Panel Clears Way For Mosque Near Ground Zero

[240 is Back]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[240 is Back]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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 is Back]

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. 

[Fury]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.  

[240 is Back]

"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.

[240 is Back]

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? 

[Fury]

"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.

[Soul Crusher]

"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.  

[Fury]

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?

[240 is Back]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.  

[240 is Back]

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?

[Fury]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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?? ?  ?? ?? ??      ??

[Soul Crusher]

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."

[Fury]

According to 240, you can build a house of worship anywhere, anytime. The Constitution says so! 

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[225for70]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.

 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

 

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Kazan]

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.