[tomder55]

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.

[NeedKarma]

Why do you keep saying "victory" mosque?

[smoothy]

Why do you keep saying "victory" mosque?

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

[NeedKarma]

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

[tomder55]

Why do you keep saying "victory" mosque?

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

[NeedKarma]

So it records its domination over you?

[excon]

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

[smearcase]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[smearcase]

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

[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?

[excon]

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

[smoothy]

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.

[excon]

Sorry, you gotta prove it.

Hello smoothy:

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

excon

[smoothy]

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..

[Synnen]

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.

[Synnen]

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?

[tomder55]

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.

[tomder55]

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.