JPINFV

Again, show me where the Community Board said anything about the church. Here's your sources: Port Authority: Mentioned. Community Board: Not mentioned. Port Authority: Not mentioned. Community Board: Mentioned. So... um... yea. Different entities have different jurisdictions and different rules. Furthermore, since apparently the community board had no jurisdiction over new religious buildings, then I agree that it should have abstained. Of course it abstaining would have not changed the current situation at all, which really makes the community board a non-issue since their ruling either way was legally irrelevant. Additionally, you're missing a very important part of your source. The Port Authority is telling them to limit the size if built on their parcel. A proper quote regarding the limitation would be: Emphasis added. Sequence of events according to your article. Port Authority offers land and money. Church submits plans. Port Authority denies plans to build on Port Authority land because they don't like the size of the church in relation to other structures planned for the site. Deal eventually falls apart. What your saying is: Church wants to rebuild on it's own property. Port Authority says "No" Your sequence of events is not supported by your source nor does it support that the Port Authority is telling the church what to do on the church's land. If they own the land that they were originally on, then they need to take New York to court for denial of due process. Are you saying that all sources are the same? So anyone who posts anything online is automatically correct until proven otherwise? Is the National Enquirer and the Wall Street Journal equals? Again, I'd love to know who their source is and why no one has picked up on that aspect of the story. I'm not going to apologize for not giving weight to a columnist (not a reporter) for posting a date that she hasn't sourced. It's the equivalent of using an online blog as a source and then asking for evidence contrary to a conspiracy theory. The fact that absolutely zero news articles (as in not a columnist) actually report that date alone should prove something.

I'd say that 70% of New Yorkers are bigots for equating all Muslims to terrorists. If the majority of Muslims weren't considered to be terrorists, then it shouldn't be a problem.

So you'd like to retract the following comment then? "Again, what I find 'odd' here is that the zoning board (or whatever municipal diety is responsible)is throwing every roadblock they can at the Christians, and yet are bending over backwards to accomodate the mosque (which can't even verify it's funding) in the name of 'tolerance and acceptance (and any other politically correct term you can think of)." After all, the only "road blocks" are really just stipulations on a donation that eventually fell through and the Port Authority isn't really doing, well, any bending either for or against the community center. Apparently they were bending over backwards to support the reconstruction of the church (through money and land), but the church didn't like the requirements that came with otherwise free money and land. Show me where the church owns the land it was on and that the Port Authority is requiring them to move. If they don't own the land, then they are more than free to go buy a plot nearby and rebuild without the Port Authority's rules. If they want a spot on Port Authority land, then they have to follow the Port Authority's rules. If the Port Authority is preventing them from rebuilding on their own land, then they need to take the Port Authority to court. Show me where I said that it's alright for the church to have restrictions placed on it's own land. Note: "own land" and "land to be donated by" are two completely different things. Why should I care about any building being taller than the memorial? It's not like the memorial is going to be the tallest structure in New York. As far as the height, I don't care if either building is taller than the memorial. Last time I checked, there are plenty of buildings larger than either the memoral or the proposed Explain why it's 'acceptable' for the community center to be as large as it wants, while the Christian church is limited in it's dimensions. It's not the Port Authority that has any say about the church OR the community center. The approving board from the City of New York is the one that has no authority in granting the zoning for the community center and/or ANY religious matters.

I'm not one normally for the talking heads on cable news channels, but this commentary hit the nail on the head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0&feature=player_embedded

However the mosque is bad because it's a little distance away from Ground Zero, but no one wants to set a minimum distance. How many blocks away is "enough?" 3? 4? Oh, wait, there's already a mosque 4 blocks away. Additionally, what's stopping the church from buying a plot of land and building the church using their own money. "Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers -- we never did. We're still expecting to hear from them," he told Fox News. "We're disappointed. ... 130 Liberty Street was promised to us." Arey was referring to the address, about 100 yards away from the original site, where the government earlier proposed relocating the church. The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath." -http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/leaders-disappointed-government-declares-deal-rebuild-ground-zero-church-dead/ Why should the Port Authority be required to give land AND money to build a church? Last time I checked, the Port Authority isn't given money or land to build the mosque. It isn't that the Port Authority is refusing to allow the church to rebuild. They're refusing to help them rebuild. Sorry, but if I'm going to give you money and land, I have every right to attach what ever strings I want to it. You can take the deal or not, but it isn't the same as preventing you from rebuilding on your own land. Collective punishment is awesome isn't it. Should there be no Christian Churches in the South because of the KKK? Same concept, after all. Show me where the Port Authority (the agency refusing to give land and money to rebuild the church) gave any sort of endorsement to the mosque? Alternatively, show me where the Port Authority has any control over the mosque. Without showing that the Port Authority has any control at all over where the mosque is currently planned to be built at, then this argument doesn't work. Boards can't operate outside of their jurisdiction. Alternatively, would it be fair to blame you because someone died 5 cities over? There's a big difference between land you own and land you don't own, and it seems like the church doesn't own the land it was originally built on and certainly doesn't own the land where the Port Authority is refusing to let them rebuild on.

In regards a few pages back about St. Nicholas and the separate issue that there's a mosque already 4 blocks from Ground Zero, can the following comment be made? There's already several Christian churches in the vicinity around Ground Zero. Why do they need another Christian Church so close? Can't they put it elsewhere?

If the argument is "can" then we have enough. If the argument is "should" then we don't. The discussion about "can" and the discussion about "should" are two different discussions. The only discussion that should involve the government is the discussion about "can."

"In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office. Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms." It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture. " Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/685071

Care to elaborate on that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100816/pl_yblog_upshot/news-outlets-split-in-describing-mosque Emphasis added.

2 different boards. The board that "approved" the mosque was a historical building board that basically gave permission to destroy the current building. The Greek Orthodox church is fighting the Port Authority. Unless I'm missing where the Port Authority gave their blessing for construction of the mosque. Different boards have different jurisdictions and may make different rulings. Otherwise it's like a police officer complaining that the military police don't follow the same rules. I do agree that it might be time for the Greek Orthodox church to get a few constitutional lawyers.

Has the church tried obtaining a building to convert two blocks away and not on Port Authority land? Based on the article, it sounds like it was going to be built on Port Authority land over an underground screening area, hence, unlike owning the actual property, they are under constraints of the land lord, even if the land lord was willing to extend a long term cheap/free lease. It might suck, but if the land isn't yours or there's a line differentiating laws and rules between one side of the street and another, then additional politics come into play. I've seen nothing to indicate that the mosque is on land owned or controlled by the Port Authority.

If by "in their corner" I hope you don't mean that to include the government refusing to step in and stop it. What makes you certain that this will ever happen? What rights are being given away by letting the mosque be built?

I don't agree with that article, mostly because an acceptable correlation is that an ER tech is as valuable than a physician or nurse solely because the ER tech can concentrate on "BLS." "BLS" (I use quotes because anyone failing "BLS" is failing at patient care) isn't "lost" because a provider has more than 120 hours of training and a pharmaceutical tool bag that goes past supplemental oxygen.

Not quite. First, the 14th amendment expands rights past limiting specifically "congress" to limiting the states as well, and in practice cities (see McDonald v Chicago for Chicago's attempted end run around the 2nd Amendment, Skokie for the 1st Amendment, and plenty of other times where cities attempted to restrict the rights of citizens). Additionally, eminent domain won't work either. The Cottonwood Christian Center vs City of Cypress that I quoted earlier was a case where a city in Southern California attempted to use eminent domain for the purpose of redevelopment against a plot of land bought by a church to build a bigger house of worship. Cypress was shot down and in the end settled by trading a larger plot of land elsewhere, but they were still shot down in a court of law. I'm willing to bet that Bloomberg knows that using ED in this case for this reason is so far contrary to the Constitution that he won't even float the idea.

Then people need to stop running to the government in an attempt to stop it, which has been my point the entire time.

Considering that we're talking American values, which supposedly includes pesky things like rights and the rule of law, and considering that you don't seem to care about those things, I don't see how this conversation can go anywhere but circles, especially since you apparently want to ignore things like rights and due process. You know what's really strange. Apparently people think that because I'm against government intervention I'm for the mosque. I'd like to find someone find where I said that they should build it there, just that they legally could. You mean like the cultural center a short 8 miles from the USS Arizona memorial? So less distance if you just want to go to Hickam airfield or just the border of the actual harbor? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=japanese+culture&sll=21.308247,-157.842121&sspn=0.075165,0.154324&ie=UTF8&hq=japanese+culture&hnear=&ll=21.310166,-157.842121&spn=0.071166,0.154324&z=13&iwloc=A Alternatively, how dare the Pacific Aviation Museum in the middle of Pearl Harbor include such things as authetic Japanese Zeros in their exhibits, including one on a Japanese carrier setting. In fact, according to the website, it's the first thing seen when a visitor enters the exhibit space. ZOMG USA!USA!USA!USA! http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/exhibits/info.html

So is it a right or not? If its a right, then the government can't not allow it for just one religion, just as the government can't not allow political speech from one side of the political spectrum.

Not asking for a ban because one CAN worship in a Barn if one choses, does one need a symbol of one religion to worship .... hence my point. So go worship in a barn then, no one is stopping you. "That definition of "substantial burden" is insufficient. Preventing a church from building a worship site fundamentally inhibits its ability to practice its religion. Churches are central to the religious exercise of most religions. If Cottonwood could not build a church, it could not exist." Cottonwood Christian Center v City of Cypress. http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/landuselaw/cottonwood.htm Your kidding Right ? OMG thats an moronic statement if ever I saw one . So the constitution gets suspended at the pleasure of the population? Why have a constitution then, especially one with a bill of rights? Is it right to disrespect an entire country and it values and thumb your nose at an atrocity? Who gets to defend what is and is not an atrocity? Where do we end? Do we ban any remotely positive reference to the Confederate States of America? What other atrocity is big enough to limit the rights of citizens? Alternatively, what level is too low to not limit? Yes when it promotes hate, and where are the neo nazi skinheads in this debate they have rights too ? Do I need to link National Socialist Party v Skokie again? HUH your what is legal vs what is right is so screwed up, then again most radical liberals are. Really? I'm a radical liberal? That's pretty funny actually. When people try to get the government involved, what is legal and what is right is one and the same. I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't protest. However using the government shouldn't be used as a tool of the mob. Ok so democratic process is wrong I guess ? The democratic process (which, for the record, we're a republic) has limits. Should I link the US Constitution for you? Those things limited in amendments (of which, the first 10 are called the Bill of Rights for a reason) aren't up for a majority vote for a reason. Lately ABSOLUTELY, political correctness is totally abused, and used to advocate the whim of a minority based on Christian values of "tolerance" I didn't realize that the first amendment had to do about tolerance. I thought it had to do with the fact that either something was a right or not, and once infringement of said right begins, there is no stopping it. YUP, perhaps you need a history lesson ? If you're pulling the "we're all immigrants" card, sorry, my lineage may include immigrants, but I was born in Fountain Valley, California in 1985. I am not an immigrant. While I'm not Muslim, I do doubt that all Muslims were born outside of the US. Oh, for the record, the Native Americans were immigrants too. Land bridge and all. And I bet you don't own a gun either ... pity. My Winchester M1300. Let me show it to you. Also, now that I live near a shotgun range, I actually go shoot trap about once a week (I'll probably start shooting skeet too once my game improves a bit. As a shooter, I'm sure you know the difference between trap, wobble trap, skeet, 5 stand, sporting clays, and other types of shooting sports too, correct?) How often do you go shooting? Also, since when did shooting become the only symbol of a true blooded American man? And against the teachings of the Koran, stone them for they must be adulterous ! Yea, and I don't eat kosher meals, as prescribed in the Old Testament (which, last time I checked, was still a part of the Catholic bible), your point? Amazingly enough, even members of the same religion, hell, event he same specific faction of a religion, don't all believe in the exact same interpretation of said religion. OMG then marriage is definatly out of the equation, shucks and I was looking for a liberal minded women to wed. ... err... what now? Perhaps .. are you in the military and do have a shrink located in Texas ? Nope, but I didn't realize that terrorists only attacked the military (actually, isn't that kinda of the opposite of a terrorist?). Have the radical orthodox Jews attacked the economic infrastructure of North America ? Nope, but they make a heck of a great corned beef on rye know quality diamonds and I would travel a 3000 kms to get to a good deli, besides the fact that Jewish chicks are hot ! Depends on which brand of tin foil hat you are. There are definitly conspiracy theories about the Jews attack the economy of the US for personal gain.

My response is to pray that I'm killed in the initial explosion.

It only matters to people who think that the Koran is alone in seeming to promote violence. Let's see NY attempt to ban the construction of a church or synagogue then. However, I get the sense that the problem isn't a religious building near ground zero, but the religion said building supports. Emphasis added for last comment in this quote section. What is right and a question of rights is the same thing. Is it ever right to violate a citizen's rights? If someone's political speech offend me, do I get the right to go to the government to shut them up? What if it really really really offends me? If a US citizen is really really bad, does Congress earn the ability to pass a bill of retainer against the really really bad person? If rights only exist on the immediate whim of the majority, then what good are rights? Does the majority really need to have their "rights" protected? Does one group of "radical Muslims" now represent all Muslims? Are you implying that all Muslims are immigrants? First, I lack a second X chromosome. Second, not all Muslim women wear burkas. Third, I'm Catholic, not Muslim. Are you suggesting that you have to be of a group to support the constitutional rights of a group? Do I need to be concerned of my Muslim classmates, especially the ones who wear hijabs, are going to try to kill me? Similarly, should I be concerned that my Jewish classmates, especially the ones who wear yamakas, are going to try to scam me out of money?

Anyone want to play a game of "Guess the religion?" Which religion(s) does the following quote come from?

I like the concept of dual paramedic ALS units for the same reason that Rock said. More higher trained eyes looking out for the patient and catching oversights and mistakes. If one provider can't, the other can give it a shot. The ability to bounce ideas off one another. These are things not possible for a paramedic/EMT unit. There's a reason why EDs aren't staffed with a handful more physicians than there currently all and a bunch of ED techs. Saying this, though, it's hard to argue that "ZOMG lives are at risk" in a state where only one or two regions require dual paramedic and the majority of the companies running IFT calls already have a wavier from that requirement for non-emergency calls. If Massachusetts wants to pull the "lives are at risk" card, why are they already permitting the majority of ambulance companies to operate in the EMT/paramedic setup?

Irrelevant as this is not Saudi Arabia. I highly doubt that there's anything in the Saudi government that guarantees freedom of religion like there is in the US.

Article on JEMS: http://www.jems.com/article/news/new-hampshire-ems-blogger-runs