[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 this

Hello 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

[speechlesstx]

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

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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[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.

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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'

[excon]

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

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

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


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

[paraclete]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[RickJ]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[RickJ]

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.

[tomder55]

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)

[RickJ]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

[RickJ]

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

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.

[paraclete]

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

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