Richard B the EMT Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 I thought it was bigger news in NYC so I assumed you may have more information Herbie1, I'm kind of laughing at that comment, but with no offense intended. I spent my first 11 years in municipal EMS working in Headquarters (EMD area). Where and when did I find out what was going on? Talking face to face with the field crews when I was off duty! Something about not seeing the forest for the trees?
tniuqs Posted August 19, 2010 Author Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) 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." Unfortunately the government is now involved from the neighborhood crime watch to your President, and this proposed building has hit dang every mainstream news media in the world. Even Obama has now modified his juxtaposition on the WISDOM of this proposed building and its location. BUT At the end of the day in this discussion one must ask themselves just one question: Have the "moderate" Muslims accomplished what they have supposedly set out to do ? That being; promote peace and understanding for their religion, demonstrating the sensitivity and tolerance of others. Masha'Allah Edited August 19, 2010 by tniuqs
uglyEMT Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 A NY Post article states that the persons wanting to build this mosque will possibly get funds from Iran. This is turning into a shyt storm in a huge way. What happens if its funded by them? Does this act as a game changer? I dont know enough to comment either way. Do I think its right? On the fence. Do I want to see it happen? No. With all the places available to them I think this location is just asking for trouble. I can see the protests, violence, crimes now that would arise if this is placed where it is. One thing that does strike me is this... the folks wanting to build seem hell bend on putting it here almost to the point of rejecting everything that would scare a normal developer away. Seems there is an agenda behind the scenes and that I do not like.
JPINFV Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 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? 2
Lone Star Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) 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? St Nicholas shouldn't have to be relocated for the simple fact that it was there BEFORE 9/11. The mosque is an addition AFTER the disaster. Secondly, no radical arm of the Greek Orthodox church was responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center. Third, The Greek Orthodox Church isn't stating their desire to convert the world to their religion. Additionally, I haven't seen any articles, comments or other forms of protest or disention about THAT house of worship being rebuilt where it originally was. 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). *Edited to correct grammatical error* Edited August 19, 2010 by Lone Star
JPINFV Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 St Nicholas shouldn't have to be relocated for the simple fact that it was there BEFORE 9/11. The mosque is an addition AFTER the disaster. 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. Secondly, no radical arm of the Greek Orthodox church was responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center. Third, The Greek Orthodox Church isn't stating their desire to convert the world to their religion. Additionally, I haven't seen any articles, comments or other forms of protest or disention about THAT house of worship being rebuilt where it originally was. Collective punishment is awesome isn't it. Should there be no Christian Churches in the South because of the KKK? Same concept, after all. 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). *Edited to correct grammatical error* 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.
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 19, 2010 Posted August 19, 2010 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? I am NOT certain this will happen. Just speculating What rights are being given away by letting the mosque be built? You seem to think that I am totally against this being JP. I have never said I am against this being built. I don't agree with their location but I do not believe we should stop it from being built. I don't think any of us should dictate what someone should build on their own private property. It's their right unless zoning laws prohibit it from happening. I think that they need to think about moving the site but sorry, I don't think we can or should force them to build the mosque elsewhere. On another note - I was reading that from where the building is being sited cannot even see ground zero from the location. One other thing, from what other things I'm hearing and reading, they mosque doesn't have any of the permits and they are having a terrible time finding companies to agree to do the work for them. They have no plans drawn up because they cannot find a architect to do the plans for them. They do not have a construction company because they cannot find any construction company to agree to work for them. This mosque will be built, sorry to say, this will be built where they have planned it but it will be plenty of time before it's even started. for those who demand it to be moved or just not built all together, you have lots and lots of time to get your indians in a circle and begin to file lawsuits to keep it from being built. If we take away their rights to build this on their own private property then we effectively take away all of our rights to build on private property. When we take this right away to keep a business from building in a certain location just because the building is an offensive thing, we have effectively given up the right to do what we want with our private property. That right when given away will be very very difficult to get back. That was the right I was referring to JP Please don't assume things.
JPINFV Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 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
Lone Star Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 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. 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. First off, nothing I've read shows that the Port Authority was REQUIRED to give anything to anyone. The Port Authority donated that land and money to relocate the Christian church. It has no say in the community center at all. From what I read, the Port Authority retracted the offer when the church wanted to look over plans for the 'vehicle screening area' that was to be located beneath the church. Explain to me (and others) WHY the Christian Church should be REQUIRED to move from it's original location to some place that they have to put in a 'special blastproof basement'! Explain to us why you think that it's alright for the 'muslim community center' to eclipse the height of the WTC monument, but the Christian church that was there before the WTC was felled can't. 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.
JPINFV Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 First off, nothing I've read shows that the Port Authority was REQUIRED to give anything to anyone. The Port Authority donated that land and money to relocate the Christian church. It has no say in the community center at all. From what I read, the Port Authority retracted the offer when the church wanted to look over plans for the 'vehicle screening area' that was to be located beneath the church. 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. Explain to me (and others) WHY the Christian Church should be REQUIRED to move from it's original location to some place that they have to put in a 'special blastproof basement'! 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. Explain to us why you think that it's alright for the 'muslim community center' to eclipse the height of the WTC monument, but the Christian church that was there before the WTC was felled can't. 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.
Recommended Posts