JPINFV Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 I have no idea what McDonalds vs Chicago is aboot ? (well ok I looked but how this has any bearing on this issue I fail to see. (I do believe every non-criminal should have a gun. btw) Frankly when we need Laywers / Judges to "interpret" the "intent" of the Laws, then we do have a real problem right here in River City. ps and oh yea O.J. didn't do it pfft. Your statement about slavery is kinda out in left field, although I am a slave to pay taxes perhaps we as a majority should take a vote on we want a reduction in tax ... anyone on board for that referendum ? AS IF. But confusing mob rule = democratic process is way over the edge of rational thought process. My personal bottom line is I am totally fed up with political correctness / appeasement of special interest groups when the feelings and wishes of the majority is blown off like a leaf in the wind. Just what issue becomes the "end point" ? The idea that Happi notes of Sept 11 being the grand opening confirms the initial post was quite correct "A Slap in the Face" cheers The point to the slavery and McDonald v Chicago is that the majority can't overturn the rights retained to the people, which includes freedom of religion. If it could be proved (which I imagine would be fairly easy in this case) that the issue resolves around not religion in general, but one specific religion in particular, then denying the opportunity to build a mosque is a blatant violation of first amendment protection. The government, be it by direct action of the people or by action of the elected representatives, can't say, "It's not that we have a problem with a house of worship on this site. We just have a problem with your specific religion building a house of worship here." As far as the NY Post article, I'd like to see that date in something that doesn't seem written like an opinion piece.
Lone Star Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 The point to the slavery and McDonald v Chicago is that the majority can't overturn the rights retained to the people, which includes freedom of religion. If it could be proved (which I imagine would be fairly easy in this case) that the issue resolves around not religion in general, but one specific religion in particular, then denying the opportunity to build a mosque is a blatant violation of first amendment protection. The government, be it by direct action of the people or by action of the elected representatives, can't say, "It's not that we have a problem with a house of worship on this site. We just have a problem with your specific religion building a house of worship here." As far as the NY Post article, I'd like to see that date in something that doesn't seem written like an opinion piece. First off, before we start throwing our hands in the air and screaming about first amendment violations and religious persecution, let's look at a few things objectively. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) principle has been a very effective tactic to date. 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.1 Nowhere in the articles have I read anything about the resriction of religion or it's practices. I don't recal the approval of any other religious structure being approved in that area, specifically cited as a move toward 'unity'. With that in mind, even denying the mosque to be built in this area is not 'discriminatory'. Even if you want to try to cover this under freedom of speech, that protection will only get you so far, because there are case laws about 'inciting to riot', causing panic (shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre), etc. No one is restricting the right of the people to peaceably assemble either. Looking at the location, the type of building proposed and it's use; not to mention it's 'Grand Opening' date, one can conclude that this group has in fact excluded itself from the protections of the first amendment simply due to the fact that these actions are only meant to gloat, antagonize and rip open the wounds that were created on September 11th The Financial District Committee of Community Board 1 seems to have gotten ensnared in a public-relations ploy by mosque-makers. At a May 5 meeting, the committee gave the project an enthusiastic thumbs-up. But boards have zero say over religious institutions.2 Apparently, The Financial District Committee of Community Board 1 seems to have overstepped their bounds here, which would probably negate any 'permissions' to build this mosque in the first place. Unclear is how the mosque will raise the $100 million-plus it needs. "We would be seeking funding from anyone who would help," Khan told me. "Seeking maybe some bonds or something like that." At the May 5 community board meeting, she displayed a sign with names like "Rockefeller Brothers Fund" and "Ford Foundation," which observers believed meant money is coming from those organizations. But Khan says those groups merely gave money in the past, and no funding is yet in place.3 1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ 2Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL#ixzz0w1fbBIt0 3Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL/1#ixzz0w1h5gQcL
HERBIE1 Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 I've seen the mention countless times about folks not objecting to the mosque, but WHERE they want to build it. I've said the same thing dozens of times since I first heard about the plans. Let them build a dozen mosques- just not in the shadow of the former WTC's. Couple that with this Iman's stated views of that day(ie he thinks the US government was complicit in the attack), the fact that they want the grand opening on 9/11, that the guy wrote a book that claimed that day was essentially a call to a jihad for Muslims- and this is just plain wrong. It's not about being intolerant of a religion, it's about the US bending over backwards to appear PC and tolerant. It's morally and ethically wrong. Look for huge trouble in NYC- and possibly elsewhere- if this project ever gets off the ground.
JPINFV Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 First off, before we start throwing our hands in the air and screaming about first amendment violations and religious persecution, let's look at a few things objectively. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) principle has been a very effective tactic to date. Nowhere in the articles have I read anything about the resriction of religion or it's practices. I don't recal the approval of any other religious structure being approved in that area, specifically cited as a move toward 'unity'. With that in mind, even denying the mosque to be built in this area is not 'discriminatory'. Even if you want to try to cover this under freedom of speech, that protection will only get you so far, because there are case laws about 'inciting to riot', causing panic (shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre), etc. That's going to be an extremely tough sell. After all applying that standard, could you explain how SCOTUS came to the opposite decision essentially with National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie? A bunch of neo-nazis having a parade pretty much anywhere, but especially in a largely Jewish town seems like something that would raise to the 'inciting a riot' level, however SCOTUS found in the neo-nazi's favor. Similarly, it doesn't meet the "fire in a theater" test. Per Schenck v United States the test is ""The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." How would the mosque be a clear and present danger? (note before anyone starts yelling about how it only mentions "Congress," read the 14th amendment). Also see Brandenburg v Ohio. Essentially, inflammatory speech isn't illegal unless it reaches the point of inciting immediate lawless action. No one is restricting the right of the people to peaceably assemble either. Looking at the location, the type of building proposed and it's use; not to mention it's 'Grand Opening' date, one can conclude that this group has in fact excluded itself from the protections of the first amendment simply due to the fact that these actions are only meant to gloat, antagonize and rip open the wounds that were created on September 11th Apparently, The Financial District Committee of Community Board 1 seems to have overstepped their bounds here, which would probably negate any 'permissions' to build this mosque in the first place. 1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ 2Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL#ixzz0w1fbBIt0 3Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL/1#ixzz0w1h5gQcL Again, do you have a source that isn't written as an opinion piece? When a supposed news article includes lines like, "All of a sudden, even members of the community board that stupidly green-lighted the mosque this month are tearing their hair out," it leads me to believe that said article lacks any sort of journalistic ability. Also, I love how the author fail to cite a source for the Sept. 11 opening date. We're supposed to just take her word on it? 1
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 11, 2010 Posted August 11, 2010 Now the organizer of the New York Mosque is going to Bahrain and other Middle Eastern Countries on the State Department's dime. Thoughts on this?
tniuqs Posted August 14, 2010 Author Posted August 14, 2010 Well most interesting a ex civil rights lawyer is supporting the building of a mosque at ground zero, I am a believer that one can worship Dogs if they wish, as long as it does not immediately affect me, but to ignore the feelings of "other" america's is beyond ration comprehension. His Name you ask ? Barack Hussein Obama II, why he would even voice an opinion is to gain the "votes" of the minorities AGAIN. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-14/obama-backs-group-s-right-to-build-mosque-in-new-york.html Your President as our Prime Minister wishes to with draw troops in Iraq / Afghanistan ... just what does a "rational man / women" believe will happen when the armed liberators withdraw ? "I am from the government and I am here to help" this keeps echoing in my head, this latest stamp of approval will lead to more harm than good in the long run in this "equalist's" opinion. “Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right,”
crotchitymedic1986 Posted August 14, 2010 Posted August 14, 2010 What if the City of New York is smarter than we think ? What if they did this as an insurance policy; as long as their is a mosque near ground zero, it will never be bombed by muslims again. As far as those who cry "hypocricy", this is no different than illegal immigration from Mexico. The Mexican Goverment screams every time something happens to slow down illegal immigration in to the US, but they have a very different, more strict policy when it comes to illegal aliens getting IN to their country. When these sorry ass Muslim Terrorists allow us to build a Baptist Church in Mecca, I will allow a mosque (code word for terrorist training camp) at Ground Zero. I say instead of deer season, we have Muslim hunting season: You get $100.00 for every bullet-idden burka you turn in.
JPINFV Posted August 14, 2010 Posted August 14, 2010 When these sorry ass Muslim Terrorists allow us to build a Baptist Church in Mecca, 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.
chbare Posted August 14, 2010 Posted August 14, 2010 I don't know bro, people didn't seem to have any qualms about blowing up mosques in the mother land, nevermind the United States. Perhaps the Middle East and East has changed since I lived there? Take care, chbare.
JPINFV Posted August 15, 2010 Posted August 15, 2010 Anyone want to play a game of "Guess the religion?" Which religion(s) does the following quote come from? But that prophet or that dreamer shall be put to death, because, in order to lead you astray from the way which the LORD, your God, has directed you to take, he has preached apostasy from the LORD, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and ransomed you from that place of slavery. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.
Recommended Posts