Ex , if the Cordoba initiative felt aggrieved by the boards decision I have no doubt they would let the courts determine if the board was wrong.
You ;like the President are doing academic exercises.
If you want to see where your scenario goes then watch the case in Obama's Chi-town where local officials have turned down an attempt to open a Mosque in a former hotdog restaurant .

If you were to ask me about it in that case then I would probably agree with you .
But the locating the victory Mosque where Imam Rauf wants to build it is a greater matter than his Constitutional rights. I equate it to the nonsense of that idiot pastor who protests funerals of fallen heroes .
He has that right to protest ,but I think accomdations should be made for the grieving family . I think their right to hold a funeral in peace without his vitriolic ranting outweighs his right to protest.
Likewise ,so long as one family member of the 9-11 vicitims objects to the placing of a victory mosque near what the President agrees is sacred ground... I stand with them.

Why do you keep saying "victory" mosque?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Why do you keep saying "victory" mosque?

---

1,300 years of History proves it is... Why do you choose to pretend its not?

Well I guess that settles it then - kill them all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Why do you keep saying "victory" mosque?

---

That is what it is... and it has already been explained on this posting. (#12 and #393)

So it records its domination over you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But the locating the victory Mosque where Imam Rauf wants to build it is a greater matter than his Constitutional rights.

---

Hello again, tom:

Let's be CLEAR. According to you, he has this supposed "right" according to the Constitution... But, the government has a GREATER right to STOP him if ____ (fill in the blank).

Whatever document you're reading from, that gives the government THAT right, ISN'T the Constitution of these United States. I've read it. I don't see ANY mention of those rights. Perhaps you're making them up out of whole cloth. I don't know. What I DO know, is that you don't SUPPORT our beloved Constitution, DESPITE your protestations otherwise.

excon

Ex, With all due respect and I do respect all religions whether you believe it or not-----

A suitable distance would be beyond the call to worship music so visitors to the memorial can mourn in peace, well at least without that insensitivity in that area.

I know about church bells. It's not the same and we all know it.

Let's be clear .

There is a difference between the right and if it should be built.to answer your question... yes... The very reason he has the right to build it where it is planned is because the government already said he could.

That is what Madame Mimi meant when she called it a local zoning issue ;and even the thick headed President understands the distinction. That is why he made his clarification before he went on his excellent vacation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That is what it is ...and it has already been explained on this posting. (#12 and #393)

---

Hello again, tom:

You know that Constitution you SAY your support? I read the First Amendment. It doesn't say ANYTHING about being free from government interference in the practice of your religion UNLESS what you're building is a VICTORY to something. Nope. It doesn't say that at all. Still making stuff up about it, huh? You call that staunch support? Dude!

I googled Victory Church. I got 7 million hits. They're certainly declaring victory over something. Maybe we should ban them too. Whadya think?

excon

'Victory mosque' yields 16+ million hits and explains why they are called victory mosques.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Where does it give the right to a Muslim Terrorits Victory Memorial? And how is that any different than the KKK having Cross burnings in sight of a black community?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Where does it give the right to a Muslim Terrorits Victory Memorial?

---

Hello again, smoothy:

It's right there next to the one that gives gays the right to marry. You can't see it? Oh, well. I've tried to teach you Constitutional stuff before. You ain't interested, so I'm not going to bother. But, it's THERE.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

It's right there next to the one that gives gays the right to marry. You can't see it? Oh, well. I've tried to teach you Constitutional stuff before. You ain't interested, so I'm not gonna bother. But, it's THERE.

excon

---

Really, there is over 40 years of court cases and precidence for the left FIGHTING against any religious component to a Memorial of any type... Now you want to change that because it is inconvieniently getting in the way of the lefts support of a Mohammed Attah Memorial Mosque?


So... the Muslims have double secret rights that the US public can't see... but You assure us are there...

Sorry, you got to prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Sorry, you gotta prove it.

---

Hello smoothy:

If you can't read simple English, I can't help you.

excon

I'm quite fluent in Englishn and at least as fluent as you... nowhere in the Bill of rights are the Muslims guaranteed the right to build a Memorial to terrorists, or anyone else.

After all, the Left argued in MANY cases preventing any mention of Religion in memorials. Specifically fought Christians on everything ever step of the way... Now you aregue Muslims have the right to do anything they want in the name of Islam, and real Americans aren't allowed to say or do anything?

And Obama could not secretly grant his Muslim Brothers (his words, not mine) rights because
That requires ratification by the states... and that hasn't happened in my lifetime or HIS because we are only months apart in age..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Where does it give the right to a Muslim Terrorits Victory Memorial? And how is that any different than the KKK having Cross burnings in sight of a black community?

---

See bolded areas.

And let's go back to that church thing if you're going to bring that up. How is it ANY different to have a church in the town of Salem, MA, in site of the areas of witch burnings, either?

And I'm starting to second Excon's question: How far away would it be OKAY for the KKK to burn their cross from the black community? More than 2 blocks, obviously. How about 4 blocks? Would 4 blocks do you?

Last I heard, building a religious building and community center wasn't a hate crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Really, there is over 40 years of court cases and precidence for the left FIGHTING against any religious component to a Memorial of any type....Now you want to change that because it is inconvieniently getting in the way of the lefts support of a Mohammed Attah Memorial Mosque?


So...the Muslims have double secret rights that the US public can't see....but You assure us are there....

Sorry, you gotta prove it.

---

It's not a PUBLIC memorial (if it is even a memorial at all)--it's a private one. You can put any kind of religious crap on a PRIVATE memorial you want. Please see any gravestone for proof of this.

It's ALSO not on public land, nor is it on the actual site of the WTC buildings.

I really don't get you, Smoothy. They're not exercising ANY right that anyone else in American can't exercise. They're ALSO not doing anything that a Christian church hasn't done before.

Where's the problem? Is the problem REALLY just that they're Muslims?

Quote:

---

I googled Victory Church. I got 7 million hits. They're certainly declaring victory over something. Maybe we should ban them too. Whadya think?

---

Do some more Googling and show me where these churches with the name 'Victory' in their name are sited on the place where a 'victory' took place in the name of that religion . I mentioned 3 famous ones and could've named others like :
(this one Synn will appreaciate )Muhammad the prophet conqueror led jihdists into Mecca and turned the pagans' worship spot, the Ka'aba, into the Masjid al-Haram Mosque.

1387, jihadists conquered Thessaloniki .They turned the historic Church of Aghia Sophia, which housed the relics of Saint Gregorios Palamas, into a mosque.

Perhaps the most famous incident besides the Mosque on Temple Mount (which the Muslims in Jerusalem today are doing everything possible to destroy the historic record that there ever was a Jewish Temple there ) is the sacking of Constantinople and the conversion of the Byzantine church of Hagia Sophia, into the Ayasofya Mosque. The Sophia was the most important Christian church of it's time for over a millennium before the jihadist conquest.
Like they did more recently to the Buddhas of Bamyan Afghanistan ,they set about destroying and defacing the beautiful mossaics of the church.

This has been a pattern repeated throughout history to modern days. A more recent example occurred in April 2002 when jihadists broke into the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem.

They took priests and nuns hostage and used them as human shields against the IDF .
In the 2 weeks they occupied the church they trashed it.

I know these are inconvenient facts ,but they are true. The naming the project the Cordoba initiative conjurs up images of a pattern repeated throughout history.
At a minimum the Imam Rauf ,if he is true to his word of a desire to build bridges should accept the generous offer of Governor Patterson and relocate to a site less controversial.

Quote:

---

You know that Constitution you SAY your support? I read the First Amendment. It doesn't say ANYTHING about being free from government interference in the practice of your religion UNLESS what you're building is a VICTORY to something. Nope. It doesn't say that at all. Still making stuff up about it, huh? You call that staunch support? Dude!

---

As I said in one of my 1st replies . The decision of the local boards would pass the 'compelling interest test '( Oregon v. Smith) .

As a supporter of Roe abortion case ,and the recent gay marriage decision you should apprectiate the' compelling interest test as it was used to advance those causes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As I said in one of my 1st replies . The decision of the local boards would pass the 'compelling interest test '( Oregon v. Smith)

---

Hello again, tom:

I understand your argument. I just don't agree with your conclusion. I do not think that someone who believes a states compelling interest trumps a citizens Constitutional rights, has a good grasp of WHAT the Constitution is all about, no matter what he says. The two ideas are in conflict with each other. They're NOT compatible. They're skitzoid. You CAN'T believe both.

But... I KNOW you understand your rights in the context of the Second Amendment. You'll never convince me that you'd lay down for ANY state who outlaw guns because of a compelling state interest... If you WOULD, then for SURE you don't understand what our rights are all about.

excon

EX the 2nd amendment is already limited due to compelling state and local interests .That is why registration has been ruled Constitutional . The courts have set limits to how much a state or locality can regulate guns.

The courts and Congress have also under the same philosophy already set parameters on the states right to regulate where houses of worship can be built. Actually you can thank Republicans and conservatives for the movement towards limiting local regulations in that regard . However the courts still hold a locality has a right to regulate where a house of worship can be built and if one can be built.

As I noted already municipalities have the authority to limit houses of worship ranging in size from mega churches ,to individual prayer meetings conducted in private homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As I noted already municipalities have the authority to limit houses of worship ranging in size from mega churches ,to individual prayer meetings conducted in private homes.

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree with the above... However, in THIS instance, should the local zoning board change its mind due to the local pressure, the ONLY reason this house of worship would being denied, is the religion of the congregation.

That, is just plain unconstitutional.

excon

So long as the zoning rules chanages affect all religions it is nondescriminatory.
They could change the zoning to make any new occupancy in the area commercial .
The problem that comes back to bite conservatives was the Republican introducing and getting passed the 'Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000',which suddenly transferred to the federal government local land use control.That constitutes an obvious violation of the Constitution's federalism. If land use is not an inherent local concern, then virtually nothing is. Also the law itself is a violation of the establishment clause by Congress.It systematically favors religious organizations over their secular neighbors.
Thereare plenty of real valid reasons for localities to prevent the placement of houses of worship for many reasons beyond the assumption of religious discrimination.But now ,that argument becomes the 1st line of attack whenever placement of houses of worship is contested.
It will be a hard case for anyone to prove NYC discriminates against Muslims . Since 9-11 there have been in excess of 140 new mosques built within the city limits.

Again, I urge them to consider Governor Patterson's reasonable solution.

Hello again, tom:

You've said the state CAN interject itself because it HAS a "compelling interest" in the outcome. WHAT interest would that be?

You mentioned that it was used in the recent gay marriage decision in California, so the cases are similar. However, in California, the compelling state interest was spreading FREEDOM. To me, that IS a state interest... The case in NY looks to be the OPPOSITE.

What possible state interest does NY have in BLOCKING the mosque??

excon

For starters ;The same one that makes it a bad idea to have the trial of KSM in downtown Manhattan .

How about some facts EX?
Twice as many hits for victory mosques as victory churches and clear understanding of what a victory mosque means.
You aked how far away--i gave you reasonable criteria.
I told you your question had generated 68% against, similar to national poll.
I told you that founding fathers voted by majority to determine what rights would be (in so many words).
But you like to play "shade tree lawyer" instead. Do you have credentials to analyze complex legal precedent(s)?
Are you just blowing smoke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

Do you have credentials to analyze complex legal precedent(s)?

---

Hello smear:

I'm a high school dropout.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

How about some facts EX?
(1) Twice as many hits for victory mosques as victory churches and clear understanding of what a victory mosque means.
(2) You aked how far away--i gave you reasonable criteria.
(3) I told you your question had generated 68% against, similar to national poll.
(4) I told you that founding fathers voted by majority to determine what rights would be (in so many words).
(5) But you like to play "shade tree lawyer" instead. Do you have credentials to analyze complex legal precedent(s)?
(6) Are you just blowing smoke?

---

Hello again, smear:

I guess you deserve an answer.

(1) The NAME of the congregation, or the INTENT of a citizen has NO bearing on his RIGHTS under the Constitution. Even Christian pastors who want to replace our law with biblical law, can start a church...

(2) In THIS country, we enjoy our rights EVERYWHERE we go. Your Muslim free zone is an anathema to that idea.

(3) It's true, the majority of Americans don't want it there. However, our rights aren't based upon what the majority want.

(4) Yes, they did. You're not saying, are you, that because they voted them in, we can vote them out? That's true. But, not like you're saying. We CAN change the Constitution by amending it, and having 2/3 of the states ratify it.

(5) I DO like to play shade tree lawyer. How could you tell? I'm STILL a high school dropout.

(6) Yes, I've been known to blow smoke.

excon

I appreciate your comments. I could give you a few analogies (like guns) but I detest analogies.
The facts at hand about each issue are the only ones that really matter. I don't think the present day and circumstances can wait years for amendments to be processed. It could be done differently but it would take 50 years to get that settled. I believe the citizens will force decisions on this matter like they did with Dubai port takeover plan. Yes, that will be good enough for me. There is too much at stake. I'll stop here. Thanks and I think you do a good job of spurring on discussion. If you really are a high school dropout, I think you have certainly earned your G.E.D. and more right here at AMHD! But my vote is still in the No column.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

I appreciate your comments. I could give you a few analogies (like guns) but I detest analogies.

---

Hello again, smear:

I'm remarkably consistent in my support for the Bill of Rights. I'll go to my grave supporting YOUR right to own a gun, just like I will for this Muslim to open his mosque, or for gay people who only want to get married..

excon

NYC comptroller John Liu said yesterday he is willing to consider approving a public subsidy in the form of tax-exempt bonds to help finance the victory Mosque. There is a possibility here that the people of the city ;who overwhelmingly oppose the construction where it is being considered ,will be forced to finance it's construction through their taxes.

Is this a violation of the establishment clause ? Or would it be considered some kind of discrimination against the 14th amendment because the city helps finance other non-profit construction under the New York City's Industrial Development Authority ?

Maybe it would qualify as a stimulus project. It has certainly had a stimulating effect here. There is about $ 282 billion left if I read recovery.gov correctly. Take that Iran! Or maybe a good old fashioned Bash the Debunkers program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Is this a violation of the establishment clause ?

---

Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, yeah!

excon

Hello again,

In honor of Martin Luther King, I'm going to repeat some of what he said 47 years ago today. It STILL chokes me up.

"I have a dream today...

This will be the day, when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country, 'tis of thee , sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my father's died, land of the pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom [to] ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

excon

I decided to do some research on the people who are behind the building of the mosque. The guy who is paying for it is VERY fishy. For one, five years ago he was a waiter at a restaurant! He then ALL of a sudden became a real state buyer/seller? He has bought several buildings. One for around $280 million, and guess what: He paid for it with cash that he got from A LOAN! Do you still trust this guy? I don't. He also bought the building that will be the mosque for $4.8 million, and guess what: He bought it with cash from ANOTHER LOAN. So he is buying real estate with SOMEONE ELSE'S money! The person who is providing him with the loans is clearly not someone you can trust. Nor is the guy building the mosque. MOST Americans don't support the building of the mosque, but no one seems to care what they think. If you ask me, I think Obama is a traitor to the western world, he is bowing down and sucking up to the demands of the Muslim world. The funny thing is, if the Muslims were the ones running America, and the Christians wanted to build a church near ground zero, IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

In honor of Martin Luther King, I'm going to repeat some of what he said 47 years ago today. It STILL chokes me up.

"I have a dream today......

This will be the day, when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country, 'tis of thee , sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my father's died, land of the pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom [to] ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

excon

---

Not a bad post at all!
Especially from an Atheist.
Methinks ye may be closer to realization of truth than you admit.

PS: I KNOW it's a quote, but, hey, you posted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isafjordur

guess what: He payed for it with cash that he got from A LOAN! Do you still trust this guy? I don't. He also bought the building that will be the mosque for $4.8 million, and guess what: He bought it with cash from ANOTHER LOAN. So he is buying real estate with SOMEONE ELSE'S money!

---

Hello I:

It may come as a shock to you, but, in this country, MOST real estate is bought with someone else's money.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello I:

It may come as a shock to you, but, in this country, MOST real estate is bought with someone else's money.

excon

---

Yep that's why we have the Atlantic Financial Crisis about to go into the double dip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isafjordur

I decided to do some research on the people who are behind the building of the mosque. The guy who is paying for it is VERY fishy. For one, five years ago he was a waiter at a restaurant! He then ALL of a sudden became a real state buyer/seller? He has bought several buildings. One for around $280 million, and guess what: He payed for it with cash that he got from A LOAN! Do you still trust this guy? I don't. He also bought the building that will be the mosque for $4.8 million, and guess what: He bought it with cash from ANOTHER LOAN. So he is buying real estate with SOMEONE ELSE'S money! The person who is providing him with the loans is clearly not someone you can trust. Nor is the guy building the mosque. MOST Americans don't support the building of the mosque, but no one seems to care what they think. If you ask me, I think Obama is a traitor to the western world, he is bowing down and sucking up to the demands of the Muslim world. The funny thing is, if the Muslims were the ones running America, and the Christians wanted to build a church near ground zero, IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

---

And MOST Americans are WRONG.

Let me tell you something. In 1942, MOST Americans were all for deporting anyone of Japanese descent, regardless how long their family had lived in the United States--and some of those families had been here longer than MY family had at the time.

In 1948, MOST Americans were okay with "Separate but Equal" schools, and did not want their children going to school with black children.

In 1917, MOST Americans were against the manufacture, sale or transportation of alcohol. It resulted in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Thankfully, it only took them 16 years to realize they were wrong and overturn the Amendment.

In 1852, MOST Americans didn't think that women were equal to men, and they could not vote to change that themselves.

In 1831, MOST Americans were for the Indian Removal Act that resulted 46,000 American Indians (you know--those people we stole this country from to begin with?) were removed from 25 million acres of land. Approximately 10,000 of these American Indians died on the way to their new lands, a result of lack of food, exposure to elements, and incompetent (U.S. Government provided) guides.

So just because MOST Americans want or don't want something doesn't make MOST Americans right.

Why do people persist in thinking that this country is a straight democracy?