residential area ,and you can't build a house of worship anywhere you chose . Zoning against it is completely constitutional .

But in the neighborhood in question there are already houses of worship so I do not dispute their right to build even though I oppose it (I mentioned that in my 1st response ) .I have argued against the size of the project ;which happens to be my biggest objection . Of that you just agreed with me that the local community can restrict the size of the edifice.
I also would argue that the insensitive ,offensive and distasteful placement of a mosque that size looming over what will be a memorial to the dead from the 9-11 attack will create a security risk that the city alone will have to use it's resources to protect . Therefore the city has a right if it feels the security situation would become a burden to prevent it. The city has already made many revisions to the construction projects on the WTC site due to the security problems that have contributed to a great extent to the delays in the construction projects.

Evidently the powers that be in the city disagree with me on that point also. But I have been in many battles at the local level where zoning regs were proposed and revised all the time for special projects the elected officials wanted . Public opinion properly organized is often quite effective.

Still wrong. If the tax code is one sentence long why do so many churches have to incorporate, have bylaws, hold business meetings and otherwise act similarly to businesses? Hello again, Steve:

Nope, I'm not wrong. I'm as right as rain. The tax code about church's IS one sentence long. Church's are exempt. That's what it says. I believe it. So, since they're exempt, why would they need to apply to, or ask permission from, the federal government for an exemption (501C3 status)?? Let me say it another way, if church's are exempt, and the tax code says they are, then why would they need permission from the government to BE exempt??

Well, of course, they DON'T. As I said before, the government cannot decide what a church IS and what it ISN'T. Therefore, they ARE exempt from the git go, and don't need a designation from the government telling them that.

I don't know why church's incorporate. By doing so, they make themselves instruments of the state, which requires all those things you mention. A church that took MY legal advice, would take the form of an unincorporated association. Those entity's don't require meeting, bylaws, reports, or any of those things. Since it's exempt, it doesn't have to file tax returns telling the government that it IS exempt.

excon

I also would argue that the insensitive ,offensive and distasteful placement of a mosque that size looming over what will be a memorial to the dead from the 9-11Hello again, tom:

The way SOME people exercise their freedom IS insensitive, offensive and distasteful. It was offensive when the KKK wanted to march in Skokie, Ill. What Glenn Beck says is offensive. The mosque at ground zero IS offensive. Rights for detainees is offensive.

My arguments aren't based on popularity. They're based on the Constitution.

excon

I don't know why church's incorporate.

To avoid taxes and for protection. It's the reality and it's the law, I already pointed that out. Specifically (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175419,00.html):


"To be organized exclusively for a charitable purpose, the organization must be a corporation (or unincorporated association), community chest, fund, or foundation."

And whether it's right or not, the government does indeed define what a church is. If you don't believe me, start on page 13 of the application (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf) to apply as a charity.


Do you have a written creed, statement of faith, or summary of beliefs? If “Yes,” attach copies of relevant documents.

Do you have a form of worship? If “Yes,” describe your form of worship.

Do you have a formal code of doctrine and discipline? If “Yes,” describe your code of doctrine and discipline.

Do you have a distinct religious history? If “Yes,” describe your religious history.

Do you have a literature of your own? If “Yes,” describe your literature.

Describe the organization’s religious hierarchy or ecclesiastical government.

Do you have regularly scheduled religious services? If “Yes,” describe the nature of the services and provide representative copies of relevant literature such as church bulletins.

What is the average attendance at your regularly scheduled religious services?

Do you have an established place of worship? If “Yes,” refer to the instructions for the information required.

Do you own the property where you have an established place of worship?

Do you have an established congregation or other regular membership group?

How many members do you have?

Do you have a process by which an individual becomes a member? If “Yes,” describe the process and complete lines 8b–8d, below.

If you have members, do your members have voting rights, rights to participate in religious functions, or other rights? If “Yes,” describe the rights your members have.

May your members be associated with another denomination or church?

Are all of your members part of the same family?

Do you conduct baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc.

Do you have a school for the religious instruction of the young?

Do you have a minister or religious leader? If “Yes,” describe this person’s role and explain whether the minister or religious leader was ordained, commissioned, or licensed after a prescribed course of study.

Do you have schools for the preparation of your ordained ministers or religious leaders?

Is your minister or religious leader also one of your officers, directors, or trustees?

Do you ordain, commission, or license ministers or religious leaders? If “Yes,” describe the requirements for ordination, commission, or licensure.

Are you part of a group of churches with similar beliefs and structures? If “Yes,” explain. Include the name of the group of churches.

Do you issue church charters? If “Yes,” describe the requirements for issuing a charter.

Did you pay a fee for a church charter? If “Yes,” attach a copy of the charter.

Do you have other information you believe should be considered regarding your status as a church?If “Yes,” explain.

Yep, just one sentence and nothing about the government saying what a church is.

My position has been consistent about the tax status of churches . It is a bad move by both the church and State .
The state is involved with establishment issues trying to determine which entity is and isn't eligible.

And the church sacrifices it's complete independence from the state or as Excon said ,becomes an instrument of the state .I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged the tax status under the establishment clause.

To avoid taxes and for protection. It's the reality and it's the law, I already pointed that out. Hello Steve:

You pointed out what you READ. I'm pointing out how it works in real life. In 1979, I founded a church based upon the principles of Popeye. I didn't ask the government if I could, because I KNEW I could. The church still operates, owns property, collects donations and redistributes it. It's never spoken to the government, and the government has never spoken to the church.

If you believe in what the First Amendment says, then the truth of what I'm telling you becomes apparent. That's not to say that the government hasn't tried to ALTER what the First Amendment says. It does it all the time. It writes stuff down in books and calls it law, but it isn't. I can read.

excon

I knew it ! Popeye's is a cult trying the take out KFC !

Hello Steve:

You pointed out what you READ. I'm pointing out how it works in real life. In 1979, I founded a church based upon the principles of Popeye. I didn't ask the government if I could, because I KNEW I could. The church still operates, owns property, collects donations and redistributes it. It's never spoken to the government, and the government has never spoken to the church.

And it's open to all manner of legal action against which you have very little legal protection. The Supreme Court has addressed these issues many times (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_TaxIndex.htm). Organizations exist just for the purpose of advising churches on their rights and defending them in court. What you say may be technically right, but it isn't the legal reality.

Hello again,

The discussion is STILL going on...

But, I want to talk about lists... Right wingers seem to carry around a LIST of people WHO have rights under the Constitution, and those who don't. Their list includes all sorts of bad people to WHOM the Constitution SHOULD NOT apply. For example, if you want to excercize your First Amendment rights to open a Mosque near ground zero, the right wingers will consult their LIST to see if YOU qualify...

The discussion underway is whether we want radical Muslims, who support Sharia Law, for crying out loud, to open a Mosque THAT is pretty close to ground zero...

But, when I read the First Amendment, it doesn't say anything about a list of people who DON'T qualify.

Freedom is messy. It WOULD be neat and tidy if we just gave freedom to those who DESERVE it, after they've been checked out by the government. But, it wouldn't BE freedom, would it?

excon

You're baiting again, but I'll play along. How much Sharia is constitutional?

Let's give common sense a chance one of these days. The bad guys love the fact that we expose our bellies to their swords. It brings a lot of chuckles in the caves. The constitution doesn't cover modern conditions and everybody knows it.
Where I worked in a state highway dept/DOT, we had a thick book of specifications that governed road and bridge construction. A new book had to be published every few years and addenda were issued just about daily. The addenda were as thick as the original book by the time a new book was published. You write and rewrite it over and over and somebody still finds a loophole or a new way of building is developed. If you want a new spec on an older job you have to pay for it.

Convene a committee of some kind (I know-who, what, where, how) and let them settle (temporarily) these issues: Mosque- yes, Mosque -no. decision stands until next election--2 yrs or less--let the people vote on the decision. If people say yes (agree with board's no on mosques), change constit. 1. No mosques within x feet of y. People say no (board was wrong) pay applicable damages to those the people say were wrongly barred. Add to const.--Mosques OK within x ft of y. Maybe the board would be comprised of 1/2 randomly chosen judges from all levels, and the other half randomly chosen citizens who would add some common sense to the mix.
I can tell you this. If the constit. Was a set of specs for a bridge, nobody would bid to build it because they would have no idea what you want or they would take a wild stab at a price, triple it and send it in, about the same odds as roulette.
The Sublime Court is a joke and always will be. You don't know what the current status of any law is until you pay a few lawyers $ 300 per hour to search the maze.
We all know the mosque idea is wrong. Would the citizens uphold the board if the board said NO mosque! I think it would be yes at about 75% min.
Our agency could have held the line and stuck to the 1923 spec. book. You would be driving on 2 lane (maybe) wooden bridges, and mud roads with 2 foot ruts. The product would suffer just like it does with the Constitution, now. Let the people decide and get on with it!

Lawyers would not like my procedure. Clear and concise documents are their death knell.

You're baiting again, but I'll play along. How much Sharia is constitutional?Hello again, Steve:

You just don't like the way I phrase my questions. It makes you uncomfortable because you don't look at your OWN actions the way I do. Bummer for you, huh?

But, you DID ask a good question. Sharia, assuming it's a religious concept, is just as Constitutional as the Talmud. If you say it isn't the same because Muslims want to turn this country into a Caliphate. I'd retort that Christians want this country to be (and think it IS), a Christian country. So what? If you say that it isn't the same because a Mosque right THERE is offensive to us. I'd agree. But, offensive isn't Unconstitutional.

Now, if you tell me that their funding is from terrorist organizations, that's a different matter completely.

So, the question you ask, while interesting, has NO Constitutional bearing.

excon

Convene a committee of some kind (I know-who, what, where, how) and let them settle (temporarily) these issues: Mosque- yes, Mosque -no. decision stands until next election--2 yrs or less--let the people vote on the decision. Hello again, smear.

If RIGHTS could be voted on, they wouldn't call 'em RIGHTS.

excon

So ,so called religious freedom is absolute ? How about polygamy?. Human and animal sacrifice.. corporal punishment for women including stoning ? If you say yes to those then your argument about Sharia stands.

Strange case of relativism equating the Talmud with Sharia if you ask me.

You just don't like the way I phrase my questions. It makes you uncomfortable because you don't look at your OWN actions the way I do. Bummer for you, huh?

No, I just don't like the way you bait us after it's already been satisfactorily answered.

You still mistake what most Christians mean by this being a Christian nation, as in it's a nation of mostly Christians that recognizes our history and believes - rightly so - that our country was laws and constitution are based on biblical principles. So what, we recognize your rights as well.

I've said it here many times, without your freedom I don't have my freedom, so I'll defend your right to not believe as I do. Sharia, not so much. I'm content living under our system of government, Sharia is not (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece), and to me that has everything to do with our constitution.

So ,so called religious freedom is absolute ? How about polygamy ? ...Human and animal sacrifice... ,corporal punishment for women including stoning ? If you say yes to those then your argument about Sharia stands.

Strange case of relativism equating the Talmud with Sharia if you ask me.Hello again, tom:

I think it's absolute. But, you're mixing up religious freedom with what WE have decreed, is criminal activity. According to OUR law, one can't plead religious freedom when assaulting another person, or animal for that matter. I'm fine with that.

I DO think that polygamy falls under religious freedom. I'm not talking about marrying CHILDREN, or DOGS. I'm talking about two (or three or four) ADULTS making a decision how to live their life based upon religious principles. Yes, I think smoking pot COULD be the basis for a religion.

The Talmud is religious law. Isn't that what Sharia is? You want me to judge, like you do, based upon my personal prejudices... But, I LOVE this country so much, that I overcome my initial personal reactions, and look to the CONSTITUTION for the PROPER, and AMERICAN response. I would think that the Constitution loving Tea Party would view it the same... No, huh?

excon

Sharia law says that what we say is criminal activity is permissible . Pot smoking is also criminal activity under our laws but since it complies in this case with your belief you would make that a religious exception . Polygamy is also criminal behavior but you think due to religious practice that should be a right too .

So where do you differentiate the criminal behaviors permissible under absolute religious freedoms when some you justify and others you don't ?

If religious freedoms were absolute I would agree with you .But ,just like the exceptions famously outlined concerning free speech ,we know that these freedoms have restrictions .

Sharia law says that what we say is criminal activity is permissible . Pot smoking is also criminal activity under our laws but since it complies in this case with your belief you would make that a religious exception . Polygamy is also criminal behavior but you think due to religious practice that should be a right too .

So where do you differentiate the criminal behaviors permissible under absolute religious freedoms when some you justify and others you don't ? Hello again, tom:

I speak from my Constitutional perspective... I believe the laws against pot are Unconstitutional. I believe the laws against polygamy are Unconstitutional. The fact that society has labeled THESE activities criminal, does NOT make it so. I CAN read. (You ALSO have a problem with the Commerce Clause - but NOT because it prohibits you from buying something, but because it's going to REQUIRE you to buy something - and you don't LIKE that)

I DON'T make those distinctions when it comes to ASSAULTIVE behavior. I guess until you're able to do this yourself, or at least see that I'm doing it, you're going to think I approve of man/dog marriage.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I think it's absolute.

How can it be absolute if you want to prohibit assaultive behavior? Both the Torah (and thus the Christians' Bible) and Qaran endorse animal sacrifice and stoning.

You're letting your own double standard show.

How can it be absolute if you want to prohibit assaultive behavior? Both the Torah (and thus the Christians' Bible) and Qaran endorse animal sacrifice and stoning.

You're letting your own double standard show.Hello again, Cats:

Freedom of religion IS absolute. That has nothing to do with a book - ANY book. It also has nothing to do with beating people up.

I don't quite know what you're saying, Cats. I'm certainly not holding one religious book over another. And, I'm not holding ANY religious book over the Constitution.

excon

PS> (edited) I just read it again. If you think that freedom of religion ISN'T absolute because we won't let people commit human sacrifice, I'll agree with you. But, short of committing a CRIME, the ability of one to practice one's religion in this great county or ours, IS absolute, In my opinion.

Or, maybe because it's limited on the one hand, it CAN'T BE absolute on the other... I don't know. This is giving me a headache.

Hello again, Cats:

Freedom of religion IS absolute. That has nothing to do with a book - ANY book. It also has nothing to do with beating people up.

I don't quite know what you're saying, Cats. I'm certainly not holding one religious book over another. And, I'm not holding ANY religious book over the Constitution.

excon

PS> (edited) I just read it again. If you think that freedom of religion ISN'T absolute because we won't let people commit human sacrifice, I'll agree with you. But, short of committing a CRIME, the ability of one to practice one's religion in this great county or ours, IS absolute, IMHO.

Or, maybe because it's limited on the one hand, it CAN'T BE absolute on the other... I dunno. This is giving me a headache.
Ex I think you have just proven your constitutional freedoms are not as absolute as you think and that might mean that if one constitutional freedom is limited, then so are others such as the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech. No wonder you have a headache, but then when you speak in absolutes you get onto the horns of a dilemma

then so are others such as the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech.

Yes ,the famous example of free speech restrictions is yelling fire in a theater ,libel etc. Registration requirements of guns falls in the category of a second amendment restriction... The government has a right to know if you have guns.

Here are the relevant SCOTUS decisions . 'Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith' SCOTUS decided that states could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. They determined states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs if they choose to do so , but they are not required to do so.Congress passed the ' Religious Freedom Restoration Act' to get around this ruling .But SCOTUS in 'City of Boerne v. Flores 'ruled the law unconstitutional .
So some aspects of Sharia law ,or any other religious ritual ,or religious law can be constitutionally restricted by the nation,individual states ,or locality without necessarily restricting the' free exercise clause'.

In my opinion, the issue isn't the building of a mosque, it is the location. I feel it would only serve to be provocational.

It has nothing to do with freedom of religion. There are many mosques throughout the country.

There are questions regarding the history/involvement of some of the backers of the project however that should be addressed.

Freedom of religion is not absolute... the distinction is often made between beliefs and actual practices.

It has nothing to do with freedom of religion. There are many mosques throughout the country.Hello D:

I'm glad you joined the discussion. It gets old arguing with the same people.

But, my argument doesn't change... Using your logic, because there are many guns around, YOUR gun rights should be curtailed... Or, because we gave the Miranda warnings to MOST people, YOUR rights should be violated...

It absolutely DOES have to do with freedom of religion. These American citizens want to put their mosque THERE. That is their RIGHT, just like it's YOUR right to put your church where ever YOU want to. Is it offensive?? Yes. Do they have the RIGHT to put it there? YES! Was the Nazi's march in downtown Skokie, Ill. Offensive? Yes. To me, however, it's MORE offensive to see the Constitution torn asunder.

excon

And if it is used as part of the plan to destroy this country and spit in the face of Americans that's OK too? The FF's had these types of scenes in mind when they wrote the rules? What matters is what the citizens think right now. The bad guys like our simple answers to very complex issues--they have to have something to laugh about in the caves-it gets boring.
We have to keep up and the constitution has to keep up. Words are just words and can be read many ways. That's what the lawyers like about'em.

Was the Nazi's march in downtown Skokie, Ill. Offensive?

Not really the same thing. Now if you said there was an absolute right to build a Temple for the Emperor of Japan at Pearl Harbor I would say wrong.
Certainly the township would be in their right for various reasons to deny it.

Now for the record ,because some people may not be aware of the case , the Skokie, Ill. March did not actually happen in Skokie .The Nazis wanted to march there because there were a lot of holocost survivors in the town . SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Nazis.

But public pressure effectively applied ; the Nazi instead held 3 marches (poorly attended ) in the Chicago area and did not march in the area where it would've been most offensive.

Didn't the Constitution refer to some citizens as three-fifths of a real person? Did the FF's look into the crystal ball on that one?
They saw as far as they could see and did a good job. If they came back to the present day and wrote the Constitution again, they would soon realize that some expansion and clarification was needed. And if they could do a good job, we could throw out all that Sublime Court precedence stuff. Any citizen could read it and understand it but in a small number of years, it would have to be done all over again, just like any other sets of code, regulations, specifications that are used by Americans. I guess the House and Senate would have to approve it, and the citizens would vote but we have elections every two years anyhow. With regard to religion they might add: This right shall not apply to any group that subscribes to the overthrow of this U.S. Government and its people: nor to groups who have caused the muliple deaths of U.S. citizens and whose members are currently at War with the United States of America. I think they would write that, Congress would approve it, and the Citizens would approve it. Maybe it would be in the form of a definition of qualified religion. Hiding behind nebulous 234 year old simple statements to govern a modern, highly technical society, with it's future very much at stake, is silly.

Any citizen could read it and understand it but in a small number of years, it would have to be done all over again, just like any other sets of code, regulations, specifications that are used by Americans. I guess the House and Senate would have to approve it, and the citizens would voteHello again, smear:

Couple things.

The Bill or Rights are written in plain language so that ANYBODY can understand what it says. You also point out the Amendment process. If you want to change it accordingly, I'm cool with it. But, CHANGE it - don't VIOLATE it.

excon

Smear ,the Constitution has gone through revision 27 times.

The founders did see a need for revisions and wrote the process into the Constitution. They also foresaw a day when a number of revisions would be required ,and wrote into the Constitution the process for a Constitutional Convention.

I for one do not see a need to amend the 1st Amendment here as the denial of converting the building into a Mosque is constitutional . Free exercise does not guarantee an on site edifice .

I stand by my contention that the local municipality has the right to deny it.

And the point is mute because a Mosque will be built in the historic Burlington Coat Factory building .

Good points of course. The process has to change. It stinks and it is of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers at present. What if a mosque wanted to erect an ICBM at their site, pointed at the new WTC's future buildings, just waiting until they get them finished so they could blow them and 10,000,000 people off the map. Does Freedom of Religion give that one a green light? I know that's ludicrous but pretend for the sake of argument that it is not.

Hello again, smear:

We have laws that prevent people from ASSAULTING other people. Freedom of religion doesn't shield anyone from those laws.

Like tom, I'm pretty happy with the First Amendment. What's not to like?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

excon

The 27th amendment took 40 years from introduction to passage. The issues we deal with today can't wait that long. Pick up the pace America. There is big trouble brewing and it won't wait for nine old men and women to play political football, especially when our Quarterback isn't sure which team he is on. Devout muslims to Homeland Security leadership (check it out), NASA administrator on muslim esteem tours (check it out too), our 57 states (you decide). I have "refudiated" some of my friends sending me scurrilous Obama attacks that were patently false. These hold water.

These hold water.No they don't. Check it out.

Goog "Devout muslims to homeland security", then snopes and many others.
Go to NASA.org, Boulden speech in Cairo and
Youtube Boulden interview with Al Jazeera.
I guess it all depends on who is checking where.
The 57 states is on record too but I'm not doing all your work for you. First I was a deserter, now a liar, and you still haven't given me your military bio--I gave you mine when you called me a deserter. You like to get the attention off the real issues, Need.

OK 57 States was a campaign gaff.

Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development is certainly a devote Muslim and possibly more. He is a member of "Muslim Public Affairs Council". MPAC's Senior Advisor, Maher Hathout, has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and espouses Wahhabism. That is all I know . The connection is worth exploring given the position he will hold in the national security community.

Kareem Shora , appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC),is Syrian . That is all I know about
Him .

So his assertion that the Obama Adm appointed Devout muslims to Homeland Security leadership is correct .

Smearcase already did a OP about the mission assigned to
NASA boss Charles Bolden . I believe Bolden when he said he was instructed to do an outreach to the Muslim world.

All 3 are true . 2 are significant.

Hello D:

I'm glad you joined the discussion. It gets old arguing with the same people.

But, my argument doesn't change... Using your logic, because there are many guns around, YOUR gun rights should be curtailed... Or, because we gave the Miranda warnings to MOST people, YOUR rights should be violated....

It absolutely DOES have to do with freedom of religion. These American citizens want to put their mosque THERE. That is their RIGHT, just like it's YOUR right to put your church where ever YOU want to. Is it offensive??? Yes. Do they have the RIGHT to put it there? YES! Was the Nazi's march in downtown Skokie, Ill. offensive? Yes. To me, however, it's MORE offensive to see the Constitution torn asunder.

excon


Freedom of religion is a freedom to believe as you choose. This does not always correlate into actions. No one has said a certain religion can not be followed... there is a mosque several blocks away.

It is my understanding that it is the location, given the history of the site and those involved, that is of concern. No one has a "right" to build, they have a "right" to their religion. I could not build a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue anywhere I chose to. Nor, even if I could, would I personally be so presumptuous to consider building where I knew it would cause so many people distress, especially given that the objective of such a building is one to bring people together.

The example has been made of plenty of Japanese living in Hawaii, but people would not want a Buddhist temple built at Pearl Harbor. Much has changed in Hawaii, but it took many years after the attack and now there are many, many temples across the islands. Still you wouldn't find one at Pearl Harbor given the historical nature of the site.

This is the same situation with ground zero. It is all too fresh in the minds of many people, particularly those living in the city and the families of those who died.

It would almost be like Truman wanting to build a Christian church at Peace Park after the bombings. While there is a remnant there now, although not presented by the US, this occurred much later as part of a memorial for all to remember the horrific nature of what occurred.

Time heals... and perhaps in time, as part of a memorial to try and build a bridge of healing, understanding, and unification such a project would be viewed differently.

I just think it is not the right location, or perhaps the right time, given the circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree on this one... :)

I just think it is not the right location, or perhaps the right time, given the circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree on this one....:)Hello again, D:

I do NOT disagree with ANY of your personal sentiments. It is NOT the "right" location. It IS offensive. It's NOT the "right" time...

However, when it comes to the Constitution, it's ALWAYS THE RIGHT TIME. That's why our Founding Fathers WROTE the Bill of Rights. They wanted to make SURE that feelings didn't get in the way of rights. Most of our rights aren't very popular. The majority of 'em would be done away with if we could vote on them. Freedom is messy. And yes, some people use their freedom to confront others... So what?

I've said many times on these pages, that if we don't support the Constitutional rights we DON'T like, the ones we DO like will fall by the wayside too. So, when you look to see if someone has a RIGHT to do something or not, look to the Constitution - not your feelings.

excon

Hello again, D:

I do NOT disagree with ANY of your personal sentiments. It is NOT the "right" location. It IS offensive. It's NOT the "right" time...

excon

Man are you guys screwed up! And all because you are trying to fulfill seventeeth century ideas of morality which were aimed at preventing the declaration of a national church and enforcing membership. Let's agree here ex, the idea that a mosque could be built on the site of the murder of 3,000+ people by muslim fanatics is offensive, not only to americans but to other nationalities who died that day and it doesn't offend your constitution which did not confer a right for any person to build a house of worship wherever they pleased, however pecularly it might be worded, otherwise I could come over there and erect a Church of the Great Rainbow Serpent on the site.

Man are you guys screwed up! And all because you are trying to fulfill seventeeth century ideas of morality Hello again, clete:

Yeah, the Constitution is kind of quaint, ain't it? But, as I read it, I don't see anything old fashioned about its ideas. Here's the Amendment we're talking about. Seems to directly relate to TODAY'S problems, no?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You're probably jealous because you don't have such rights.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Yeah, the Constitution is kinda quaint, ain't it? But, as I read it, I don't see anything old fashioned about its ideas. Here's the Amendment we're talking about. Seems to directly relate to TODAY'S problems, no?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You're probably jealous because you don't have such rights.

excon

You claim we don't have such rights, but I don't hear any arguments about freedom of speech or religion where I live. Our constitution has a similar clause about religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Try this one on, Arizona couldn't happen here
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
Further, our parliament has no power to make laws regarding the exercise of magna carta rights by individuals so no provision is needed regarding free speech

Hey exie I bet you would like to have this one in your constitution
The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

Hey exie I bet you would like to have this one in your constitution
The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

Don't know about Ex, but I'd certainly love to see it.

I'm curious, how do you feel about this:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBSvoV3qoaqFJToMYUOeBMNOtzxrmE8 DRuKvdZ3MwQfY4c7i8&t=1&usg=__Xu-X0ZND9c19VCnJZUO86M6Txuw=

Hello Steve:

I don't FEEL anything. What's your point? Are you saying that we DON'T have to obey the First Amendment, because we FEEL a certain way?? I FEEL like I don't like guns - so what??

excon

Let me rephrase, what's your opinion of this? Is this an acceptable expression of the first amendment?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBSvoV3qoaqFJToMYUOeBMNOtzxrmE8 DRuKvdZ3MwQfY4c7i8&t=1&usg=__Xu-X0ZND9c19VCnJZUO86M6Txuw=

Hello again, Steve:

You haven't understood a thing I've been saying here. You have the right to express yourself. The particular OBJECT you use to express yourself doesn't make your expression illegal or not... For example, an artist can depict Jesus Christ in a sexual situation... A hippie can wear a shirt made of an American flag. You can fly your flag of choice.

In other words, I don't have LISTS of THINGS that can or can't be used for political expression. You do.

excon

Yeah but public pressure ;rights not relevant... has prevented the flying of the stars and bars throughout the country.

Hello again, tom:

You're mixing apples and oranges. Government doesn't have a First Amendment right. YOU do. So, if constituents put public pressure on their government officials to do what the constituents want, that is politics in action. It's what's SUPPOSED to happen. But, it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution, or the subject at hand.

YOU, on the other hand, have the absolute RIGHT to fly the stars and bars. If you cave to your neighbors pressure, that's on you.

excon

Maybe you can get that point across to all those people defending the right to have this mosque in a most insensitive place who are also first to call for infringing on our constitutional right by banning this flag.

Maybe you can get that point across to all those people defending the right to have this mosque in a most insensitive place who are also first to call for infringing on our constitutional right by banning this flag.Hello again, Steve:

Why do you need ME to do that?? Maybe if you stood up for ALL of our Constitutional rights, instead of the ones you like, you'd have credibility with this group, like I do. Why do I have credibility?? Because I don't have lists... In terms of the Constitution, we've talked about LISTS before. When asked if someone can excercize a Constitutional right, you don't read the Constitution. You consult your list.

excon

You consult your list.

I still don't know what list you're referring to, the one that says the mosque is OK as long as it meets zoning and building codes? The one that says speech zones are good and Fox News is evil? The one that says a preacher could be fined or jailed for hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin, while anti-semitic, jihad-loving professors are protected for calling for genocide? Which list?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:If you guys are going to start flag waving how about this

I still don't know what list you're referring to, the one that says the mosque is OK as long as it meets zoning and building codes? The one that says speech zones are good and Fox News is evil? The one that says a preacher could be fined or jailed for hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin, while anti-semitic, jihad-loving professors are protected for calling for genocide? Which list?Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, you're not the ONLY one with a list. I don't have one, though. That's why you LISTEN to me. I'm a PURE Constitutional Dude. I'm the guy the Tea Party should LOVE. I'm better than Judge Napalitono.

When I speak of YOUR list, I'm referring to the one you consult when asked if ______ should excercize a Constitutional right. Let me see if I've got it right. Gay people are on your list. Muslims are on your list. Detainees are on your list. Those are just for starters.

excon

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:If you guys are going to start flag waving how about thisHello clete:

I think it's a fine flag. What? Are you going to tell me that it represents some really ugly stuff, so I should add it to my list? Read the post above. I ain't got no stinkin list.

excon

Yeah, you're not the ONLY one with a list.

You finally got my point, but don't make my list for me.

I still don't know what list you're referring to, the one that says the mosque is OK as long as it meets zoning and building codes? Which list?Hello again, Steve:

If you're referring to ME, the only list I need, is the Constitution. If the mosque in question, DOES meet zoning and building codes, I don't say it's "OK". I say it's LEGAL. I actually DON'T think it's OK, but MY opinion isn't what counts. What the Constitution SAYS is what counts.

Tom has said, and I guess you agree with him, that the local zoning board (or whatever local board he's talking about) CAN ban this mosque on religious grounds. I disagree. The Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to adhere to the First Amendment. That is just so.

excon

I must have missed where tom said the mosque could be banned on religious grounds. That sounds like your interpretation of something else tom said.

I must have missed where tom said the mosque could be banned on religious grounds. That sounds like your interpretation of something else tom said.Hello again, Steve:

After discussing the zoning and building code issue, tom STILL said that he believed the local authorities COULD ban the mosque. He did NOT say why. I presumed that since we had put away the zoning issue, the only issue left would be religious.

So, you tell me. If the building next to you is a commercial building open to the public, and you built a building right next door, in the SAME zone, that is built to the standards of your neighbor, can the zoning cops prevent you from building your building because they don't like what you're going to DO there?

This isn't a trick question. I'm not talking about a business that's illegal already. Do you believe the zoning board can discriminate based upon religion?

excon

After discussing the zoning and building code issue, tom STILL said that he believed the local authorities COULD ban the mosque. He did NOT say why. I presumed that since we had put away the zoning issue, the only issue left would be religious.

I never got the impression tom supported religious discrimination. The question's been asked and answered, if it meets zoning requirements and building codes the building can go up. You think that means we support religious discrimination or something.

Here are the remarks in my initial answer and follow-up clarification.


The Mosque is going to be 2 blocks away from Ground Zero ,not at Ground Zero .

There are already many mosques in NYC... many already linked to jihadistan and terrorist organizations .I support Peter King's call for an investigation into the funding of the mosque. If it passes a clean bill of health ,and this edifice is not housing jihadist front groups ,then they have a right to build the mosque


let me sum it up one more time.

There is a guarantee for the free exericise of religion . There is no guarantee you can build a house of worship anywhere you want to.

I can't make my position any clearer than that. IF the community approves it ,then whether I think it should go there or not is irrelevent.


But in the neighborhood in question there are already houses of worship so I do not dispute their right to build even though I oppose it (I mentioned that in my 1st response ) .I have argued against the size of the project ;which happens to be my biggest objection . Of that you just agreed with me that the local community can restrict the size of the edifice.

None of my objections meet the status of 'religious discrimination'

Here are the remarks in my initial answer and followup clarification. None of my objections meet the status of 'religious discrimination' Hello again, tom:

THIS is the post I was referring to. Post #56, yesterday.

I stand by my contention that the local municipality has the right to deny it. Your protestations above notwithstanding, on what grounds do you base that contention? Please clarify.

excon

Hello clete:

I think it's a fine flag. What? Are you gonna tell me that it represents some really ugly stuff, so I should add it to my list? Read the post above. I ain't got no stinkin list.

excon

It's called the Eureka Flag Ex and it's equivalent of your original stars and stripes flag, sad part is that rebellion was quashed right when it began with military might and we never had our revolution. I guess your rebellion had taught the British something
http://www.eurekastockadefilm.com/audio_frame03.htm
These days when ever we have conflict on a building site the Eureka Flag puts in an appearance, maybe you could use it

The southern cross eh ? Well that's the Crux of the problem .


Thanks ,I was not aware of that bit of your history .

the southern cross eh ? Well that's the Crux of the problem .


Thanks ,I was not aware of that bit of your history .

Yes some of us have a strong history of fighting oppression, there are some interesting stories of americans and canadians who were involved in that incident

the southern cross eh ? Well that's the Crux of the problem .

Ba dum bump. I owe you one for the Kerry yacht trip to Cambodia, too, lol :D

Hello:

So, how are you with that? I'd especially like to hear from those Constitution loving Tea Partiers.

excon

I've only read the first post.

My position: If they disclose the financers of the project, then let them do it.

On the other hand, if the backers of the Mosque are also backers of terrorists, then the answer should be no.

I hate the analogy that it's the same thing as putting a tribute to the Kamikaze pilots at Pearl Harbor. It's not the same thing at all.

Rick just to clarify..

I don't know if anyone else mentioned Pearl Harbor,but I did (#53) .

I did not say... a tribute to the Kamikazi (there were no Kamikazi attacks during the Pearl Harbor sneak attack anyway) . ]

I said... Now if you said there was an absolute right to build a Temple for the Emperor of Japan at Pearl Harbor I would say wrong.

That would be an appropriate comparison because of the religious devotion the Japanese bestowed on the Emperor.

Rick just to clarify..

I don't know if anyone else mentioned Pearl Harbor,but I did (#53) .

I did not say ...a tribute to the Kamikazi (there were no Kamikazi attacks during the Pearl Harbor sneak attack anyway) . ]

I said .... Now if you said there was an absolute right to build a Temple for the Emperor of Japan at Pearl Harbor I would say wrong.

That would be an appropriate comparison because of the religious devotion the Japanese bestowed on the Emperor.

I hear you. It's only the likes of Shawn Hannity that make the Kamikaze argument.

I don't mind being called "conservative" or even "to the right", but when people like S.H. speak out, I often have to affirm that he does NOT speak for the majority of folks like me.

Correct . Don't let anyone else define you. People don't believe me when I tell them I am not glued to the television watching FOX .
Is there an English translation to :
Evangeliza semper, dicas si oporteat ?( I'd find it but I'm being lazy)

Correct . Don't let anyone else define you. People don't believe me when I tell them I am not glued to the television watching FOX .

Yes! I hear that a lot and it ticks me off. I think that FOX does more harm than good for the conservative cause. I think all of the news channels are bunk. The only place to get real news is by surfing the News link at Google and reading from several sources. At most of them you get more opinion than news.



is there an English translation to :
Evangeliza semper, dicas si oporteat ?( I'd find it but I'm being lazy)

Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words.

For those of you that care to know: by tradition, it is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi (and fits in perfectly with what he taught), but there is no proof that he said it (sorry, recording devices were not available then) or wrote it.

In "secular" language I take it to mean "Actions speak louder than words". Of course words are valuable, but actions are more so.

Speaking of constitution loving people, let's hear it for Pete Stark, Democrat from California who thinks the constitution is basically meaningless:

W1-eBz8hyoE

Speaking of constitution loving people, let's hear it for Pete Stark, Democrat from California who thinks the constitution is basically meaningless:

W1-eBz8hyoE
In many ways I agree. It is too open to too many various interpretations.

... but that being said, I don't think it matters. There is no way in hell that it could be re-written in our lifetime or even in the lifetimes between now and our great-great-great grandchildren.

Speaking of constitution loving people, let's hear it for Pete Stark, Democrat from California who thinks the constitution is basically meaningless:

W1-eBz8hyoE

Well we can see there how democracy works in america, the loudest person gets to speak

Well we can see there how democracy works in america, the loudest person gets to speak

Are you referring to the lady who asked the question or the congressman, who once said he wouldn't waste urine on one of his constituents?

Hello again, Steve:

The lady is misinformed and the congressman is a dufus. What has THAT to do with the mosque? You always seem to come up with kookie INDIVIDUALS, I suppose to bolster your arguments.. But, finding kooks doesn't bolster your argument. It diminishes it.

excon

Ex, you referred to "Constitution loving" people in your OP and knowing how much you love the constitution I find it highly appropriate to show the kooks in congress that don't give a rip about our constitution. He ain't just a "kookie INDIVIDUAL," he's writing the $#@%% laws.

Hello again, Steve:

While I appreciate your help, pointing out odd thinking individuals, whether they be congressmen or citizens, DOESN'T contribute to OUR conversation.

excon

Sorry, but I can't sweep it under the rug as casually as you do.

Perhaps this will add to the mosque discussion.


WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)
Pope John Paul offers a model of tolerance for a heated controversy.
By WILLIAM MCGURN

With every passing day, the dispute over the planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero grows more acrimonious. These feelings will probably only get worse today, when the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission is expected to remove another hurdle by ruling against landmark status for the undistinguished old building the center will replace.

So maybe it's time to look beyond the lawyers and landmark preservation commissions and regulatory agencies. When we do, it will be hard to find a better example than the grace and wisdom Pope John Paul II exhibited during a similar clash involving another hallowed site on whose grounds innocents were also murdered: Auschwitz.

In the 1980s, Carmelite nuns moved into an abandoned building on the edge of the former Nazi death camp to pray for the souls taken there. As with the dispute over the mosque near Ground Zero, the convent's presence escalated into a clash not only between different faiths but between competing historical narratives. As with today's clash too, it seemed intractable until the Polish pope stepped in.

For Jews, Auschwitz is a symbol of the Shoah, and the presence of a convent looked like an effort to Christianize a place of Jewish suffering. Suspicions were further aroused by a fundraising brochure from an outside Catholic group, which referred to the convent as a "guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers." The protests mounted over the course of several years and various interfaith agreements, and pointed to the real strains that remained between Poles and Jews over a shared history with very different perspectives.

Many Catholics, not just in Poland, could not understand how nuns begging God's forgiveness and praying for the souls of the departed could possibly offend anyone. There was also a nationalist element. Many members of the Polish resistance had also been murdered at Auschwitz. And again like our present controversy at Ground Zero, intemperate reactions and statements from both sides only inflamed passions.

So what did Pope John Paul II do? He waited, and he counseled. And when he saw that the nuns were not budging—and that their presence was doing more harm than good—he asked the Carmelites to move. He acknowledged that his letter would probably be a trial to each of the sisters, but asked them to accept it while continuing to pursue their mission in that same city at another convent that had been built for them.

Let's remember what this means. By their own lights, the nuns believed they were doing only good. They may have had a legal title to be where they were. And it is likely that they never would have been forced to move by local authorities had they insisted on staying.

There's a lesson here. Even those who favor this new Islamic Center surely can appreciate why some American feelings are rubbed raw by the idea of a mosque at a place where Islamic terrorists killed more than 2,700 innocent people. If feelings in Auschwitz were raw after nearly half a century, it's not hard to see why they would remain raw at Ground Zero after less than a decade.

On the other hand, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is right about the law: Our freedom of religion means nothing if it doesn't mean freedom of religion for all. Indeed, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—a sort of ACLU for freedom of religion—has spent decades defending churches, synagogues, mosques and even a Zoroastrian temple against public officials who have tried to invoke zoning laws or arcane regulations to keep them off a property.

Yet not all big questions can—or should—be reduced to legal right. Living together as neighbors in a free and inescapably diverse society requires more skills than just knowing how to hire sharp lawyers. Sometimes it requires leaders willing to sound a grace note, even yielding to the feelings of others who may not see our plans the same way we do.

For their part, the two people at the heart of this center—Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan—defend the center as an antidote to 9/11. "Our religion has been hijacked by the extremists," Ms. Khan told National Public Radio, "and this center is going to create that counter-momentum which will amplify the voices of the moderate Muslims."

Perhaps. But it's hard to argue with the Anti-Defamation League's assessment that the controversy created by building the center at this location "is counterproductive to the healing process."

Without doubt Pope John Paul II did not share the more malevolent interpretations attached to the presence of the Carmelites at Auschwitz. By asking the nuns to withdraw, he didn't concede them either. What he did was recognize that having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Perhaps this will add to the mosque discussion.Hello again, Steve:

Not really. No one here is arguing that building the mosque is the right thing to do. The only thing anyone is arguing, is whether they have the RIGHT to do it.

I again, suggest that Muslims are on your list of people to whom the Constitution does NOT apply. Otherwise, when you read the First Amendment, you'd see that it applies to EVERYBODY, not just a selected few.

excon

PS> By the way, the Pope doesn't HAVE a Constitution that he answers to. We do.

Not really. No one here is arguing that building the mosque is the right thing to do.

Well ex, the argument goes way beyond here and people are in fact arguing that it is the right thing to do.


I again, suggest that Muslims are on your list of people to whom the Constitution does NOT apply. Otherwise, when you read the First Amendment, you'd see that it applies to EVERYBODY, not just a selected few.

And if you were honest, you'd acknowledge that I've already said they have the right to build the mosque instead of misleading others about me. So since we all seem to agree they DO have the right to build it it's time to move on to whether it's the right thing to do.

Another interesting article: The Republican campaign against a Ground Zero mosque. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/)
And don't forget page 2: The Republican campaign against a Ground Zero mosque. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/pagenum/2)

Not to mention, there is already a mosque closer to the site than the proposed one. And the proposed one will be built not ON or even ADJACENT to, but 2-3 blocks away.

Facts, they come to bite you eventually.

So since we all seem to agree they DO have the right to build it it's time to move on to whether or not it's the right thing to do.Hello Steve:

You and I agree, it's not the right thing to do. But, my post has nothing to do with RIGHT. Besides, I'm not much interested in what people think is "right", cause most of 'em are wrong. Certainly, they're not interested is what I think is right.

So, is it better to celebrate peoples' bigotry, intolerance, and IGNORANCE of the Constitution, or is it better to celebrate the Constitution itself? I choose "B".

excon

Another interesting article: The Republican campaign against a Ground Zero mosque. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/)
and don't forget page 2: The Republican campaign against a Ground Zero mosque. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/pagenum/2)

Not to mention, there is already a mosque closer to the site than the proposed one. And the proposed one will be built not ON or even ADJACENT to, but 2-3 blocks away.

Facts, they come to bite you eventually.

NK, since we all seem to agree they have the right to build, exactly what facts are coming back to bite me?

Are you referring to the lady who asked the question or the congressman, who once said he wouldn't waste urine on one of his constituents?

I always find providing a context helpful

I was referring to the bad mannered woman who wouldn't allow the congressman to answer. Obviously her question wasn't a question but a statement of political position and a more experienced politician might have treated it as such and moved on. One can understand how the congressman might have formed such an opinion but some things are better left unsaid since they will haunt you forever. What I do know is a person who was so slow in response should not have held office for as long as he did

Hello again,

What Mayor Bloomberg said, in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXm_fUDfJZQ&feature=player_embedded). I kind of sound like him, don't I?

excon

He's a PC nut .

The example cited recently about Pope JPII is instructive .

William McGurn: WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

Here is the tolerance I want to see . I want to see some Muslim sr. cleric ;understanding the sensitivity of building a Mosque there like JPII did at Auschwitz ,tell the Cordoba people that there are other places they could locate because it's the right thing to do.

He's a PC nut Hello again, tom:

I didn't know speaking about our cherished freedoms WAS PC. It was the most eloquent speech on freedom I've heard in a LONG time from either party.

Not surprised you didn't get it.

excon

Suppose the U.S. bombed Mecca. Do you think that Muslims would allow them to build a church there less than ten years later? Pretty soon, the PC crowd will want to build a statue of Colonel Klink at Auschwitz.

Hello again, earl:

Are you saying we should LOWER our standards to those of Saudi Arabia?

excon

Hello again, earl:

Are you saying we should LOWER our standards to those of Saudi Arabia?

excon

Yes a few executions, whippings and hand loppings should do much for the crime problem

Mischief in Manhattan (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html)


We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Specia

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S. we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e. Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad ... Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Hmmm...

Why does the author say it's a mosque at ground zero when it's not at ground zero?

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Hmmm...Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm, what? I thought you winger types LOVED the Constitution... Guess not, huh? Freedom of Religion means freedom of religion for YOU, but not the other guy.

Frankly, I don't understand how you can even call yourself a Constitution loving patriot. Have you READ it?? You keep asking me find stuff about gay marriage in there... WHERE does it say that you DON'T get rights if we don't like your agenda??

Tom called the speech Bloomberg made, which is the BEST speech on our FREEDOMS I've heard in a long, long time, PC. Talking about freedom is PC?? You guys have fallen off the deep end. I have NO idea what document you're taking your lead from.

excon

Why does the author say it's a mosque at ground zero when it's not at ground zero?

Why you don't comment on the point of the column?

Hmmm, what? I thought you winger types LOVED the Constitution... Guess not, huh? Freedom of Religion means freedom of religion for YOU, but not the other guy.

You've gone off the deep end, ex. No one said a darn thing about the constitution or freedom of religion and quite frankly, I'm about fed up with you implying all kinds of BS in the absence of any evidence. And just so this doesn't get lost in yours and NK's diversion, here it is again:


Mischief in Manhattan (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html)

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S. we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e. Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad... Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Why you don't comment on the point of the column?I did, why did you deflect the conversation instead of answering my question?

By the way: congratulation on finding someone who agrees with you (re: the article)! You must be ecstatic!

And just so this doesn't get lost in yours and NK's diversion, here it is again:Hello again, Steve:

Ain't no diversion. No, you didn't mention the Constitution. You just said that you don't like the mosque. Fine. I don't like it either.

So what?

IF, however, the "so what" IS, that you believe the authorities should STOP it from being built, that's a Constitutional question. Or, on the other hand, if I have misjudged you, and your link to the article was just to show us how BAD the Muslims are, BUT that you SUPPORT the mosque being built, because you CELEBRATE our Constitution, then you should excuse me.

excon

Ain't no diversion. No, you didn't mention the Constitution. You just said that you don't like the mosque. Fine. I don't like it either.

So what?

IF, however, the "so what" IS, that you believe the authorities should STOP it from being built, that's a Constitutional question. Or, on the other hand, if I have misjudged you, and your link to the article was just to show us how BAD the Muslims are, BUT that you SUPPORT the mosque being built, because you CELEBRATE our Constitution, then you should excuse me.

So what? So what is I've already made my opinion, which you continue to distort beyond recognition, clear. I presented another point of view which is what you should be addressing, not speaking on my behalf.

I did, why did you deflect the conversation instead of answering my question?

Why don't you ask the authors, I don't speak on their behalf. And no, you didn't address the point of the column, you never do. In fact, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe you're capable of having even a semi-intelligent discussion.

In fact, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe you're capable of having even a semi-intelligent discussion.Ad hominem attack- the refuge of the frustrated. LOL!

I presented another point of view which is what you should be addressing, not speaking on my behalf.Hello again, Steve:

I thought I did. If the author's conclusion is, the mosque shouldn't be built, I agree... If the authors conclusion is, that it should be PREVENTED from being built, for the reasons I've never varied from, I don't agree.

So that I don't misinterpret YOUR opinion again, can you state it here, as succinctly as I just stated mine?

excon

Ad hominem attack- the refuge of the frustrated. LOL!

Then you must be awfully frustrated.

The Muslim authors' conclusion is pretty simple, the mosque is "meant to be a deliberate provocation," an act of '"mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.'

My conclusion is right in line with that, they have the right to build it, but that doesn't make it right.

they have the right to build it, but that doesn't make it right.Helo again, Steve:

Okee, doakee. We can move on now.

excon

The Anti-Defamation League also made a similar comment that building the mosque may be legal but extremely insensitive to do so.

Greg Gutfeld is trying to help promote tolerance and understanding, too. He's raising money to build a gay bar with a special emphasis on gay Muslim men - next to the Ground Zero mosque.


So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696). An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com

Who's in?

They can meet at the bar and then go next door to wed.

Absolutely.

Religion is crazy ain't it? LOL!

The President and Evita are also complicit in this charade. Word is that Imam Feisal
Abdul Rauf will represent the United States while travelling in the ME on one of these out reach initiatives .
Claudia Rosett is again the first on the case . She has been tracking the Imam's movements after being frustrated in seeking an interview. She also brings up more interesting questions about the funding for the ground zero mosque.
Further Travels Of Imam Feisal - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/06/imam-feisal-ground-zero-mosque-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html?boxes=Homepagetoprated)

Andy McCarthy at NRO brings up more info about the site ownership (much of it will be leased from Con Edison.It is not fully owned by the project's major sponsor Sharif El-Gamal of SoHo properties.)
For Obama, All Politics Is Local . . . Except When It's Not - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242889/obama-all-politics-local-except-when-its-not-andy-mccarthy)

Religion is crazy ain't it? LOL!

Yes, it's a laugh a minute, almost as funny as US politics, but not as amusing as Australian politics at the moment.

We have an atheist contesting a catholic for the top top and the religion card has been played as well as the family values v un-married card. They are both staying away from the climate change card and tax features in some interesting twists. In fact I think they are both round the twist

Guv Patterson has finally added some sanity to this issue. He says he will help negotiate a property swap to move the mosque away from the WTC site .

This is a sensible compromise. You know ,for a Dem he has not been a terrible Guv. Too bad the Dems bumped him for the ideologue Andrew Cuomo .

Guv Patterson has finally added some sanity to this issue. He says he will help negotiate a property swap to move the mosque away from the WTC site .

This is a sensible compromise. You know ,for a Dem he has not been a terrible Guv. Too bad the Dems bumped him for the ideologue Andrew Cuomo .

Sounds like a fair compromise to me too.

Sounds like a fair compromise to me too.

Yeah, but they've rejected that.

Yeah, but they've rejected that.Hello again,

Let's say that you wanted to buy a .45 caliber, Smith & Wesson, semi automatic... But, most everybody thought you shouldn't have one. So, they offered to get you a BB gun instead. Would that be OK?

Nahhh... You don't want to compromise on YOUR Constitutional rights. Why should they?

excon

So not only do you think the Imam should build his mosque but he should have semi-automatic weapons, too. Gotcha.

So not only do you think the Imam should build his mosque but he should have semi-automatic weapons, too. Gotcha.

W T F? That's isn't what he said at all. Major comprehension fail for you.

W T F? That's isn't what he said at all. Major comprehension fail for you.

I hate to tell you NK, but the "Major comprehension fail" is yours. I know what he said but ignored it and went with my own interpretation, just as he does to me. Actually, I didn't hate it at all.

Hello again,

Let's say that you wanted to buy a .45 caliber, Smith & Wesson, semi automatic... But, most everybody thought you shouldn't have one. So, they offered to get you a BB gun instead. Would that be ok?

Nahhh... You don't want to compromise on YOUR Constitutional rights. Why should they?

excon

Im not getting the connection. Do we have a constitutional right to build places of worship where we please?

Im not getting the connection. Do we have a constitutional right to build places of worship where we please?Hello Rick:

Absent building and zoning regulations to the contrary, yes we can.

excon

I know what he said but ignored it and went with my own interpretation,That's a defence? LOL!

After Kelo we pretty much lost our constitutional property rights didn't we? The city can take the Imam's property and transfer those rights to someone else, and that developer could go belly up and leave the land as a hole in the ground just like the towers and Kelo's former home.

Hello Rick:

Absent building and zoning regulations to the contrary, yes we can.

excon

They are not always very clear. Has anyone shown that building and zoning regulations permit, without question, that a Mosque be built at the site?

If that's the case, then there should be no argument.

After Kelo we pretty much lost our constitutional property rights didn't we?Hello again, Steve:

We didn't lose them, but, they were severely damaged. I don't think that means we should throw out the whole kit and kaboodle, though. (Wasn't it a RIGHT WING court who made that ruling?? YES, it was!! )

I suppose the city, in the name of eminent domain, could move against the building... But, the effort would be transparent, and would fail.

In my view, we should be CELEBRATING the freedoms in our Constitution, rather than trying to DENY them to people... If the terrorists DID attack us for our freedoms, to respond by attacking others for THEIRS, (1) allies us with Al Quaida, (2) is against our revered Constitution, (3) serves as a recruitment tool for the very enemy we are purporting to fight, and (4) is just plain wrong.

If we want to WIN, we should STOP shooting ourselves in the foot.

excon

They are not always very clear. Has anyone shown that building and zoning regulations permit, without question, that a Mosque be built at the site?

If that's the case, then there should be no argument.Hello Rick:

Even IF the building and zoning commission keeps a list of business's that can or cannot be built on a particular property, you can be assured, WITHOUT QUESTION, that mosques, or ANY house of worship, are NOT on it. That would be a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment.

I don't even think the zoning commission can tell you that there's enough hamburger joints on your street, so you can't build one. If your building MEETS the physical needs of a hamburger joint, they can't STOP you from building one. Unless, maybe NY is the Soviet Union...

excon

If your building MEETS the physical needs of a hamburger joint, they can't STOP you from building one.

Sure they can, if it isn't zoned for a hamburger joint there won't be a hamburger joint. Even if it IS zoned for a hamburger joint you can bet the fat police will be raising a stink if someone tried to build a McDonald's across from a high school.

Even IF the building and zoning commission keeps a list of business's that can or cannot be built on a particular property, you can be assured, WITHOUT QUESTION, that mosques, or ANY house of worship, are NOT on it. That would be a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment.

I don't even think the zoning commission can tell you that there's enough hamburger joints on your street, so you can't build one. If your building MEETS the physical needs of a hamburger joint, they can't STOP you from building one. Unless, maybe NY is the Soviet Union...


Huh ? Cities all over America have zoning to prevent all types of businesses . Cities also have zoning regs covering houses of worship ,although it is a much tougher argument to deny it.
Where you are correct is in saying that since there are other houses of worship in the neighborhood then it would be a violation to deny them the right .

I have already conceded that point.

I kind of doubt it will be built . I think public pressure effectively applied will do the job.
I also think the same security standards should be applied to the application as has been used in the reconstruction of the WTC site. The police dept's legitimate input into the security concerns have been an instrumental part of the delay and the ballooning costs in the rebuilding of the site.

This Mosque will increase the security concerns already being addressed ;especially as more of the funding becomes transparent .

I don't even think the zoning commission can tell you that there's enough hamburger joints on your street, so you can't build one.Hello again, people who's knees automatically jerk when excon speaks:

I say again, if there's a hamburger joint on your STREET, and your building meets the physical needs of a hamburger joint, absent OTHER factors, the city CANNOT tell YOU that you CAN'T open a hamburger joint. That's restraint of trade.

More so, if there's a church on your street, they can't stop you from building a church. I thought we covered the LEGALITY of the argument earlier. The mosque is LEGAL. It's CONSTITUTIONAL. And, it's in bad taste. Nobody likes it.. Ok, so what? I think the ten commandments that are on some federal property that was just deemed by a court to be legal, is in bad taste, too. That don't seem to bother you Christians none.

excon

My knees don't jerk when you speak, Excon. I love you and what you say!

Really!

Hello again, people who's knees automatically jerk when excon speaks

This coming from the poster child for restless leg syndrome. :D

This coming from the poster child for restless leg syndrome. :D

Hey, I have RLS severely. I thought that I was the poster child for that issue!

In my view, we should be CELEBRATING the freedoms in our Constitution, rather than trying to DENY them to people... If the terrorists DID attack us for our freedoms, to respond by attacking others for THEIRS, (1) allies us with Al Quaida, (2) is against our revered Constitution, (3) serves as a recruitment tool for the very enemy we are purporting to fight, and (4) is just plain wrong.
This is the wisest thing that has been said so far in this thread.

We should be out there helping the Muslims build that building.

This is the wisest thing that has been said so far in this thread.

We should be out there helping the Muslims build that building.

"the Muslims?" Ok, fine. But as for me, I hesitate only because "they" (the Muslims that want to build it") don't want to disclose where the financing comes from.

If the financing comes from Al-Quaida I would not let it be built if I were the one in charge of making the decision.

I'd say "NIMBY".

Not in my back yard.

So why would they NOT want to confirm the financing source(s)?

So why would they NOT want to confirm the financing source(s)??
Did you look at the Cordoba Initiative's Web site?

Did you look at the Cordoba Initiative's Web site?

No, I did not. What's the link?
I am an open minded person so am happy to see other opinions (which is why I hang in there with this thread :) )

No, I did not. What's the link?
I am an open minded person so am happy to see other opinions (which is why I hang in there with this thread :) )
I had Googled to find it. It's difficult to believe the board of directors would allow funding from a questionable source.

We should be out there helping the Muslims build that building.

Lol what happened to that vaunted "wall of separation" ?

In fact we have a history of rebuilding mosques . The most recent one being I believe in Fallujah .

Wondergirl .Knowing the significance of Cordoba and the Muslim conquest of Spain and the symbolism attached to that name ;why would they name their project the Cordoba Initiative ? They must think we are all ignorant .FYI... for those who may not know,The great mosque at Cordoba was built on the foundation of a Christian cathedral.

It's difficult to believe the board of directors would allow funding from a questionable source.

That's what I've thought from the beginning. If I were he mayor or the governor I'd want to know who is funding the project.

Wouldn't all americans be ticked to find out that something built on the site of the 9-11 terrorist attack was funded by those that support the ones that did the damage?

In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.
EDITORIAL: Tax dollars to build mosques - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/10/tax-dollars-to-build-mosques/print/)

lol what happened to that vaunted "wall of separation" ?Hello again, tom:

I'm sure WG meant that well meaning Christians and Jews should be helping to build the mosque. She surly didn't mean the government should help. What's that called? A red herring?

excon

I'm sure WG meant that well meaning Christians and Jews should be helping to build the mosque.

Why should that be?

Why should that be?Hello again, Steve:

If YOU, as a Christian, don't know why, this atheist can't help much.

excon

That's what I've thought from the beginning. If I were he mayor or the governor I'd want to know who is funding the project.Do people generally inquire as to the funding behind the building of churches? Or those godawful "megachurches"?

If YOU, as a Christian, don't know why, this atheist can't help much.

But you knew what wondergirl meant, I'm sure you would know why as well.

Do people generally inquire as to the funding behind the building of churches? or those godawful "megachurches"?

Is there some reason we should?

Is there some reason we should?Fondling of little boys and the subsequent cover-up.

I see, possible pedophile ties yes, terrorist ties no. Well I'm a Baptist anyway so I don't know what that has to with us or for that matter, those 'godawful "megachurches"'.

I see, possible pedophile ties yes, terrorist ties no. Well I'm a Baptist anyway so I don't know what that has to with usHello again, Steve:

You're missing the point on sooo many levels.

Let me see. You have a GROUP of ORGANIZED pedophiles making a broad based attack on the WORLDS children, WITH the collusion of their hierarchy, AND our cops (who tend to BE Catholic). I'd call that terrorist activity. You wouldn't?? Dude!

The question NK asked, was asked through his prism of our Constitution, which is funny because he doesn't even have one. Interestingly, he knows more about it than regular right wing Constitution loving wingers... He realizes, where you don't, that calling for an investigation into a MUSLIM church, while not simultaneously calling for one on Christian churches, IS discriminatory. Now, it's FINE for YOU, as individuals, to call for an investigation. You're allowed, by our wonderful Constitution, to BE bigots.

The government, however, is not. As long as the finances of Christian churches are not routinely examined, the government may NOT require it for religions it doesn't like. That is what EQUAL treatment under the law means.

Equal treatment for people IS the cornerstone of our great nation. I don't understand, how YOU don't understand that.

excon

As I explained on another post where you insisted the church is under no obligation to IRS rules, my church IS already under government scrutiny as is I suppose just about every other church in America except yours. So, I have no problem with scrutinizing this mosque's funding either. Actually, especially so since Christian churches are not known for financing terrorism.

I personally don't support the building of ANY building at or around ground zero. I do support the idea of building a memorial honoring ALL who died in the tragic event.

As I explained on another post where you insisted the church is under no obligation to IRS rules, my church IS already under government scrutiny as is I suppose just about every other church in America except yours. So, I have no problem with scrutinizing this mosque's funding either. Actually, especially so since Christian churches are not known for financing terrorism.I have never heard of a church's funding being scrutinized, can you point us to some examples?

I have never heard of a church's funding being scrutinized, can you point us to some examples?

Are you that dense you can't see it in my post or do you think
As ex does that the IRS (and others) doesn't look into church finances?

IRS Is Investigating Finances, Pastor of Sterling Church Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003799.html)

Pastor, Brooklyn Park church fight rare IRS audit (http://www.startribune.com/27251534.html)

Second IRS Violation Filed Against Living Word Christian Center and Pastor Mac Hammond (http://minnesotaindependent.com/1232/second-irs-violation-filed-against-living-word-christian-center-and-pastor-mac-hammond)

IRS questions Hinn's tax-exempt status (http://www.trinityfi.org/press/hinn07.html)

Investigating Televangelist Finances (http://politics.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/02/15/investigating-televangelist-finances.html)

Need more?

Are you that dense?
Why do you disparage people all the time? What does do for you? Make you feel powerful?

Anyway your links point to churches that have existed fro decades in some instances and are just now getting an audit.
Are there any instances where someone plans to build a church and the public is screaming for a look into its financing?

Hello again;

We're getting distracted. Let's NOT do that. Clearly, churches get investigated. That's NOT the issue. The issue IS, when a church moves into your neighborhood, does THAT event trigger an investigation into a church's financing. I don't think it DOES. As long as that event doesn't trigger an investigation into a Christian church, then that event shouldn't trigger an investigation into a Muslim mosque.

excon

It is true there is no requirement for disclosure . But most churches in the US are transparent.

All you really have to do is find the name of a Catholic Church ;anyone will do and more likely than not they have on line or another public forum a financial statement published .

Example : http://stmarkseagirt.com/2007/PDF/Financials%202008%201.pdf

Likewise the financial statements of organizations like Catholic Charities are also public record .
Financial Statement - Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, MN (http://www.ccspm.org/financial_statement.aspx)

Further ,the Vatican itself discloses an annual financial statement .
ZENIT - Vatican's 2009 Financial Statement (http://www.zenit.org/article-29859?l=english)

Regarding mega-churches ;most realize that they are better off volunarily disclosing their finances
U.S. churches find financial transparency | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2827857820070904)

Or they come under scrutiny

Sen Grassely has conducted investigations into the financing of mega church and televangelists
Televangelists: Who's Accountable? - Primary Source - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501263_162-3767306-501263.html)
But the legit ones gladly disclose their finances .

Why do you disparage people all the time? What does do for you? make you feel powerful?

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.
I accept your apology.

We're getting distracted. Let's NOT do that. Clearly, churches get investigated. That's NOT the issue. The issue IS, when a church moves into your neighborhood, does THAT event trigger an investigation into a church's financing. I don't think it DOES. As long as that event doesn't trigger an investigation into a Christian church, then that event shouldn't trigger an investigation into a Muslim mosque

Next time some local church whose pastor finances a deliberate, violent provocation and says the US is an accessory to a terrorist attack decides to build a 13 story, $100 million church by accepting anonymous Paypal donations we'll see what happens.

I personally don't support the building of ANY building at or around ground zero. I do support the idea of building a memorial honoring ALL who died in the tragic event.


Again - would you please pay closer attention before you answer. As was pointed out earlier - you look foolish.

Ex ,if their finances are suspicious on it's face then of course they should be investigated.
How many more Sulfi and Wahhabist mosques do we need in this country recruting jihadists ?

Again ,we have conceded their "constitutional right to build it. But we the people also have the freedom to denounce the placement of a victory mosque (as all jihadists will recognize it as such ) on the site of their biggest terrorist attack. We have every right to demand full disclosure .

.. the placement of a victory mosque It's not


on the site of their biggest terrorist attack.It isn't.

Hello again:

The president SUPPORTS freedom of religion. Whaddya know about that? Last night, he said so (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14obama.html?hp). Good for Obama. Especially since he has NOTHING to gain politically by saying so, since 70% of the American public opposes the mosque. But he stepped up to the plate anyway.

Leaders lead - others read polls. This is what I expected of him from the get go. I guess it's better than nothing.

excon

Hello again,

Tom is in good company. Peter King, a congressman from NY, ALSO said Obama was being PC. That's what tom said about Bloomberg when he spoke about freedom, American values, and the Constitution...

I can imagine them at the Constitutional convention of 1787.

Patrick Henry: "Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"

Tom and Peter King: "Ahhh, he's just being PC."

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Yup Pete King is one of the shining lights in an otherwise dim NY political landscape .

Actually Patrick Henry did not approve of the US Constitution ,and led the Virginia opposition to its ratification.He opposed it replacing the Articles of Confederation.

He made the speech that included the quote in 1775 when he was trying to mobilize the Virginians to take up arms against the Brits. During the Revolution however he is most notable for taking up arms against the Cherokee .

Later on ,after seeing the exesses of the French Revolution ,he warmed up to Federalism .

Actually Patrick Henry did not approve of the US Constitution ,and led the Virginia opposition to its ratification.He opposed it replacing the Articles of Confederation. Hello again, tom:

Good try. I don't disagree with your history, but my POINT was clear. WHENEVER he said it, you'd call it PC. DUDE!

I don't know what happened to the patriotic stuff you guys USED to be for. Patrick Henry PC?? DUDE! To be for FREEDOM, is to be PC?? I'm for freedom. I'm anything BUT PC. Dude, again!

excon

Your for freedom of what ? To put a political jihadist memorial in the guise of a religious structure next to the site where they mass murdered Americans . That's the freedom you are promoting .

I on the other hand have already conceded their constitutional "right" to do so while still opposing it.In other words ,exercising my freedom of speech ;which you would stifle because I am not espousing the politically correct garbage that says allowing them to build it shows our superiority .

I on the other hand have already conceded their constitutional "right" to do so while still opposing it.In other words ,exercising my freedom of speech ;which you would stifle because I am not espousing the politically correct garbage that says allowing them to build it shows our superiority .Hello again, tom:

I'm no stifler. I'm a disagreer. Big difference.

excon

PS> Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving is that we ARE superior?? Dude! Why do you hate this country?

Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving that we ARE superior?? Dude! Why do you hate this country?


You are confusing a sacred narrative and a myth. Yes I adhere American "exceptionalism" (not superiority) .
You know and I know what the motives of this cleric Feisal Abdul Rauf is in building on this site. He hangs out with the worse of the worse in Islam . He brazenly basically justified and blamed the US for the 9-11 attacks .
He is one of the enemy ,and I will never say I approve the building of a monument to jihadist triumphalism on the site of their attack on our country.

Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving that we ARE superior?? Dude! Why do you hate this country?


You are confusing a sacred narrative and a lefty myth. Yes I adhere American "exceptionalism" (not superiority) .
You know and I know what the motives of this cleric Feisal Abdul Rauf is in building on this site. He hangs out with the worse of the worse in Islam . He brazenly basically justified and blamed the US for the 9-11 attacks .
He is one of the enemy ,and I will never say I approve the building of a monument to jihadist triumphalism on the site of their attack on our country.

You know and I know what the motives of this cleric Feisal Abdul Rauf is in building on this site. He hangs out with the worse of the worse in Islam .
He is one of the enemy ,and I will never say I approve the building of a monument to jihadist triumphalism on the site of their attack on our country.Hello again, tom:

No, I don't know that. I assume that if he's an enemy, he would have been rendered away to some black prison site for some good ole torture. Instead, we're sending him on a good will tour. Did George Bush slip up?

Nonetheless, and no matter what his objectives are, he's entitled to the same rights Christians have when they want to open a new church. As a matter of fact, don't YOU want Christian teachings in our schools? You DO! Don't YOU want the government to support CHRISTIAN symbols and monuments on government property? You DO! Don't you want CHRISTIAN prayer spoken at the opening of congress and in our public schools? You DO!

So, from MY perspective, Christian motives are no less threatening than Muslims motives are. Besides, the Constitution doesn't say you have rights as long as everybody AGREES with your MOTIVES. Nooo. Our Constitution says people are to be FREE to practice their religion ANY way they choose, and by gum, I believe it. I'm PROUD that I believe it, too. After all, I AM a patriot. I LOVE the Constitution. Not only that, I LIVE it too.

You?? Not so much.

excon

Nonetheless, and no matter what his objectives are, he's entitled to the same rights Christians have when they want to open a new church.

Hi, Ex.

So if, say, Jeremiah Wright wanted to build a church at 238 Mulberry in Memphis (where MLK was shot) you have no problem with that? How about Richard Butler(founder of Aryan Nation)? Sauce for the goose, man.

Pretty Ironic, they should leave it be in my opinion, it's a good tourist attraction and to build a mosque on it would be counterproductiv, I mean there are schools nearby and there's a lot of traffic in that area, not a good idea

Sauce for the goose, man.Hello again, Cats:

I'm remarkably consistent in my support for the Constitution. If you followed me for any length of time, you'd know that I don't have LISTS.

excon

Hello again, Cats:

I'm remarkably consistent in my support for the Constitution. If you followed me for any length of time, you'd know that I don't have LISTS.

excon

Actually my objection is not to the mosque itself. After all there are already a couple nearby and upgrading or moving to a bigger place is no big deal. What I find objectionable is the "Center," with its classrooms and training simulators. They have supposedly changed the name from "Cordoba Center," so it doesn't sound like a Triumphal Arch so much. The terrorist in charge of the center I would really like to see at Quantico. Marion, Ill. Would be another good place to put on his itinerary.

The terrorist in charge of the center I would really like to see at Quantico. Marion, Ill. would be another good place to put on his itinerary.Hello again, Cats:

IF there are terrorists there, I'd like to see 'em busted too. But, you can't believe that our terrorist HATING government would let a KNOWN terrorist run around free. We, for SURE, wouldn't send him on a worldwide goodwill tour, and we are.

Let me adjust that a bit... You COULD believe it. I don't.

excon

Pretty Ironic, they should leave it be in my opinion, it's a good tourist attraction and to build a mosque on it would be counterproductiv, I mean there are schools nearby and there's a lot of traffic in that area, not a good idea
The mosque won't be ON Ground Zero, but two blocks away.

What do schools and traffic have to do with anything?

Hello again:

The president SUPPORTS freedom of religion. Whaddya know about that? Last night, he said so. But he stepped up to the plate anyway.

Leaders lead - others read polls. This is what I expected of him from the get go. I guess it's better than nothing.

exconHello again,

He walked it back. He AIN'T no leader. Indeed, with this clarification (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15islamcenter.html?_r=1), he's not really on any side of this controversy. What made Bloomberg's speech so inspiring was how unapologetic and emphatic it was in defense of the mosque itself, not just some sort of abstract "right" that very few people were even questioning. Obama sucks.

What's LOST in this debate, is WHAT we're actually debating... We're NOT discussing a mosque. We ARE discussing whether we BELIEVE in the freedoms documented in our beloved Constitution!

Freedom is messy. It's unpopular. But, if I had to choose between criticizing a citizen for seeking his rights, or supporting the Constitution that grants them, I'll choose the latter every time. Use it, or lose it, as the saying goes.

excon

Why do you object to our expressing our displeasure at the placement . You would defend their 1st amendment right by not mine.

The leader in this has been Governor Patterson. He alone has offered a reasonable solution to the issue.

The President backed away because he was taking heat from people in his own party who are up for reelection and know that this issue is a political loser for them. What he accomplished was making this a full blown national issue and for that I guess I got to give him kudos.Now Dem running this year will have to put their cards on the table .

That means you Schumer! That means you Gillibrand ! That means you Cuomo! All the Dems who have taken a low profile .

This is not a Constitutional rights issue ,it is a land use issue . It is part of the regular negotiations that goes on all over the country .

why do you object to our expressing our displeasure at the placement . You would defend their 1st amendment right by not mine. Hello again, tom:

I don't OBJECT to you expressing your displeasure. In fact, I SUPPORT your right to be wrong.

excon

Actually, I believe we've all acknowledged those freedoms. And no, Zero is no leader. He not only 'walked it back,' he tortured history in order to suck up to Muslims.


And tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan —- making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. (Applause.)

That was a rather glorified version of the event. It was more like the first envoy from an Islamic terrorist organization, aka Barbary Pirates. He'd come seeking tribute and concubines (http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/29128).

Has anyone mentioned the only place of worship that was destroyed in the 911 attack? It was a Greek Orthodox Church, and from what I've read (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=rebuild+orthodox+cathedral+at+911+site&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CFfyxFH1qTLnoDpSEygSouLz6DAAAAKoEBU_QyExI) , they are having problems getting the permits to rebuild it.

Maybe the talk about putting up a new place of worship should take a back seat to discussion of rebuilding the one that was already there.

Maybe the talk about putting up a new place of worship should take a back seat to discussion of rebuilding the one that was already there.Hello Rick:

I absolutely agree.

It should be understood, of course, that TALK has NOTHING to do with what a private party has the right to do, and is most likely, GOING to DO. We seem to have convinced ourselves that with enough TALK, somebody will STOP the mosque from being built. Nothing could be further from the truth. There IS no somebody. NOBODY has authority to STOP it. NOBODY.

The PROBLEM, as I read it, Rick, is that the REASON the church ISN'T being rebuilt is because they DID involved the government, by asking for stuff. If I was a church/mosque, I wouldn't ask the government for ANYTHING!

excon

Hello Rick:

I absolutely agree.

It should be understood, of course, that TALK has NOTHING to do with what a private party has the right to do, and is most likely, GOING to DO. We seems to have been convinced that with enough TALK, somebody will STOP the mosque from being built. Nothing could be further from the truth. There IS no somebody. NOBODY has authority to STOP it. NOBODY.

The PROBLEM, as I read it, Rick, is that the REASON the church ISN'T being rebuilt is because they DID involved the government, by asking for stuff. If I was a church/mosque, I wouldn't ask the government for ANYTHING!

excon

From what I'm reading permits are needed. Wouldn't that be the case whether the building to be built would be a Church, Mosque, Convenient store, etc.

From what I'm reading permits are needed. Wouldn't that be the case whether the building to be built would be a Church, Mosque, Convenient store, etc.?Hello again, Rick:

Yes. But, I don't read anything that says the permits are being withheld because it's a church.

excon

Hello again, Rick:

Yes. But, I don't read anything that says the permits are being withheld because it's a church.

excon

You make a good point. I guess the emotional side of me comes out in this argument. I've heard that those that want to build the Mosque will not reveal their funding sources.

Maybe it's true that funding sources are not required under normal circumstances, but I'd sure hate to find out down the road that a Mosque built at ground zero was funded by people who also fund terrorists.

It would be an awesome victory for dirtbags.

I've heard that those that want to build the Mosque will not reveal their funding sources.

Maybe it's true that funding sources are not required under normal circumstances, but I'd sure hate to find out down the road that a Mosque built at ground zero was funded by people who also fund terrorists.

It would be an awesome victory for dirtbags.Hello again, Rick:

I would hate that too. However, even though they ARE, as you say, NOT required to divulge their funding under ordinary circumstances, I have confidence that their finances have been TORN apart by homeland security people LOOKING for exactly the stuff both you and I HOPE isn't there. We have given our government the authority to DO that, and I'm sure they have. I can promise you, the government has NOT been lenient nor gentle with ANY Islamic organization that has a bank account.

Of course, my confidence in government certainly could be misplaced. Maybe they're spending all their time spying on YOU & ME.

excon

I cannot argue with that. It seems clear to me that you and I and most of the people in this thread are of the same mind.

It's a crappy situation for sure. It would not surprise me if the State or the City of New York come up with new laws as to what can be built where - as a result of this situation.

And would that be right? I don't know. Maybe.

You know there are strip joints and stores selling X-rated DVD's in that same 2 block periphery.

It would not surprise me if the State or the City of New York come up with new laws as to what can be built where - as a result of this situation.

And would that be right? I don't know. Maybe.Hello again, Rick:

As long as those laws don't conflict with our vaunted Constitution, I'm cool with 'em. But, it's pretty hard to tell ONE religion that they're not welcome here... Especially because freedom of religion is the MAIN reason we're even a country in the first place.

I wonder too, what this debate means to the Muslim soldier fighting along side our boys in the trenches. I don't know why we'd want to piss HIM off, but I'll bet we did. I HAVE said, that much of what WE DO, is the best recruitment tool Al Quaida could ever have. Of course, that's vociferously denied, cause we're the good guys.

excon

You know there are strip joints and stores selling X-rated DVD's in that same 2 block periphery.

That's no surprise, but fortunately for them we weren't attacked by porn stars on 9/11.

Hello again, Rick:

As long as those laws don't conflict with our vaunted Constitution, I'm cool with 'em. But, it's pretty hard to tell ONE religion that they're not welcome here... Especially because freedom of religion is the MAIN reason we're even a country in the first place.

I wonder too, what this debate means to the Muslim soldier fighting along side our boys in the trenches. I dunno why we'd wanna piss HIM off, but I'll bet we did. I HAVE said, along with others, that much of what WE DO, is the best recruitment tool Al Quaida could ever have. Of course, that's vociferously denied, cause we're the good guys.

excon

The good folks, including Muslim's, who fight in the trenches should, I think, have the same concerns.

That's no surprise, but fortunately for them we weren't attacked by porn stars on 9/11.Hello again, Steve:

THAT, is a good one!

excon

You know there are strip joints and stores selling X-rated DVD's in that same 2 block periphery.

I'm sure that's true. I've got the same thing just 3 miles from my house. I don't like it but I'd certainly understand if a bunch of terrorist strippers blew up my downdown area, this thread would be about whether a new strip club could be built or not.

That's no surprise, but fortunately for them we weren't attacked by porn stars on 9/11.So you approve of strip joints at the hallowed Ground Zero then?

Remember, folks that sometimes new laws are made for new circumstances.

I, for one, would support the City in requiring that the financiers of new construction at a site where terrorists have attacked should disclose their funding sources.

I don't know what the language should be, but that's why I'm not a city planner or code enforcement officer.

I'm just a humble parent, taxpayer and forumaholic.

So what should go up at Ground Zero? It's been 10 years!

I don't like it but I'd certainly understand if a bunch of terrorist strippers blew up my downdown area, this thread would be about whether a new strip club could be built or not.Hello again, to both Rick Steve:

Here's the DISTINCTION we need to make. We were NOT attacked by Muslims. We were attacked by terrorists who HAPPEN to BE Muslim. If we were attacked by MUSLIMS, they'd ALL be attacking us, and they're NOT.

Tiller, the abortion doctor, was killed by a fanatic CHRISTIAN BECAUSE of his CHRISTIAN views. Does that mean that ALL Christians are our enemy??

We are NOT at war with Islam. But, stuff like THIS sure makes it look like we are. I didn't hear a SOLE say the Greek Orthodox church shouldn't be built, because Christians are terrorists... But, the mosque shouldn't be built because Muslims are WHAT??

excon

So what should go up at Ground Zero? It's been 10 years!

My first thought would be to put up what was destroyed.

Hello again, to both Rick Steve:

Here's the DISTINCTION we need to make. We were NOT attacked by Muslims. We were attacked by terrorists who HAPPEN to BE Muslim.

Absolutely correct.

But if the attack were by the KKK, most of whom claim to be Baptists, and some Baptists wanted to build a church on the site, then I'd support making those Baptists disclose their funding sources.

I'd wonder why they wouldn't WANT to disclose their funding sources.

That's makes sense. Any idea why nothing has been done?

That's makes sense. Any idea why nothing has been done?

Done about what?

But if the attack were by the KKK, most of whom claim to be Baptists, and some Baptists wanted to build a church on the site, then I'd support making those Baptists disclose their funding sources.The analogy is correct - the US should not allow a building built by terrorists. I'm pretty sure you guys will prevent that properly.

Done about what?Rebuilding on the site where the buildings were destroyed.

The analogy is correct - the US should not allow a building built by terrorists. I'm pretty sure you guys will prevent that properly.

Amen. If I were sure of who was building it, I'd even send them a donation.

So you approve of strip joints at the hallowed Ground Zero then?

My guess is they were there before the attack. But where's your sense of humor, that was funny.

For the record, I've already said they have the right to build there, but I don't think it's right. Also for the record (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/reid-mosque-should-be-bui_n_683762.html), Harry Reid -the same guy who proposed ending birthright citizenship in 1993 - has decided opposing the mosque is the politically expedient thing to do.

Perhaps we'll see speech and Harry stripping/doing porn for donations to ban the mosque.

Hello again:

I've always thought that THIS image captured our feelings on 9/11. I'd LOVE to see a monument that looks like those three pieces of building.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon-albums-excon%27s+private+stash-picture593-zero.jpg

excon

Here's the DISTINCTION we need to make. We were NOT attacked by Muslims. We were attacked by terrorists who HAPPEN to BE Muslim.

I've made the distinction many times thank you, but funny that would you make the distinction you did about Tiller's killer but not the 9/11 terrorists. It wasn't just that they happened to be Muslims, we were attacked by Muslims in the name of Islam and Allah.

I think it more accurate that Tiller's killer happened to be a Christian, because there is no sect of Christianity murdering and terrorizing innocents for the cause of Christ.

I think there is a cultural issue going here. I don't know how to explain it, but I'll share my own experience.

I have a close friend and neighbor who is a local Muslim leader. His son plays with my sons. I love them. They are wonderful and loving people.

But the few discussions I've had about what they think about the 911 attack, they sort of clam up. I've never heard them say (despite my trying on many occasions to hear them say it) "Those people are not true Muslims".

I know well that there are several Muslim leaders in the US who have condemned the attacks - but I'm aware too that there are many others who are silent.

I don't get it.

I'm a Christian and I recognize that the KKK (for example) also claim to be Christian. Christian leaders throughout the US are loud and clear in saying [I paraphrase] "Even though these people claim to be Christian, they are NOT. They are terrorists and they should be rooted out and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law".

Again, I think it comes down to some cultural or religious differences that we need to learn how to deal with - and learn how to get them to open up a bit more.

I think I could write a book, so I'll stop rambling for now...

Looks like it's become an archeological dig now: 18th-Century Ship Found at Trade Center Site - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/18th-century-ship-found-at-trade-center-site/)

I've made the distinction many times thank you,

Me too. If anyone searches this site for the term Muslim posted by me, they'll find that I am fully supportive.

In fact, I have a website of my own that is dedicated to Ecumenism, especially between Jews, Muslims and Christians - since we have so much in common as to the founding of our faiths.

Perhaps we'll see speech and Harry stripping/doing porn for donations to ban the mosque.

Um, I haven't said anything about banning the mosque. But if Gutfeld would build it I just might donate to help build the gay bar next door as an outreach to gay Muslims. I hear there's been plenty of suggestions for naming the place.

Hello again:

I've always thought that THIS image captured our feelings on 9/11. I'd LOVE to see a monument that looks like those three pieces of building.

I LOVE that idea.

But the few discussions I've had about what they think about the 911 attack, they sort of clam up. I've never heard them say (despite my trying on many occasions to hear them say it) "Those people are not true Muslims".

I know well that there are several Muslim leaders in the US who have condemned the attacks - but I'm aware too that there are many others who are silent.The Same thing can be said for the priest pedophilia scandal - does silence assume consent?

Also you are using the No True Scotsman argument: No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

I just might donate to help build the gay bar next door Isn't that against your religion?

Isn't that against your religion?

Probably. But I never said I was perfect. :D

The EXACT same thing can be said for the priest pedophilia scandal - does silence assume consent?[/url]

Exact? No way. The Catholic Church is different. They speak "as a group" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Encyclicals, writings of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) frequently and loudly - as do many individual leaders (Priests, Bishops and Cardinals). There are writings and teachings galore that affirm that abusing people is wrong.

The Muslims, on the other hand, do not have a "Catechism" or a recognized leader who can speak for the whole. Each community acts on it's own.

So what Bishop or other leader of the Catholic Church are you not able to find statements condemning Priests and others who abuse children?

But the few discussions I've had about what they think about the 911 attack, they sort of clam up. I know well that there are several Muslim leaders in the US who have condemned the attacks - but I'm aware too that there are many others who are silent.

I don't get it.Hello again, Rick:

Although the world has called for it, do you condemn the Israeli's for their brutal attack on Gaza a couple years ago? No you don't. That's because you believe the Israeli's were justified.

Now, I'm NOT saying they WERE justified, just like I'm not saying Al Quaida was justified. I'm saying people can have different views about stuff. Here, in THIS country, I have NO problem discussing Israel's culpability, or lack thereof in that attack. But, if I were in Israel, and some Israeli asked me about how I felt, I'd clam up.

Does that help?

excon

Probably. But I never said I was perfect. :D

No one here is perfect. We're just a bunch of foruaholics who all have opinions and love to share them :)

Hello again, Rick:

Although the world has called for it, do you condemn the Israeli's for their brutal attack on Gaza a couple years ago? No you don't. That's because you believe the Israeli's were justified.

I don't? How would you know that?
1. That situation is not comparable to a discussion about building a Mosque at ground zero, and
2. This thread is about a Mosque on ground zero, so this thread would not be the place to post my opinions about that conflict.

I don't? How would you know that?Hello again, Rick:

Well, you asked about your Muslim friend who clams up. I just tried to explain why I thought he did.

It's true, I made an assumption. I based it on your faith. MOST Christians unabashedly support Israel. I could have been wrong, of course. Am I?

excon

MOST Christians unabashedly support Israel.

Well, someone has to.