Hello:
So, how are you with that? I'd especially like to hear from those Constitution loving Tea Partiers.
excon
|
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 .
Like turncoat Scott Brown ? Twinkie called that one right .Quote:
those Constitution loving Tea Partiers.
Seems appropriate to me.
A compliment coming from you Tomder is well taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
*******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.
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 NYQuote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
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.
Hello earl:Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
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 .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Bull pucky. SHOW ME!
excon
It happens all the time . This is one example that was posted here .
ADF - News Release
Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego
And more
Liberty Magazine | Under the Watchful Eye: Free Exercise of Religion in the Home?
firstamendmentcenter.org: news
http://www.uchastings.edu/site_files...2_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.
You're just baiting him, ex. Tom answered your question in his first reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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 .Quote:
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!
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.
Really ? Ask the Mormons about religious freedom .Quote:
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!!
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 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 disagreeThis 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 .Quote:
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.
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
To avoid taxes and for protection. It's the reality and it's the law, I already pointed that out. Specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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 to apply as a charity.Quote:
"To be organized exclusively for a charitable purpose, the organization must be a corporation (or unincorporated association), community chest, fund, or foundation."
Yep, just one sentence and nothing about the government saying what a church is.Quote:
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.
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.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 !
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. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
Hello again, smear.Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
If RIGHTS could be voted on, they wouldn't call 'em RIGHTS.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:41 PM. |