Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SAMSON123 on August 03, 2010, 03:51:24 PM
-
Well the path has been made clear for the rising of the Mosque. All you haters can get ready to start saying your Allah Akbar when you are in the New York ground zero area... BTW I put a picture of where the mosque will be located at the bottom of the page..while it looks close it is actually a good ways away. If you are on the WTC site you would NOT be able to see it or even know it is there unless someone told you.
Panel clears way for mosque near Ground Zero
VIDEO LINK http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid42806360001?bctid=390526096001
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2010/08/03/protestx.jpg)
By Michael Nagle,
(http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2010/08/03/bulidingx.jpg)
Workers unload window frames across the street from 45-47 Park Place on Tuesday in New York City.
By Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — Amid applause and cries of "Shame!" a New York City panel cleared the way Tuesday morning for the construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The city Landmarks Preservation Commission, in a 9-0 vote, denied protected status to the building located in Lower Manhattan, saying the 1850s commercial building did not have enough historic or architectural merit.
That means it can be demolished for the cultural center, which has drawn opposition from politicians including former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and former congressman Rick Lazio, a Republican running for New York governor.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spoken in support of the center, saying religious freedom is at stake.
"It's a 9/11 victory mosque," said Linda Rivera, a New York resident who held up a sign during the vote reading "Don't Glorify Murders of 3,000." She was among those who criticize the location of the proposed center, which is on a commercial street two blocks north of the northern edge of the World Trade Center site.
The 152-year-old building once housed a Burlington Coat Factory. Plans from the developer, Park51, call for a gym, auditorium, exhibition and educational space, and a mosque.
Megan Putney of the Muslim Consultative Network, a community development group, said she hoped the community center would be "a way for different faiths and cultures to become more familiar with each other and understand that those who committed those heinous acts on 9/11 were not Muslims."
Some national and New York politicians and the Anti-Defamation League have come out in recent weeks against plans for the mosque, saying it disrespects the memory of Sept. 11 victims.
Supporters of landmark status, including some Sept. 11 family members, had argued that the building warranted the status because it was struck by airplane debris during the attacks.
But Commissioner Christopher Moore noted that the debris hit a number of buildings.
"One cannot designate hundreds of buildings on that criteria alone," Moore said. "We do not landmark the sky."
The mosque would be part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices.
Oz Sultan, the program coordinator for the proposed Islamic center, said last week that the building has been changed too much over the years to qualify as a landmark.
"I think a lot of the negativity we're getting is coming from people who are politically grandstanding," Sultan said. "We're completely open and transparent."
Sharif El-Gamal, a real estate developer involved in the project, has said the center could resemble the 92nd Street Y, a major Jewish cultural center in New York that also houses a synagogue.
"Where do you draw the line?" asked Ralph Seliger, a retired city employee who was among a group from J Street, a progressive Jewish group, that came to support the Islamic center. "In no way is this in tended to desecrate the memory of those who died there."
The Rev. Robert Chase, founding director of an interfaith group called Intersections, supported the project and called it "a really positive example of how we can move forward from 9/11."
But the Anti-Defamation League's national director, Abraham Foxman, said Khan's proposals fail to address the crux of opponents' criticism that erecting the mosque near ground zero is insensitive to 9/11 victims' families.
The Jewish organization came out against the mosque last week, saying "some legitimate questions have been raised" about the Cordoba Initiative's funding and possible ties with "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."
Lazio attended Tuesday's hearing, saying he still had questions about funding sources and saying the national debate over the mosque had nothing to do with religion.
He said: "It's about this particular mosque called the Cordoba Mosque. It's about being at Ground Zero. It's about being spearheaded by an imam who has associated himself with radical Islamic causes and has made comments that should chill every single American, frankly."
The imam, Faisel Abdul Rauf, had refused to call the radical Palestinian group Hamas a terrorist organization, Lazio has said. Rauf also had said in a "60 Minutes" interview televised shortly after 9/11 that "United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
Contributing: the Associated Press
-
I hope someone flies a plane into it.
-
I hope someone flies a plane into it.
Who? Someone like Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nicholls?
-
Who? Someone like Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nicholls?
Doesn't matter who.
-
this is a weird issue.
the people who are saying govt should stay the hell out of our religion and other business - are the same people saying the govt should put a limit as to how many blocks from ground zero a certain religious group should be able to put up a church of their choosing.
Either you love the constitution, or you don't. You defend it, even when you disagree with those employing it vehemently. You support the right of any religious group - catholic, muslim, protestant, or satanic, or whatever - to put up a church anywhere they please.
For those who say the govt has too much power and should stay out of my life - but should be able to pick and choose which churches can go where based upon the religious beliefs of the founders - wow...
-
this is a weird issue.
the people who are saying govt should stay the hell out of our religion and other business - are the same people saying the govt should put a limit as to how many blocks from ground zero a certain religious group should be able to put up a church of their choosing.
Either you love the constitution, or you don't. You defend it, even when you disagree with those employing it vehemently. You support the right of any religious group - catholic, muslim, protestant, or satanic, or whatever - to put up a church anywhere they please.
For those who say the govt has too much power and should stay out of my life - but should be able to pick and choose which churches can go where based upon the religious beliefs of the founders - wow...
Dummies are everywhere...sadly
Maybe they misunderstood the part of their constitution that said SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE... Either you want the government involved in your affairs or you don't...there is no in-between
-
A church can be built wherever the community says it can be built. That's why you don't typically see a church next to a strip club. The community decides zoning issues. Has nothing to do with separation of church and state. ::)
-
A church can be built wherever the community says it can be built. That's why you don't typically see a church next to a strip club. The community decides zoning issues. Has nothing to do with separation of church and state. ::)
A community has no say in where a church can and can not be built. There may be some landmark or height regulations that all construction must abide by in a community, but the people can NOT stop the construction of a church...or any building for that matter. My church and state comment deals with those who were trying to make the matter political and get the mayor and/or governor of New York to stop the construction. Some even sank to trying to landmark the building to stop what is no more than religious discrimination.
-
A community has no say in where a church can and can not be built. There may be some landmark or height regulations that all construction must abide by in a community, but the people can NOT stop the construction of a church...or any building for that matter. My church and state comment deals with those who were trying to make the matter political and get the mayor and/or governor of New York to stop the construction. Some even sank to trying to landmark the building to stop what is no more than religious discrimination.
Wrong. The community speaks through it's city council, which decides zoning issues. Zoning dictates what can be built/operated in certain parts of the city.
-
A community has no say in where a church can and can not be built. There may be some landmark or height regulations that all construction must abide by in a community, but the people can NOT stop the construction of a church...or any building for that matter. My church and state comment deals with those who were trying to make the matter political and get the mayor and/or governor of New York to stop the construction. Some even sank to trying to landmark the building to stop what is no more than religious discrimination.
Once again you prove that you have ZERO clue as to what you're talking about. Stick to selling snake oil, idiot.
-
Dummies are everywhere...sadly
Maybe they misunderstood the part of their constitution that said SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE... Either you want the government involved in your affairs or you don't...there is no in-between
No in-between?
This is not an all or nothing issue. There are varying degrees of involvement.
BTW, if you think I'm ever going to say allah akbar - hahahaha - go fuck yourself.
-
this is a weird issue.
the people who are saying govt should stay the hell out of our religion and other business - are the same people saying the govt should put a limit as to how many blocks from ground zero a certain religious group should be able to put up a church of their choosing.
Either you love the constitution, or you don't. You defend it, even when you disagree with those employing it vehemently. You support the right of any religious group - catholic, muslim, protestant, or satanic, or whatever - to put up a church anywhere they please.
For those who say the govt has too much power and should stay out of my life - but should be able to pick and choose which churches can go where based upon the religious beliefs of the founders - wow...
It's common sense I'm defending, 240.
I'm against all religious fundamentalism and it's insane to allow it to be spread through bombing. A mosque built on the remains of ground zero can be interpreted by zealots as as spreading Islam by the sword. This will cause further pain but idiots are in charge and they think tolerance will serve us more than common sense.
-
No in-between?
This is not an all or nothing issue. There are varying degrees of involvement.
BTW, if you think I'm ever going to say allah akbar - hahahaha - go fuck yourself.
You just said it....
-
It's common sense I'm defending, 240.
I'm against all religious fundamentalism and it's insane to allow it to be spread through bombing. A mosque built on the remains of ground zero can be interpreted by zealots as as spreading Islam by the sword. This will cause further pain but idiots are in charge and they think tolerance will serve us more than common sense.
What I'm saying is - if there wasn't a rule "no religious institutions in this 10-block radius" or whatever BEFORE this muslim church signed up - then it's pretty shady (from a constitutional standpoint).
Or how does the old quote go...
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
If Obama was trying to prevent a Christian church from setting up shop near ground zero, Palin and friends would be SCREAMMMMMING about how he has zero right to limit religious celebration by Americans - and she would be right.
-
A church can be built wherever the community says it can be built. That's why you don't typically see a church next to a strip club. The community decides zoning issues. Has nothing to do with separation of church and state. ::)
You don't typically see a church next door to a strip club because churches have a hard enough time with attendance as it is. Next door to a strip club... they wouldn't stand a chance. Candie with the bright red tassles hanging from her tatas would get all the cash before the pastor could even pull out the collection plate. Church next door to a strip club = No win situation for the church, and/or possible loss of business for both sides. Neither one wants to be next door to the other.
-
this is a weird issue.
the people who are saying govt should stay the hell out of our religion and other business - are the same people saying the govt should put a limit as to how many blocks from ground zero a certain religious group should be able to put up a church of their choosing.
Either you love the constitution, or you don't. You defend it, even when you disagree with those employing it vehemently. You support the right of any religious group - catholic, muslim, protestant, or satanic, or whatever - to put up a church anywhere they please.
For those who say the govt has too much power and should stay out of my life - but should be able to pick and choose which churches can go where based upon the religious beliefs of the founders - wow...
There's nothing wierd about the issue at all. It's pretty straightforward.
Some people just don't like what they see, so they twist & pervert in order to suit their wishes.
They believe in the constitution, as long as it supports their wishes & agenda.
The moment their agenda is out of step with the constitution, they act as if the constitution doesn't exist, and they have the right to do, or to have the government do their dirty work. Pathetic pigs the whole lot of them.
-
I pride myself on my moral compass and my reason. I respect the equality and dignity of all human beings. I know what proponents of this mosque are trying to do, and I understand why they are trying to do it, but agitating to place this mosque at or near ground zero is inappropriate and misguided. The timing is also unwelcome. All these years later the US is still reeling from 9/11. Wounds are still fresh. War is still being waged. Emotions are still raw.
The US is a big country. NY is a big state. This is not the time nor the place for this mosque. My objection is not borne of bigotry (which I abhor) but insensitivity to the time, place, and harm of 9/11 is also unacceptable. However well intentioned, proceeding with this mosque, at this time, is the wrong thing to do. :(
-
I pride myself on my moral compass and my reason. I respect the equality and dignity of all human beings. I know what proponents of this mosque are trying to do, and I understand why they are trying to do it, but agitating to place this mosque at or near ground zero is inappropriate and misguided. The timing is also unwelcome. All these years later the US is still reeling from 9/11. Wounds are still fresh. War is still being waged. Emotions are still raw.
The US is a big country. NY is a big state. This is not the time nor the place for this mosque. My objection is not borne of bigotry (which I abhor) but insensitivity to the time, place, and harm of 9/11 is also unacceptable. However well intentioned, proceeding with this mosque, at this time, is the wrong thing to do. :(
It's bigotry, religious discrimination, malice, hate and all other NEGATIVE EMOTIONS fostered through the hysteria of the media to demonize and vilify all Arabs and Islam. You have allowed yourself to be caught up in the frenzy while ignoring the need to MOVE ON and not judge. The WTC collapse/control demolition is closing in on TEN YEARS. Exactly when are people going to grow up and get over their nonsense. When are they going to finally stop being conditioned by the media to act and react according to the medias will? I am still trying to figure out how 19 supposed Arab hijackers commandeered 4 planes, crashed them into three different buildings, crash one into the ground in Pennsylvania and yet NINE OF THE SUPPOSED HIJACKERS ARE STILL ALIVE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES!!! Do you have an answer for that? And how come your american news does not report the massive lawsuits these said individuals have against america over their face, name and information being used in a slanderous and deformation manner?
-
Nice rambling meltdown, Muslim Samson. Fortunately, it's completely negated by the fact that you're the most bigoted person on this forum.
Like the typical Muslim, you think you can have your cake and eat it, too. Sorry, hombre, but your religious intolerance, hatred of whites and other non-Muslims and complete lack of education render your teary-eyed opinion where you're trying to play the victim moot.
In short, shut the fuck up. :-*
What I'm saying is - if there wasn't a rule "no religious institutions in this 10-block radius" or whatever BEFORE this muslim church signed up - then it's pretty shady (from a constitutional standpoint).
Or how does the old quote go...
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
If Obama was trying to prevent a Christian church from setting up shop near ground zero, Palin and friends would be SCREAMMMMMING about how he has zero right to limit religious celebration by Americans - and she would be right.
There's no rush to rebuild a church that stood under the WTC yet there's an absolute frenzy among Muslims and liberals to get this mosque built. Last I checked, they hadn't even secured the $100 million for this yet they're already starting construction. I wonder why the sharia-law advocating, terrorist-supporting, hater of interfaith dialogue Imam who lies to the face of New Yorkers is rushing to get this mosque built?
-
It's bigotry, religious discrimination, malice, hate and all other NEGATIVE EMOTIONS fostered through the hysteria of the media to demonize and vilify all Arabs and Islam. You have allowed yourself to be caught up in the frenzy while ignoring the need to MOVE ON and not judge. The WTC collapse/control demolition is closing in on TEN YEARS. Exactly when are people going to grow up and get over their nonsense. When are they going to finally stop being conditioned by the media to act and react according to the medias will? I am still trying to figure out how 19 supposed Arab hijackers commandeered 4 planes, crashed them into three different buildings, crash one into the ground in Pennsylvania and yet NINE OF THE SUPPOSED HIJACKERS ARE STILL ALIVE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES!!! Do you have an answer for that? And how come your american news does not report the massive lawsuits these said individuals have against america over their face, name and information being used in a slanderous and deformation manner?
I am not motivated by bigotry, religious discrimination, malice, nor hate. I do not need to raise my voice, engage in name calling, or denigrate entire populations to make my point. I do not live in NYC, but I am not unmindful of those who do live there. You should be similarly sensitive. The citizens of NYC and the United States are entitled to some negative emotions. Given what they endured on 9/11 ten years is not a long time. It will take at least a generation for those emotions to subside.
As an objective observer (to the extent I can be objective) I find myself wondering where this impulse to erect a mosque here is coming from? Was there a mosque at this location before 9/11? Where have the worshippers been gathering for the past ten years? Where is the money for this mosque coming from? Other legitimate questions abound...
As I said previously, families are still shattered and the city is still recovery mode. I am all for tolerance and reconciliation, but asking to place a mosque at this location, at this time, is hopelessly insensitive and inappropriate. I would not allow it. >:(
-
Bay - I live here and there are vacant properties everywhere across the city. Why here and who is paying for this?
We tell porn stores, gun stores, churches, and all types of places where they can open and locate all the time, why not this one?
This is a complete disgrace and the moooslim filth exploiting the situation are the ones showing zero tolerance, not the other way around.
After 911 happened, were there any mass uprisings or acts of vengence by the local population. No. The intolerant tyrants are those insisting on this obcsenity.
-
33,
You know how I feel about this, or any religion. They are all hateful businesses bent on serving their own goals.
That being said - you gotta let them build where they want. Unless you can define how many blocks from GZ is "right".
Of course it's morally corrupt - but it's still constitutional. Satanists might want to set up a 'church' a block from GZ. I could care less. Worship whatever you want. If you break the law, have fun in Gitmo. But as far as telling people they can worship this God a block from GZ, but not practice this other religion...
it's a DANGEROUS precedent.
So as much as we all despise what they're doing - we should respect the constitution enough to let them build. Then use community pressure on them, of course ;)
-
33,
You know how I feel about this, or any religion. They are all hateful businesses bent on serving their own goals.
That being said - you gotta let them build where they want. Unless you can define how many blocks from GZ is "right".
Of course it's morally corrupt - but it's still constitutional. Satanists might want to set up a 'church' a block from GZ. I could care less. Worship whatever you want. If you break the law, have fun in Gitmo. But as far as telling people they can worship this God a block from GZ, but not practice this other religion...
it's a DANGEROUS precedent.
So as much as we all despise what they're doing - we should respect the constitution enough to let them build. Then use community pressure on them, of course ;)
Yes, it is a dangerous precedent, top completely ignore the will of the population and taxpayers all for some radical imam with dubious ties and financing.
I still am going to spill pigs blood all over this place at some point.
-
Yes, it is a dangerous precedent, top completely ignore the will of the population and taxpayers all for some radical imam with dubious ties and financing.
I still am going to spill pigs blood all over this place at some point.
so let's be clear here - you are OKAY with a complete violation of americans' constitutional rights because of "the will of the population"?
So let's pretend the media gets all worked up over handgun violence, and 50.1% of the population wants to ban handguns. Should we pitch the second amendment? After all, the "will of the population" would support banning them.
The constutition was written so that 'the will of the people" would never step on the rights of groups to speak and worship as they pleased - no matter how disgusting their message. I'm not defending their message, by any means... but I am defending their right to speak and practice that message.
-
so let's be clear here - you are OKAY with a complete violation of americans' constitutional rights because of "the will of the population"?
So let's pretend the media gets all worked up over handgun violence, and 50.1% of the population wants to ban handguns. Should we pitch the second amendment? After all, the "will of the population" would support banning them.
The constutition was written so that 'the will of the people" would never step on the rights of groups to speak and worship as they pleased - no matter how disgusting their message. I'm not defending their message, by any means... but I am defending their right to speak and practice that message.
Hey moron - this has nothing to do with the constitution. no one is telling them they cant build a mosque, amongst the hundreds of others already in NYC.
The same bogus arguments were made in the 1990's when Rudy dealt with the porn businesses.
-
Hey moron - this has nothing to do with the constitution. no one is telling them they cant build a mosque, amongst the hundreds of others already in NYC.
The same bogus arguments were made in the 1990's when Rudy dealt with the porn businesses.
No need to call names.
Tell me what the issue really is here. How many blocks from GZ should they be allowed to build it? If 10 isn't allowed, what number is? What criteria did you use to reach this number?
-
No need to call names.
Tell me what the issue really is here. How many blocks from GZ should they be allowed to build it? If 10 isn't allowed, what number is? What criteria did you use to reach this number?
How about we say not within an area where landing gear and body parts hit the buildings?
-
How about we say not within an area where landing gear and body parts hit the buildings?
McVeigh was a christian.
Do we not allow any churches within 10 blocks of the OKC site?
-
McVeigh was a christian.
Do we not allow any churches within 10 blocks of the OKC site?
240 - you are a fucking douche. Sorry, I like you, but sometimes you really are a douche.
Did McVeigh bomb the Murrough building in the name of Christianity? Was he funded and trained by the church and by missioaries from a church? Did church memberrs applaud what he did?
-
240 - you are a fucking douche. Sorry, I like you, but sometimes you really are a douche.
Did McVeigh bomb the Murrough building in the name of Christianity? Was he funded and trained by the church and by missioaries from a church? Did church memberrs applaud what he did?
I dont know his motives any more than I know the motives of the 911 guys.
They were enjoying coke, pork and strippers a week before they blew themselves up.
And religious motive is such a load of brainwashed shit, IMO.
You keep coming at me like I'm defending this religion - and I'm really not. I'm defending the constitution. I'm all for yall picketing them and applying community pressure to tell them to GTFO. But for the GOVT to get involved - and selectively choose which religions can practice where (because of the actions of 19 patsies ten years back) is unconstitional.
It's that simple. Another case of morality and state law not quite lining up.
-
33,
You know how I feel about this, or any religion. They are all hateful businesses bent on serving their own goals.
That being said - you gotta let them build where they want. Unless you can define how many blocks from GZ is "right".
Of course it's morally corrupt - but it's still constitutional. Satanists might want to set up a 'church' a block from GZ. I could care less. Worship whatever you want. If you break the law, have fun in Gitmo. But as far as telling people they can worship this God a block from GZ, but not practice this other religion...
it's a DANGEROUS precedent.
So as much as we all despise what they're doing - we should respect the constitution enough to let them build. Then use community pressure on them, of course ;)
Really? We HAVE to let them build it? There are quite a few glaring legal issues revolving around this mosque that have yet to be answered, one major one being where the $100 million funding this is coming from. The Sharia Law advocating, terrorist-supporting, anti-interfaith dialogue Imam heading up this project refuses to release that information, among other things.
This is being rushed through for the sole reason of pandering to Muslims. 10 years later and a church that stood under the WTC and was destroyed in the attacks still has not been rebuilt. Why the rush to build a mosque that represents the religion responsible for the attacks?
No one's arguing against the Constitution, you stupid fuck. We're arguing, "WHY THERE?" Why put it in a place where the religion that mosque represents was responsible for slaughtering 3,000 innocent people. Muslims are the most intolerant group of people on the planet (as shown by the fact that 10 of the 13 worst violators of religious freedom in 2009 were Muslim countries, the rest being communist countries). This has nothing to do with "bridging gaps" and everything to do with that mosque being a sign of Islamic supremacism over that area. Of course the liberals and other pro-Muslim pieces of shit are fawning over the snake heading up this project.
And for what it's worth, polling shows Americans are against a mosque there by a 2:1 margin. Also, that building should have been granted landmark status but God forbid Bloomberg and his hand-picked cronies on the commission actually listen to the populace.
-
I dont know his motives any more than I know the motives of the 911 guys.
They were enjoying coke, pork and strippers a week before they blew themselves up.
And religious motive is such a load of brainwashed shit, IMO.
You keep coming at me like I'm defending this religion - and I'm really not. I'm defending the constitution. I'm all for yall picketing them and applying community pressure to tell them to GTFO. But for the GOVT to get involved - and selectively choose which religions can practice where (because of the actions of 19 patsies ten years back) is unconstitional.
It's that simple. Another case of morality and state law not quite lining up.
::) ::)
Good - lets see how you react when the Japs want to build a floating shrine to the Emporer in the name of Shintoism at Pearl Harbor on top of the sunken wrecks.
Dude you really have lost it. I'm not kidding, your mixture of obama worship, msnbc viewing, etc has really demented your mind.
-
"Good - lets see how you react when the Japs want to build a floating shrine to the Emporer in the name of Shintoism at Pearl Harbor on top of the sunken wrecks. "
I would think it sucks. I would probably walk my dog and encourage him to crap on their doorstep. I would boycott businesses that sponsored them. Etc etc.
But still... the MINUTE you allow the govt to pick and choose what religions can do... you give them a green light to pick and choose what other consitutional rights to apply. Do you trust Obama with that power? Or are you saying you trust the govt to 'fairly' decide what religions can practice where - but you don't trust them to MANAGE other affairs of your life?
I dislike these folks as much as you, and you know this. But the minute you give obama permission to shit on SOME rights... he'll take them all.
-
Really? We HAVE to let them build it? There are quite a few glaring legal issues revolving around this mosque that have yet to be answered, one major one being where the $100 million funding this is coming from. The Sharia Law advocating, terrorist-supporting, anti-interfaith dialogue Imam heading up this project refuses to release that information, among other things.
This is being rushed through for the sole reason of pandering to Muslims. 10 years later and a church that stood under the WTC and was destroyed in the attacks still has not been rebuilt. Why the rush to build a mosque that represents the religion responsible for the attacks?
No one's arguing against the Constitution, you stupid fuck. We're arguing, "WHY THERE?" Why put it in a place where the religion that mosque represents was responsible for slaughtering 3,000 innocent people. Muslims are the most intolerant group of people on the planet (as shown by the fact that 10 of the 13 worst violators of religious freedom in 2009 were Muslim countries, the rest being communist countries). This has nothing to do with "bridging gaps" and everything to do with that mosque being a sign of Islamic supremacism over that area. Of course the liberals and other pro-Muslim pieces of shit are fawning over the snake heading up this project.
And for what it's worth, polling shows Americans are against a mosque there by a 2:1 margin. Also, that building should have been granted landmark status but God forbid Bloomberg and his hand-picked cronies on the commission actually listen to the populace.
what happens when 2 out of 3 americans supports banning the 2nd amendment? Or decides white guys who vote GOP belong in camps?
You just CANNOT pick and choose when the constitutional matters. Just because the majority of the population is against something - doesn't mean you just toss out the Bill of Rights.
Or, to put it this way... do you guys trust Obama/the govt enough to give him blanket permission to pick/choose which constitutional rights matter? Or, um, just this one time? ;)
-
"Good - lets see how you react when the Japs want to build a floating shrine to the Emporer in the name of Shintoism at Pearl Harbor on top of the sunken wrecks. "
I would think it sucks. I would probably walk my dog and encourage him to crap on their doorstep. I would boycott businesses that sponsored them. Etc etc.
But still... the MINUTE you allow the govt to pick and choose what religions can do... you give them a green light to pick and choose what other consitutional rights to apply. Do you trust Obama with that power? Or are you saying you trust the govt to 'fairly' decide what religions can practice where - but you don't trust them to MANAGE other affairs of your life?
I dislike these folks as much as you, and you know this. But the minute you give obama permission to shit on SOME rights... he'll take them all.
Why hasn't the church that stood under the WTC, was built in 1922 and destroyed in 9/11 not been rebuilt? Why is that not important but a mega mosque is?
As far as I'm concerned, no religious structure should go up in that area until that church is rebuilt. Its members have been worshiping in a tent for 9 years now but it's not important because they're not Muslims. ::)
And with regards to Samson's typical spin job, there were more anti-Christian and anti-Jew crimes in 2009 than anti-Muslim crimes. But it's the Muslims constantly crying about being victimized more than anyone else by the intolerant westerners.
-
"Good - lets see how you react when the Japs want to build a floating shrine to the Emporer in the name of Shintoism at Pearl Harbor on top of the sunken wrecks. "
I would think it sucks. I would probably walk my dog and encourage him to crap on their doorstep. I would boycott businesses that sponsored them. Etc etc.
But still... the MINUTE you allow the govt to pick and choose what religions can do... you give them a green light to pick and choose what other consitutional rights to apply. Do you trust Obama with that power? Or are you saying you trust the govt to 'fairly' decide what religions can practice where - but you don't trust them to MANAGE other affairs of your life?
I dislike these folks as much as you, and you know this. But the minute you give obama permission to shit on SOME rights... he'll take them all.
Again fool, no one is ssaying they cant build the damn mosque, but there are many damn questions that have to answered. why do homeowners applying for a loan have to go through more scrutinty than this does?
Bro - I'm not kidding you really have your priorities all screwed up.
-
what happens when 2 out of 3 americans supports banning the 2nd amendment? Or decides white guys who vote GOP belong in camps?
You just CANNOT pick and choose when the constitutional matters. Just because the majority of the population is against something - doesn't mean you just toss out the Bill of Rights.
Or, to put it this way... do you guys trust Obama/the govt enough to give him blanket permission to pick/choose which constitutional rights matter? Or, um, just this one time? ;)
You're not listening and instead honing in on one sentence while ignoring the rest, as per usual with you. THERE ARE MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED OR ANSWERED IN THE MAD RUSH TO GET THIS MOSQUE BUILT. Why are they rushing this without answering some gigantic, glaring questions?
-
Why hasn't the church that stood under the WTC, was built in 1922 and destroyed in 9/11 not been rebuilt? Why is that not important but a mega mosque is?
As far as I'm concerned, no religious structure should go up in that area until that church is rebuilt. Its members have been worshiping in a tent for 9 years now but it's not important because they're not Muslims. ::)
You'd have to ask the church owners what they're waiting for. I have no idea why.
And in that case - we're okay with the govt RANKING religions? Making the right to worship contingent upon building permit preferences?
I think you either allow no houses of worship in that zone, or you allow any. It's that simple. To say "you guys can't build here because 19 guys with the same religion did something 10 years ago" is dangerous. Not because I give a shit about any of those religions - but because I KNOW the govt would love permission to abuse the constitution.
People who want to give the govt MORE POWER here don't realize this.
-
You're not listening and instead honing in on one sentence while ignoring the rest, as per usual with you. THERE ARE MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED OR ANSWERED IN THE MAD RUSH TO GET THIS MOSQUE BUILT. Why are they rushing this without answering some gigantic, glaring questions?
Because, like the AZ law, 240 has blinders on for one tiny little narrow nonsensical thing as opposed to the massive 900lb elephant in the room.
BF - remember - 240 voted for Bob Barr.
-
I see.
So these questions that need to be answered - are they applied uniformly to every religious group? In that case, it's fine with me.
Why would the # of blocks affect the Qs being answered?
-
Because, like the AZ law, 240 has blinders on for one tiny little narrow nonsensical thing as opposed to the massive 900lb elephant in the room.
BF - remember - 240 voted for Bob Barr.
It has to do with the fact that he's completely uninformed on this topic and trying to act like he is. Keeps circling around the Constitution. ::)
-
Church denied zoning permit
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/property-law-real-property-zoning-land-use-planning/12679612-1.html
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
The East Baton Rouge Parish Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday rejected South Baton Rouge Presbyterian Church's request for a zoning permit to build a new church on the north side of Oliphant Road east of Bluebonnet Boulevard.
Several neighborhood residents, including Metro Councilwoman Alison Cascio and representatives of four local homeowners associations, spoke against the proposed conditional use permit.
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff also recommended denying the permit, saying the proposed project was not in line with the urban design district created with the Bluebonnet Boulevard extension.
Neighbors' main objections included safety and quality of life issues stemming from the added vehicle traffic; the impact of a church on property values; and that the church didn't really fit in with single-family residential neighborhoods.
Cascio said she had nothing against the church and that it and its members had been a joy to work with even though she was upfront about opposing their request.
Cascio said she was at the meeting to speak in favor of the planning process and to remind commission members of how much the area residents had compromised in seeing Bluebonnet cut through their neighborhoods.
She said that residents worked closely with the council to work out limitations on commercial and residential development during the creation of the urban design district and that changing those agreements would be wrong.
Andrew Voelkel, associate pastor of the church, admitted the church would bring more traffic, mainly on Sunday mornings. However, he said the traffic signal on Oliphant would be adjusted to ease congestion following church service on Sundays.
In addition, the church was willing to pay impact fees for the affect the additional traffic would have on the road, he said. The church would also remind members to obey the traffic laws and park only on the church grounds.
Voelkel added that the church's members do pay taxes that support road work as well.
The church did not realize that the waiver contradicted the current zoning's use, Voelkel said. The church was a little naïve in coming into the process, and members didn't realize how much the surrounding neighborhoods had been affected by the Bluebonnet extension and the resulting commercial development, he said.
Voelkel said the church would abide by the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision; part of being a good neighbor and serving others is abiding by their wishes.
Commission member Ervie Ellender said he lives just two doors down from a church and it is a great neighbor.
Ellender said it's a shame, but if neighbors don't want a church in their subdivision, that is their right. He offered the motion to deny the permit.
Commission members Kathleen Callaghan and Frank Muscarello also voted to deny the permit. Members Tara Wicker, Audrey Nabors Jackson and Laurie Marien voted against denying the permit. The latter three had supported a substitute motion to grant the permit. The substitute motion failed.
In other action, the commission rejected Joseph Bergeron III's request to subdivide his three-acre property on Pecue Lane south of the intersection of Pecue Lane and Perkins Road into four lots and build houses on them.
Bergeron said he wanted to build million-dollar homes on three of the lots and keep the fourth lot for himself.
William Dimattia, a Pecue Lane resident, was among half a dozen opponents of the plan. Dimattia said the proposal had been rejected on three other occasions. He and other residents said the proposal would hurt their property values and result in a domino effect, with other lots being subdivided.
Ellender said he didn't see anything about the proposal that would be for the greater good as only one person would benefit.
© Copyright 2010 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 2009 Capital City Press All Rights Reserved
________________________ ________________________ ______________
hhhhmmmm 240?? ? ?? ?? ?? ??
-
Buddhists lose bid to build temple in Conn.
By The Associated Press
01.31.08
HARTFORD, Conn. — The state Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a Buddhist society's efforts to build a temple in Newtown.
The Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut argued last year that Newtown was violating state and federal laws that protect religious freedom — including RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000) — when it denied a permit for the temple.
The court rejected those claims in Cambodian Buddhist Society v. Planning and Zoning Commission.
Supporters had said the Cambodian Buddhist temple, which would have been the first in the state, was important to preserving their religion and culture because elders are dying off. Many of those trying to build the temple fled the killing fields of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge 30 years ago.
But Newtown officials and neighbors of the 10-acre site where the temple would have been built said it could attract up to 450 people on days when religious festivals are held. The Planning and Zoning Commission declared that level of activity "too intense."
-
According to 240, you can build a house of worship anywhere, anytime. The Constitution says so!
-
According to 240, you can build a house of worship anywhere, anytime. The Constitution says so!
240 is really acting a fool lately. Between the AZ law bs, this, the obama knee padding, etc.
-
Bay - I live here and there are vacant properties everywhere across the city. Why here and who is paying for this?
We tell porn stores, gun stores, churches, and all types of places where they can open and locate all the time, why not this one?
This is a complete disgrace and the moooslim filth exploiting the situation are the ones showing zero tolerance, not the other way around.
After 911 happened, were there any mass uprisings or acts of vengence by the local population. No. The intolerant tyrants are those insisting on this obcsenity.
X2
-
You don't typically see a church next door to a strip club because churches have a hard enough time with attendance as it is. Next door to a strip club... they wouldn't stand a chance. Candie with the bright red tassles hanging from her tatas would get all the cash before the pastor could even pull out the collection plate. Church next door to a strip club = No win situation for the church, and/or possible loss of business for both sides. Neither one wants to be next door to the other.
::)
-
I pride myself on my moral compass and my reason. I respect the equality and dignity of all human beings. I know what proponents of this mosque are trying to do, and I understand why they are trying to do it, but agitating to place this mosque at or near ground zero is inappropriate and misguided. The timing is also unwelcome. All these years later the US is still reeling from 9/11. Wounds are still fresh. War is still being waged. Emotions are still raw.
The US is a big country. NY is a big state. This is not the time nor the place for this mosque. My objection is not borne of bigotry (which I abhor) but insensitivity to the time, place, and harm of 9/11 is also unacceptable. However well intentioned, proceeding with this mosque, at this time, is the wrong thing to do. :(
:o
-
Church denied zoning permit
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/property-law-real-property-zoning-land-use-planning/12679612-1.html
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
The East Baton Rouge Parish Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday rejected South Baton Rouge Presbyterian Church's request for a zoning permit to build a new church on the north side of Oliphant Road east of Bluebonnet Boulevard.
Several neighborhood residents, including Metro Councilwoman Alison Cascio and representatives of four local homeowners associations, spoke against the proposed conditional use permit.
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff also recommended denying the permit, saying the proposed project was not in line with the urban design district created with the Bluebonnet Boulevard extension.
Neighbors' main objections included safety and quality of life issues stemming from the added vehicle traffic; the impact of a church on property values; and that the church didn't really fit in with single-family residential neighborhoods.
Cascio said she had nothing against the church and that it and its members had been a joy to work with even though she was upfront about opposing their request.
Cascio said she was at the meeting to speak in favor of the planning process and to remind commission members of how much the area residents had compromised in seeing Bluebonnet cut through their neighborhoods.
She said that residents worked closely with the council to work out limitations on commercial and residential development during the creation of the urban design district and that changing those agreements would be wrong.
Andrew Voelkel, associate pastor of the church, admitted the church would bring more traffic, mainly on Sunday mornings. However, he said the traffic signal on Oliphant would be adjusted to ease congestion following church service on Sundays.
In addition, the church was willing to pay impact fees for the affect the additional traffic would have on the road, he said. The church would also remind members to obey the traffic laws and park only on the church grounds.
Voelkel added that the church's members do pay taxes that support road work as well.
The church did not realize that the waiver contradicted the current zoning's use, Voelkel said. The church was a little naïve in coming into the process, and members didn't realize how much the surrounding neighborhoods had been affected by the Bluebonnet extension and the resulting commercial development, he said.
Voelkel said the church would abide by the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision; part of being a good neighbor and serving others is abiding by their wishes.
Commission member Ervie Ellender said he lives just two doors down from a church and it is a great neighbor.
Ellender said it's a shame, but if neighbors don't want a church in their subdivision, that is their right. He offered the motion to deny the permit.
Commission members Kathleen Callaghan and Frank Muscarello also voted to deny the permit. Members Tara Wicker, Audrey Nabors Jackson and Laurie Marien voted against denying the permit. The latter three had supported a substitute motion to grant the permit. The substitute motion failed.
In other action, the commission rejected Joseph Bergeron III's request to subdivide his three-acre property on Pecue Lane south of the intersection of Pecue Lane and Perkins Road into four lots and build houses on them.
Bergeron said he wanted to build million-dollar homes on three of the lots and keep the fourth lot for himself.
William Dimattia, a Pecue Lane resident, was among half a dozen opponents of the plan. Dimattia said the proposal had been rejected on three other occasions. He and other residents said the proposal would hurt their property values and result in a domino effect, with other lots being subdivided.
Ellender said he didn't see anything about the proposal that would be for the greater good as only one person would benefit.
© Copyright 2010 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 2009 Capital City Press All Rights Reserved
________________________ ________________________ ______________
hhhhmmmm 240?? ? ?? ?? ?? ??
lol. Well at least one person in this thread (33) knows what he's talking about. :)
-
I dont know his motives any more than I know the motives of the 911 guys.
They were enjoying coke, pork and strippers a week before they blew themselves up.
And religious motive is such a load of brainwashed shit, IMO.
You keep coming at me like I'm defending this religion - and I'm really not. I'm defending the constitution. I'm all for yall picketing them and applying community pressure to tell them to GTFO. But for the GOVT to get involved - and selectively choose which religions can practice where (because of the actions of 19 patsies ten years back) is unconstitional.
It's that simple. Another case of morality and state law not quite lining up.
Here is what the 1st Amendment says
"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."
So what does this mean? It means the government cannot create a religion (i.e. Church of America) and force you to worship there, and/or stop you from worshiping the oak tree in your back yard if you so choose. No where does it say the constitution has to let you build a church, mosque, shrine or anything else for that matter. There is no constitutional right to build a place of worship, it does not exist, period end of story.
Separation of church and state? Where does it say that?
Maybe if people would actually read the constitution, and not just go by all the rhetoric that passes as fact these days.
-
240 buys into any moronic argument in these cases.
-
A mosque there was probably a part of their ultimate plan.
-
Here is what the 1st Amendment says
"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."
So what does this mean? It means the government cannot create a religion (i.e. Church of America) and force you to worship there, and/or stop you from worshiping the oak tree in your back yard if you so choose. No where does it say the constitution has to let you build a church, mosque, shrine or anything else for that matter. There is no constitutional right to build a place of worship, it does not exist, period end of story.
Separation of church and state? Where does it say that?
Maybe if people would actually read the constitution, and not just go by all the rhetoric that passes as fact these days.
Fair enough.. but barring any zoning restrictions already in place, what would be the legal position if they were denied the right to build a church, or a McDonalds, or a Blimpies on that site? Would it delve into the realm of descrimination based on religion?
Secondly, the article said (I have no first hand knowledge) that the mosque would be 2 blocks away and not visible from ground zero. Would 3 blocks be okay? 4?
and finally, almost 10 yrs later and ground zero is still nothing.. where is all the concern about that?
" And now? Now Ground Zero remains virtually empty after almost nine years. "I describe it as a national disgrace," Larry Silverstein, the 78-year-old New York City real estate developer who owns the lease on the property, told Pelley
Pelley wrote in a companion article to the "60 Minutes" segment: "Silverstein and I should have been craning our necks at five skyscrapers, including America's tallest tower. We should have been jostled by commuters surging in and out of a spectacular, $2,000,000,000 train station. And, all around us, there should have been a gentle, cascading sound from the 9/11 memorial, two waterfalls laid out in the footprints of the Twin Towers, a whispering reminder of 2,752 people murdered here.
"But as we stood near the center of the seven-story pit, none of that was here. Nearly nine years after the attack on Manhattan, not one project was finished."
I see both sides of the issue, those against it aren't bad people, those for it aren't bad people. My opinion holds no more value or weight than anyone elses on this board (besides Goodrum). In my opinion, I don't have a problem with it.
-
I am simply pointing out that this has nothing to do with "upholding the constitution" or "separation of church and state". If it is not an enumerated power of the federal government then it is up to the state to decide ( the 10th amendment). So lets just say 80% of the people of New York are against it, then should the government of New York be able to say hey fuck the will of the people we will do what we want?
-
I am simply pointing out that this has nothing to do with "upholding the constitution" or "separation of church and state". If it is not an enumerated power of the federal government then it is up to the state to decide ( the 10th amendment). So lets just say 80% of the people of New York are against it, then should the government of New York be able to say hey fuck the will of the people we will do what we want?
If 51% of New Yorkers said you can't show R rated movies in New York, would that be ok?
If 51% of New Yorkers said you cannot be a Muslim and live in New York, would that be ok?
If 51% of New Yorkers said Hondas are banned in New York would that be ok?
If 51% of New Yorkers said you have to wear a uniform when outside would that be ok?
I'm not a big fan of the majority wins in every case.. I appreciate we have a system that protects the rights of the minority, and keeps the majority in check ..
-
If 51% of New Yorkers said you can't show R rated movies in New York, would that be ok?
If 51% of New Yorkers said you cannot be a Muslim and live in New York, would that be ok?
If 51% of New Yorkers said Hondas are banned in New York would that be ok?
If 51% of New Yorkers said you have to wear a uniform when outside would that be ok?
I'm not a big fan of the majority wins in every case.. I appreciate we have a system that protects the rights of the minority, and keeps the majority in check ..
I don't know the specifics of the New York state constitution, so sure it maybe "OK" for New York to do the above. The beauty of having a republic is if you don't like the laws of the state you live in there are 49 others that may be more to your liking.
-
I don't know the specifics of the New York state constitution, so sure it maybe "OK" for New York to do the above. The beauty of having a republic is if you don't like the laws of the state you live in there are 49 others that may be more to your liking.
Agree. If you disagree with the things are done, work to change the law. If you can't change the law, move.
-
Agree. If you disagree with the things are done, work to change the law. If you can't change the law, move.
Ironically, the law allows for federal judges to step in and change voters wishes.. where do you move to then?
-
Ironically, the law allows for federal judges to step in and change voters wishes.. where do you move to then?
To another state. The ruling only applies to California.
They can also amend their state constitution to get around whatever the judge ruled. Very hard to do, but it still leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the people. From a practical standpoint, however, the men and women in black often have the final say.
-
To another state. The ruling only applies to California.
They can also amend their state constitution to get around whatever the judge ruled. Very hard to do, but it still leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the people. From a practical standpoint, however, the men and women in black often have the final say.
Yeah right! It is the men with the dollar bills in their hand that have the final say.
Had this been a synagogue would there have been a complaint? Of course not... why? because those so called jews would have greased the palms of those necessary to make building the structure no problem. Instead we have LIARS talking about a building being landmarked (why was there no concern about that building or any other being landmarked before the mosque) or the greater lie of landing gears supposedly hitting or landing on the building...LIE LIE LIE... shameful..
Nonetheless the mosque will rise like all other structures and the opinion of the masses will mean nothing.
-
Muslims are the only group that has the audacity to even try something like this, and it has everything to do with the fact that they're the most intolerant and bigoted demographic on the planet.
This mosque is nothing more than a sign of Islamic supremacy over that area. A slap in the faces of the 3,000 people that died that day.
The Japanese wouldn't dare ask that a shrine to Hirohito be built at Pearl Harbor but, then again, they're not assholes. ::)
-
240 doesnt care that he is being played for a useful idiot for the muslims.
This is not a con law issue since no one is denying them their right to pray or worship. nowhere in the constitution does it say you hzve a right to pray whereever whenever and however you want.
-
This is deeply disappointing! This is not about religious tolerance. In fact tolerating religious fanaticism is what gave us 9/11. I have no tolerance for that! If the builders of this mosque feel slighted by my attitude so be it. If they want someone to be mad at let them go be mad at their brethren in their faith who authored or supported 9/11. The symbolism of erecting this mosque on the graves of the victims of 9/11 is unacceptable! >:(
This is more disturbing than Obama's failure to support gay marriage! Shame!
Obama supports plan for mosque near ground zero
At a Ramadan dinner at the White House, the president breaks his silence on the issue, framing it as one of religious freedom.
By Peter Nicholas and Julia Love, Tribune Washington Bureau
President Obama on Friday took a strong stand in favor of building a mosque near the site where Muslim terrorists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, breaking his silence on a political tempest that has left the country divided.
Speaking at a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan, Obama framed the issue as one of religious freedom.
Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama said, according to a White House transcript. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."
The uproar over the proposed mosque has rekindled a debate over religious tolerance in a post-Sept. 11 society. Some relatives of Sept. 11 victims have come out against the mosque, as have prominent politicians.
Republican Rep. Peter T. King of New York said Friday that Obama was wrong.
"It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero," King said in a statement. "While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much.…Unfortunately the president caved into political correctness."
A majority doesn't want to see the mosque built, national surveys show. A CNN/Opinion Research poll earlier this month showed 68% opposed plans to build the mosque, with 29% in favor. Count as part of the minority New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who recently gave a speech defending the planned Islamic center...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-mosque-20100814,0,7153887.story
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=344500.0;attach=379187;image)
I'm not familiar with New York City, but it looks like the Mosque is about two blocks from the World Trade Center Location.
-
this is a weird issue.
the people who are saying govt should stay the hell out of our religion and other business - are the same people saying the govt should put a limit as to how many blocks from ground zero a certain religious group should be able to put up a church of their choosing.
Either you love the constitution, or you don't. You defend it, even when you disagree with those employing it vehemently. You support the right of any religious group - catholic, muslim, protestant, or satanic, or whatever - to put up a church anywhere they please.
For those who say the govt has too much power and should stay out of my life - but should be able to pick and choose which churches can go where based upon the religious beliefs of the founders - wow...
You've got a real knack for outing hypocrisy.
-
Yeah right! It is the men with the dollar bills in their hand that have the final say.
Had this been a synagogue would there have been a complaint? Of course not... why? because those so called jews would have greased the palms of those necessary to make building the structure no problem. Instead we have LIARS talking about a building being landmarked (why was there no concern about that building or any other being landmarked before the mosque) or the greater lie of landing gears supposedly hitting or landing on the building...LIE LIE LIE... shameful..
Nonetheless the mosque will rise like all other structures and the opinion of the masses will mean nothing.
Jews never created Ground zero, Islamic extremists did.
No matter what the law says pyschocologically this is a terrible slap in the face of the USA.
-
Let them build, and make them as uncomfortable as possible?
I can't see how they'll even be able to use their mosque day to day if as many people are really as angry about this as I've heard.
-
You've got a real knack for outing hypocrisy.
Please I already showed his argument of constitutionality is moot. You should actually know what the constitution says before you try to use it to justify something.
-
Jews never created Ground zero, Islamic extremists did.
No matter what the law says pyschocologically this is a terrible slap in the face of the USA.
Of course the jew created GZ...by orchestrating the whole 9/11 DOMESTIC TERRORIST EVENT. Everyone of the participants was handsomely paid from Cheney to Silverstein and YOU became the fodder (soldiers of war) who have been slated fro death to insure that the ZIONIST who orchestrated all of this are paid again still byway of stealing Iraq's OIL, Afghanistan Opium, Heroin, Gas, Oil, and the newly found 3 TRILLION dollars in Gold, silver, Copper etc.
By the way are you at all concerned about the 1.7 Million innocent Iraqis killed based upon the AlQaida/Osama LIE even though your president admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
America slaps its own self in the face
-
Do you care about the 270 million+ non-Muslims of varying faiths and ethnicities that have been murdered by Muslim hands over the course of their 1400 year jihad?
-
Of course the jew created GZ...by orchestrating the whole 9/11 DOMESTIC TERRORIST EVENT. Everyone of the participants was handsomely paid from Cheney to Silverstein and YOU became the fodder (soldiers of war) who have been slated fro death to insure that the ZIONIST who orchestrated all of this are paid again still byway of stealing Iraq's OIL, Afghanistan Opium, Heroin, Gas, Oil, and the newly found 3 TRILLION dollars in Gold, silver, Copper etc.
By the way are you at all concerned about the 1.7 Million innocent Iraqis killed based upon the AlQaida/Osama LIE even though your president admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
America slaps its own self in the face
One more outburst like this, and you will lose your bannana priveliges for one week.
-
Do you care about the 270 million+ non-Muslims of varying faiths and ethnicities that have been murdered by Muslim hands over the course of their 1400 year jihad?
How about the 600 million slaughtered by those calling themselves Christians Catholics
-
Of course the jew created GZ...by orchestrating the whole 9/11 DOMESTIC TERRORIST EVENT. Everyone of the participants was handsomely paid from Cheney to Silverstein and YOU became the fodder (soldiers of war) who have been slated fro death to insure that the ZIONIST who orchestrated all of this are paid again still byway of stealing Iraq's OIL, Afghanistan Opium, Heroin, Gas, Oil, and the newly found 3 TRILLION dollars in Gold, silver, Copper etc.
By the way are you at all concerned about the 1.7 Million innocent Iraqis killed based upon the AlQaida/Osama LIE even though your president admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
America slaps its own self in the face
I dont know what your smoking but it must be good stuff
-
I dont care about any organized "religion", or business designed to brainwash and make profits.
I believe in a higher power which I worship, but I'm pretty sure out primitive minds couldn't comprehend a creator, no matter how over-confident we might be. man-made documents prove nothing, as we're just evolved monkeys to begin with. We don't teach the paper airplane or garden tomato to "understand" us, so our creator sure as heck didn't design us to be able to understand him/her. Heck, we'd probably try to destroy him, let's admit, man is fcked up in that way. We're self-destructive that way.
And really... the moment we evaluate any "religion" - saying one can build and the other cannot - that's a huge problem. If this particular group is evil and aren't citizens, deport them! If they are legal citizens and they don't follow regs/specs, don't let them build. If they are just pricks but not breaking any laws... hey, what can you do? It's america, and the constitution applies to pricks just as much as nice guys.
-
Jews never created Ground zero, Islamic extremists did.
No matter what the law says pyschocologically this is a terrible slap in the face of the USA.
No, they just flew in guys to film it.
Guys who incidently were cheering & high 5'ing each other as the buildings collapsed.
I really don't think Americans should worry about a slap in the face,
when it's so bloody obvious they've been horsekicked in the head!
-
No, they just flew in guys to film it.
Guys who incidently were cheering & high 5'ing each other as the buildings collapsed.
I really don't think Americans should worry about a slap in the face,
when it's so bloody obvious they've been horsekicked in the head!
Jag this is incredable.
Arab extremests planned this carried it out and then took full responisbilty for it.
But later when it becomes a liability just blame the Jews.................... .. WOW ::)
-
Is this true?
NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR GROUND ZERO MOSQUE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 08.29.2011
The ground zero mosque, called Park 51, has applied for a $5 million grant of federal funds from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The Corporation, set up to rebuild lower Manhattan after 9-11 is actively considering the grant request. Imagine! A federal entity set up to rebuild lower Manhattan giving tax money to a mosque designed to celebrate the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans!
The ground zero mosque will offer courses in Shariah Law and will doubtless spawn hundreds of new terrorists eager to pick up where the 9-11 hijackers left off.
Officially, the federal funds would not go to religious activities, but to “fund social service programs for all the residents of Lower Manhattan such as domestic violence prevention, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services,” according to its grant application.
he sponsors of the mosque have no business rubbing the noses of the victims’ families in the dirt by building the mosque right next to the site of 9-11. But there is especially no justification for using our tax money to make it possible.
Please CLICK HERE to sign an online petition to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to urge them to refuse the grant request! Keep some sense of proportion and decency!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/no-federal-funds-for-ground-zero-mosque/
-
The ground zero mosque will offer courses in Shariah Law and will doubtless spawn hundreds of new terrorists eager to pick up where the 9-11 hijackers left off.
Do ALL mosques spawn hundreds of new terrorists?
Or just this one?
-
dick morris, credable source :D :D
-
"a mosque designed to celebrate the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans!"
Aren't they all? Or was this particular one special? Andwhat did mosques celebrate before 9/11?
-
"a mosque designed to celebrate the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans!"
Aren't they all? Or was this particular one special? Andwhat did mosques celebrate before 9/11?
You don't live here and will never understand.
-
You don't live here and will never understand.
33 do you know if they're asking for federal funds?
-
You don't live here and will never understand.
you live on ground zero ::)
-
33 do you know if they're asking for federal funds?
dont know - we are dealing with the bullshit costs now for the rebuilding.
-
Will it actually say "Mosque designed to celebrate the deaths of 3000 americans" on a entry sign? Seems it could be catchier than that..
-
Will it actually say "Mosque designed to celebrate the deaths of 3000 americans" on a entry sign? Seems it could be catchier than that..
The thing is very audacious and gaudy. However, from my visits to GZ lately - Freedom tower is MASSIVE.
The thing is going to be freaking HUGE! So - this stupid ass mosque - which i dont think will ever go up, will be dwarfed into meaninglessness by the sheer force of Freedom Tower.
-
The thing is very audacious and gaudy. However, from my visits to GZ lately - Freedom tower is MASSIVE.
The thing is going to be freaking HUGE! So - this stupid ass mosque - which i dont think will ever go up, will be dwarfed into meaninglessness by the sheer force of Freedom Tower.
and rightly so
-
You don't live here and will never understand.
What planet do you live on?
-
What planet do you live on?
I live in NYC and was at GZ three days after it happened and saw the smoldering ashes and smelled the stench of death and destruction.
Fuck off.
-
-
Bring on the mosque, fu*k you 333 you fool. You're as bad and as intolerant as the fundy's who committed this act.
-
Lmao.
-
Bring on the mosque, fu*k you 333 you fool. You're as bad and as intolerant as the fundy's who committed this act.
Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz a bigot: The latest bigot has self-identified. She poured her filth into the national discourse on last evening’s Larry King Live.
The bigot in question is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Florida. After speaking with other panelists, King sought her view about the mosque which pretty much isn’t a mosque:
KING (8/24/10): Congresswoman Schultz, do you think that Muslim situation in New York will be a national issue?
SCHULTZ: I really don't think it will be a national issue. I think what it boils down to is—it is a case of, just because you can doesn't mean you should. I think the leadership of the mosque and that Muslim community in that area of New York City would be well served to sit down with the leadership in New York and in that community, and work together to build some consensus on an alternative site.
. . . .
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082510.html
She's the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
-
Of course just because you can doesn't mean you should. I don't think the mosque will spawn a bunch of terrorists, nor do I think it will be a place where they hold banquets and celebrate the destruction of the towers and the deaths. But I DO think they should be sensitive enough to the situation to consider other locations.
-
Of course just because you can doesn't mean you should. I don't think the mosque will spawn a bunch of terrorists, nor do I think it will be a place where they hold banquets and celebrate the destruction of the towers and the deaths. But I DO think they should be sensitive enough to the situation to consider other locations.
Agree for the most part. I don't think they have the "right" to build a mosque wherever they want, but even if they did have the right to build it at or near Ground Zero, they shouldn't. I can't imagine most charitable organizations would try and force something like this down the public's throat. Speaks volumes about their motives IMO.
-
The Constitution says they can. It's a really a no-brainer. End of discussion. Whether it is smart to do so is another issue entirely.
-
The Constitution says they can. It's a really a no-brainer. End of discussion. Whether it is smart to do so is another issue entirely.
Which part of the Constitution says they can build a mosque wherever they want?
-
Which part of the Constitution says they can build a mosque wherever they want?
1st Amendment.
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.
-
1st Amendment.
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.
What it doesn't say is a mosque or church can be built anyplace the religious organization wants. Otherwise, zoning laws would be unconstitutional. In most, if not all, communities, churches can be built only where the government says they can be built. Same with schools, stores, strip clubs, houses, etc.
There is nothing in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that will stop those folks from practicing their religion if they are allowed to build in at an alternative site.
-
I always wonder if someone said you couldn't build a Baptist church on that site, what would the same people say about that?
I'm sure that since it's a discussion point they would say that it would be fine, but in reality, if a baptist tried to put a Baptist church there and was told they could not... They would raise holy hell.
-
I always wonder if someone said you couldn't build a Baptist church on that site, what would the same people say about that?
I'm sure that since it's a discussion point they would say that it would be fine, but in reality, if a baptist tried to put a Baptist church there and was told they could not... They would raise holy hell.
Life would be simpler without religion.