[excon]

As I said in one of my 1st replies . The decision of the local boards would pass the 'compelling interest test '( Oregon v. Smith)

Hello again, tom:

I understand your argument. I just don't agree with your conclusion. I do not think that someone who believes a states compelling interest trumps a citizens Constitutional rights, has a good grasp of WHAT the Constitution is all about, no matter what he says. The two ideas are in conflict with each other. They're NOT compatible. They're skitzoid. You CAN'T believe both.

But... I KNOW you understand your rights in the context of the Second Amendment. You'll never convince me that you'd lay down for ANY state who outlaw guns because of a compelling state interest... If you WOULD, then for SURE you don't understand what our rights are all about.

excon

[tomder55]

EX the 2nd amendment is already limited due to compelling state and local interests .That is why registration has been ruled Constitutional . The courts have set limits to how much a state or locality can regulate guns.

The courts and Congress have also under the same philosophy already set parameters on the states right to regulate where houses of worship can be built. Actually you can thank Republicans and conservatives for the movement towards limiting local regulations in that regard . However the courts still hold a locality has a right to regulate where a house of worship can be built and if one can be built.

As I noted already municipalities have the authority to limit houses of worship ranging in size from mega churches ,to individual prayer meetings conducted in private homes.

[excon]

As I noted already municipalities have the authority to limit houses of worship ranging in size from mega churches ,to individual prayer meetings conducted in private homes.

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree with the above... However, in THIS instance, should the local zoning board change its mind due to the local pressure, the ONLY reason this house of worship would being denied, is the religion of the congregation.

That, is just plain unconstitutional.

excon

[tomder55]

So long as the zoning rules chanages affect all religions it is nondescriminatory.
They could change the zoning to make any new occupancy in the area commercial .
The problem that comes back to bite conservatives was the Republican introducing and getting passed the 'Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000',which suddenly transferred to the federal government local land use control.That constitutes an obvious violation of the Constitution's federalism. If land use is not an inherent local concern, then virtually nothing is. Also the law itself is a violation of the establishment clause by Congress.It systematically favors religious organizations over their secular neighbors.
Thereare plenty of real valid reasons for localities to prevent the placement of houses of worship for many reasons beyond the assumption of religious discrimination.But now ,that argument becomes the 1st line of attack whenever placement of houses of worship is contested.
It will be a hard case for anyone to prove NYC discriminates against Muslims . Since 9-11 there have been in excess of 140 new mosques built within the city limits.

Again, I urge them to consider Governor Patterson's reasonable solution.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

You've said the state CAN interject itself because it HAS a "compelling interest" in the outcome. WHAT interest would that be?

You mentioned that it was used in the recent gay marriage decision in California, so the cases are similar. However, in California, the compelling state interest was spreading FREEDOM. To me, that IS a state interest... The case in NY looks to be the OPPOSITE.

What possible state interest does NY have in BLOCKING the mosque??

excon

[tomder55]

For starters ;The same one that makes it a bad idea to have the trial of KSM in downtown Manhattan .

[smearcase]

How about some facts EX?
Twice as many hits for victory mosques as victory churches and clear understanding of what a victory mosque means.
You aked how far away--i gave you reasonable criteria.
I told you your question had generated 68% against, similar to national poll.
I told you that founding fathers voted by majority to determine what rights would be (in so many words).
But you like to play "shade tree lawyer" instead. Do you have credentials to analyze complex legal precedent(s)?
Are you just blowing smoke?

[excon]

Do you have credentials to analyze complex legal precedent(s)?

Hello smear:

I'm a high school dropout.

excon

[excon]

How about some facts EX?
(1) Twice as many hits for victory mosques as victory churches and clear understanding of what a victory mosque means.
(2) You aked how far away--i gave you reasonable criteria.
(3) I told you your question had generated 68% against, similar to national poll.
(4) I told you that founding fathers voted by majority to determine what rights would be (in so many words).
(5) But you like to play "shade tree lawyer" instead. Do you have credentials to analyze complex legal precedent(s)?
(6) Are you just blowing smoke?

Hello again, smear:

I guess you deserve an answer.

(1) The NAME of the congregation, or the INTENT of a citizen has NO bearing on his RIGHTS under the Constitution. Even Christian pastors who want to replace our law with biblical law, can start a church...

(2) In THIS country, we enjoy our rights EVERYWHERE we go. Your Muslim free zone is an anathema to that idea.

(3) It's true, the majority of Americans don't want it there. However, our rights aren't based upon what the majority want.

(4) Yes, they did. You're not saying, are you, that because they voted them in, we can vote them out? That's true. But, not like you're saying. We CAN change the Constitution by amending it, and having 2/3 of the states ratify it.

(5) I DO like to play shade tree lawyer. How could you tell? I'm STILL a high school dropout.

(6) Yes, I've been known to blow smoke.

excon

[smearcase]

I appreciate your comments. I could give you a few analogies (like guns) but I detest analogies.
The facts at hand about each issue are the only ones that really matter. I don't think the present day and circumstances can wait years for amendments to be processed. It could be done differently but it would take 50 years to get that settled. I believe the citizens will force decisions on this matter like they did with Dubai port takeover plan. Yes, that will be good enough for me. There is too much at stake. I'll stop here. Thanks and I think you do a good job of spurring on discussion. If you really are a high school dropout, I think you have certainly earned your G.E.D. and more right here at AMHD! But my vote is still in the No column.

[excon]

I appreciate your comments. I could give you a few analogies (like guns) but I detest analogies.

Hello again, smear:

I'm remarkably consistent in my support for the Bill of Rights. I'll go to my grave supporting YOUR right to own a gun, just like I will for this Muslim to open his mosque, or for gay people who only want to get married..

excon

[tomder55]

NYC comptroller John Liu said yesterday he is willing to consider approving a public subsidy in the form of tax-exempt bonds to help finance the victory Mosque. There is a possibility here that the people of the city ;who overwhelmingly oppose the construction where it is being considered ,will be forced to finance it's construction through their taxes.

Is this a violation of the establishment clause ? Or would it be considered some kind of discrimination against the 14th amendment because the city helps finance other non-profit construction under the New York City's Industrial Development Authority ?

[smearcase]

Maybe it would qualify as a stimulus project. It has certainly had a stimulating effect here. There is about $ 282 billion left if I read recovery.gov correctly. Take that Iran! Or maybe a good old fashioned Bash the Debunkers program.

[excon]

Is this a violation of the establishment clause ?

Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, yeah!

excon

[excon]

Hello again,

In honor of Martin Luther King, I'm going to repeat some of what he said 47 years ago today. It STILL chokes me up.

"I have a dream today...

This will be the day, when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country, 'tis of thee , sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my father's died, land of the pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom [to] ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

excon

[Isafjordur]

I decided to do some research on the people who are behind the building of the mosque. The guy who is paying for it is VERY fishy. For one, five years ago he was a waiter at a restaurant! He then ALL of a sudden became a real state buyer/seller? He has bought several buildings. One for around $280 million, and guess what: He paid for it with cash that he got from A LOAN! Do you still trust this guy? I don't. He also bought the building that will be the mosque for $4.8 million, and guess what: He bought it with cash from ANOTHER LOAN. So he is buying real estate with SOMEONE ELSE'S money! The person who is providing him with the loans is clearly not someone you can trust. Nor is the guy building the mosque. MOST Americans don't support the building of the mosque, but no one seems to care what they think. If you ask me, I think Obama is a traitor to the western world, he is bowing down and sucking up to the demands of the Muslim world. The funny thing is, if the Muslims were the ones running America, and the Christians wanted to build a church near ground zero, IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

[galveston]

Hello again,

In honor of Martin Luther King, I'm going to repeat some of what he said 47 years ago today. It STILL chokes me up.

"I have a dream today......

This will be the day, when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country, 'tis of thee , sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my father's died, land of the pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom [to] ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

excon

Not a bad post at all!
Especially from an Atheist.
Methinks ye may be closer to realization of truth than you admit.

PS: I KNOW it's a quote, but, hey, you posted it.

[excon]

guess what: He payed for it with cash that he got from A LOAN! Do you still trust this guy? I don't. He also bought the building that will be the mosque for $4.8 million, and guess what: He bought it with cash from ANOTHER LOAN. So he is buying real estate with SOMEONE ELSE'S money!

Hello I:

It may come as a shock to you, but, in this country, MOST real estate is bought with someone else's money.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello I:

It may come as a shock to you, but, in this country, MOST real estate is bought with someone else's money.

excon

Yep that's why we have the Atlantic Financial Crisis about to go into the double dip

[Synnen]

I decided to do some research on the people who are behind the building of the mosque. The guy who is paying for it is VERY fishy. For one, five years ago he was a waiter at a restaurant! He then ALL of a sudden became a real state buyer/seller? He has bought several buildings. One for around $280 million, and guess what: He payed for it with cash that he got from A LOAN! Do you still trust this guy? I don't. He also bought the building that will be the mosque for $4.8 million, and guess what: He bought it with cash from ANOTHER LOAN. So he is buying real estate with SOMEONE ELSE'S money! The person who is providing him with the loans is clearly not someone you can trust. Nor is the guy building the mosque. MOST Americans don't support the building of the mosque, but no one seems to care what they think. If you ask me, I think Obama is a traitor to the western world, he is bowing down and sucking up to the demands of the Muslim world. The funny thing is, if the Muslims were the ones running America, and the Christians wanted to build a church near ground zero, IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

And MOST Americans are WRONG.

Let me tell you something. In 1942, MOST Americans were all for deporting anyone of Japanese descent, regardless how long their family had lived in the United States--and some of those families had been here longer than MY family had at the time.

In 1948, MOST Americans were okay with "Separate but Equal" schools, and did not want their children going to school with black children.

In 1917, MOST Americans were against the manufacture, sale or transportation of alcohol. It resulted in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Thankfully, it only took them 16 years to realize they were wrong and overturn the Amendment.

In 1852, MOST Americans didn't think that women were equal to men, and they could not vote to change that themselves.

In 1831, MOST Americans were for the Indian Removal Act that resulted 46,000 American Indians (you know--those people we stole this country from to begin with?) were removed from 25 million acres of land. Approximately 10,000 of these American Indians died on the way to their new lands, a result of lack of food, exposure to elements, and incompetent (U.S. Government provided) guides.

So just because MOST Americans want or don't want something doesn't make MOST Americans right.

Why do people persist in thinking that this country is a straight democracy?