[RickJ]

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.

[speechlesstx]

Sounds like a fair compromise to me too.

Yeah, but they've rejected that.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[RickJ]

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?

[excon]

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

[NeedKarma]

I know what he said but ignored it and went with my own interpretation,

That's a defence? LOL!

[speechlesstx]

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.

[RickJ]

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.

[excon]

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

[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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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

[RickJ]

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

Really!

[speechlesstx]

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

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

[RickJ]

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!

[Wondergirl]

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.