[Wondergirl]

Again....Exactly WHERE is this RIGHT enumerated....there is a big difference between a RIGHT and priveledge. THere is no RIGHT for foreign entities to build anything....in fact there is no RIGHT for Americans to build anything.


After all if they have a RIGHT to build a Terrorist Memorial, we have a RIGHT to Burn it down as an act of free speech.

If it was a RIGHT, Zoning laws would be unconstitutional.

The zoning laws are not an issue. The builders are American. Once you figure out how to spell "priveledge" correctly, we will discuss the difference between that and a right.

[smoothy]

The zoning laws are not an issue. The builders are American. Once you figure out how to spell "priveledge" correctly, we will discuss the difference between that and a right.

You called it a right... the lefties call it a Right... however Christians have no RIGHT to Publicly and collectively practive their religion.


If it's a right... it will be specifically called out and would have a ratification date. I'm still waiting for those who claim Iran, The Taliban or Saudi Arabia who is paying for this structure is who will own it... and is being kept secret... HAVE no rights... They aren't even US citizens.

Zoning laws can't prempt a constitutional right... if it was subject to being given and taken away so casually, then its not a right.

[Wondergirl]

You called it a right...the lefties call it a Right....however Christians have no RIGHT to Publically and collectively practive their religion.

Christians publicly and collectively practice their religion all the time. Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

If I lived closer to you, I'd drive over and meet you at a local restaurant so we could pow-wow in person. I think we would get a lot more accomplished than we are here. I'd even treat you to a meal and a few beers.

[asking]

I think this is a local zoning issue. If it's zoned for a community center and someone wants to buy the property and build a community center, why not? Hard to imagine all this hubub if it was a YWCA or Jewish Community Center. Sheesh. Anyway, it's up to New York. Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?

[Wondergirl]

Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?

Now you've got me thinking about all the subdivisions butting up against national forest lands and even state and national parks. I drive to see the Tetons or the Colorado Front Range, and end up looking at split levels and McMansions. Don't let me get started on Las Vegas.

It's private property, and the builders have rights.

[Athos]

This is not a question of a First Amendment right - no one denies they have that right. It is a question of doing the "right" thing.

The developers have stated that the center/mosque would be a place for all faiths to meet and encourage tolerance and understanding among different faiths (in addition to being a "prayer space" for Muslims).

As worthy as that motivation may be, by now it should be apparent to the developers that this original idea has backfired to such a degree that the great majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to the building, causing not tolerance but a deeper mistrust of Islam.

The developer, Sharif el-Gamal, has hardened his position so that understanding and tolerance have taken a back seat, and now it's all about his right to build.

When the Carmelite nuns established a convent in front of Auschwitz to pray for all the victims, the Jewish community world-wide saw it as co-opting a space that was sacred to the memory of the Shoah.

Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to move their convent up the road a piece, which they did. Common sense prevailed.

The developers have a marvelous chance to strike a blow for understanding by doing what the nuns did. Move it "up the road a piece".

And I don't think Western civilization will collapse if the developers do not stand on their First Amendment rights - in fact, they will have exhibited an understanding that will go far for tolerance.

[excon]

This is not a question of a First Amendment right - no one denies they have that right. It is a question of doing the "right" thing.....in fact, they will have exhibited an understanding that will go far for tolerance.

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away?? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

[Wondergirl]

Move it "up the road a piece".

And how far is that?

[cdad]

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away??? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you don't feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

[smoothy]

Now you've got me thinking about all the subdivisions butting up against national forest lands and even state and national parks. I drive to see the Tetons or the Colorado Front Range, and end up looking at split levels and McMansions. Don't let me get started on Las Vegas.

It's private property, and the builders have rights.

So did the Branch Davidians... we all know what happened there.

[Wondergirl]

August 12, 2010 --

A Marist poll found that 53% of the residents of Manhattan -- that island in elitist, unreal America where the thing will actually be built -- are solidly in support of the "Ground Zero Mosque," with 31% opposed and 16% undecided.

[smoothy]

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you dont feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

How about the flip side of that... Walmart wants to open a store... they have a vacant commercially zoned lot available, but the local politicians fight to prevent them from building the store... where are Walmarts rights to build at? And that Happens MANY places.

[Athos]

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away??? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

I think the analogy is weak.

[cdad]

How about the flip side of that....Walmart wants to open a store...they have a vacant commercially zoned lot availible, but the local politicians fight to prevent them from building the store....where are Walmarts rights to build at? And that Happens MANY places.

New York is one of them that doesn't allow Walmart to build any stores because they are non union.

[Wondergirl]

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you dont feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

There is no argument about ownership. The NYC property has been purchased. Eminent domain is not even being discussed. Why are you tossing in a red herring?

(Residents have successfully fought eminent domain.)

[cdad]

There is no argument about ownership. The NYC property has been purchased. Eminent domain is not even being discussed. Why are you tossing in a red herring?

(Residents have successfully fought eminent domain.)

It was tied to the post made by Exy. Hes always drawing from the 2nd amendment well. Lol

[Athos]

And how far is that?

The literal distance is not at issue - the symbolism is the crux of the matter.

Even one or two blocks further uptown would de-fuse the issue.

[classyT]

I think this is a local zoning issue. If it's zoned for a community center and someone wants to buy the property and build a community center, why not? Hard to imagine all this hubub if it was a YWCA or Jewish Community Center. Sheesh. Anyway, it's up to New York. Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?

Really? Well neither of those groups killed 3,000 innocent Americans in one day in the name of their "god" whileST many with the same religious views and/OR name danced and "hubub" around the world.

Ex,


I don't know much about the TEA party... because I'm not very political... BUT>>.

This isn't about "Rights"... this is about "Respect".

Have we become so concerned about our "rights" that we have lost sight of good common sense? It baffles me...

No ONE is saying a muslim can't worship their god or build a mosque in this country. Seriously?? WHO CARES?. but REALLLY?? Really? It needs to be this close to ground zero??

It is a shame the innocent victims ( atheists, christians AND muslims) on 9/11 can't voice their opinions on this matter.

I PERSONALLY think it is time to STOP thinking about "our rights"( boo hooo hooo) and think of their lost lives!

Respect... I think I hear Aretha...

[excon]

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Hello again, dad:

You make my point for me. There IS an assault on our rights. Government from the top to the bottom doesn't like 'em one bit, and would like to get rid of 'em. I was just asking Athos how he FELT about it. Yes, I picked a right I think HE might enjoy. I wondered if he could empathize with another citizen who's rights were under assault.

Of course, the POINT I was making, IS we shouldn't be helping the government DO that. Instead, we should help our fellow citizens KEEP their rights - even the ones WE don't particularly like. We would DO that, so that the ones we DO like are protected too. That's all.

excon

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

You make my point for me. There IS an assault on our rights. Government from the top to the bottom doesn't like 'em one bit, and would like to get rid of 'em. I was just asking Athos how he FELT about it. Yes, I picked a right I think HE might enjoy. I wondered if he could empathize with another citizen who's rights were under assault.

Of course, the POINT I was making, IS we shouldn't be helping the government DO that. Instead, we should help our fellow citizens KEEP their rights - even the ones WE don't particularly like. We would DO that, so that the ones we DO like are protected too. That's all.

excon

I understand. Its just somebody has to give you grief every once in awhile ;)