Now for a different kind of protest...

[Darbex]

correct me if i am wrong but i believer it its the right if americans to practice religion but it isn't a right to put a church where ever you want.

[jeebus]

I would be opposed to putting a taoist or buddhist temple on the shores of pearl harbor. or the radical churches the ok city bomber belongs to across the street from the federal building he bombed

That was almost 70 years ago. I would have no issues with such a structure now. I'm sure my father and his father would have taken issue with it though. What I would take issue, three generations removed, would be a Kamikaze museum that would be built to honor and glorify the cowardly tactics of Japanese fighter pilots. That's just me though.

As for McVeigh, he wasn't a member of a radical church, he was just Catholic. That being said, he didn't kill in the name of God while standing behind the principles of a religion that teaches intolerance to those who don't share their faith. In fact, Christianity actually teaches the opposite - its just not always practiced and practiced. Ironically its the same exact case for Islam, only reversed. Islam teaches intolerance for those who don't practice Islam; its just not always preached and practiced.

correct me if i am wrong but i believer it its the right if americans to practice religion but it isn't a right to put a church where ever you want.

You have the same rights as anyone else to build, buy, and occupy any space with in accordance to local, state, and federal regulations. A mosque falls within those same rules that govern an occupancy of any other religion.

[Darbex]

Show me where we are given the right to build where ever we want what ever we want. In the constitution we are given the express right to practice religion without persecution. I thought I read that McVeigh joined a radical christian group after the Waco siege that harbored aggression towards our federal government. I will have to research this later.

[jeebus]

Show me where we are given the right to build where ever we want what ever we want.

I'm not sure who you are asking this of or what exactly you are looking for in an answer? Who's opinion are you challenging?

I thought I read that McVeigh joined a radical christian group after the Waco siege that harbored aggression towards our federal government. I will have to research this later.

He disassociated himself with all his friends and family and became (in his mind) a constitutionalist patriot. Religion never came to bear on his decisions as far as I've read. It was his hatred for big government and what he felt were its oppressive actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco that drove him.

[Darbex]

Not looking for opinion. I am looking for where explicitly it states we have the right to build anything anywhere. I can only find implied by peoples opinion but unlike the right to religion which is explicitly stated I didnt know the right to build was.

[jeebus]

Oh, okay. I couldn't tell if someone stated that here (which I couldn't find) and you were directly challenging them to prove their statement. We don't have the right to build anything we want, anywhere we want it. We are bound by local, state, and federal laws established by local zoning boards up to the EPA.

The mosque cleared all legal hurdles though, and has every legal "right" to build there however. The only thing I could see stopping them is if whomever is responsible for zoning in Manhattan passed an ordinance prohibiting any religious center not already built or occupied from being with in so many blocks of ground zero. Anything else done would most likely be lost in a lawsuit by the mosque.

[wesleydnunder]

Oh, okay. I couldn't tell if someone stated that here (which I couldn't find) and you were directly challenging them to prove their statement. We don't have the right to build anything we want, anywhere we want it. We are bound by local, state, and federal laws established by local zoning boards up to the EPA.

The mosque cleared all legal hurdles though, and has every legal "right" to build there however. The only thing I could see stopping them is if whomever is responsible for zoning in Manhattan passed an ordinance prohibiting any religious center not already built or occupied from being with in so many blocks of ground zero. Anything else done would most likely be lost in a lawsuit by the mosque.

+1

If there is no specific ordinance prohibiting its location there, they're gonna have a real hard time disallowing this.

Mark

[Darbex]

Well democrats and NY local leaders are about to alienate their constituents if they let this through. Nearly 65% of New Yorkers disapprove of the mosque and 70% of all Americans disapprove. This is a New York that leans heavily democrat and they dont even agree with the party.

[wesleydnunder]

Well democrats and NY local leaders are about to alienate their constituents if they let this through. Nearly 65% of New Yorkers disapprove of the mosque and 70% of all Americans disapprove. This is a New York that leans heavily democrat and they dont even agree with the party.

If it was always about what's most popular, we wouldn't have an electoral college. Also, NY politicians may have a problem alienating their constituencies. If they really do then they differ from the rest of the democrats.

Mark

[marauder_77868]

I would think you could make a legal challenge to this mosque much the same way that freedom of speech is limited by the "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument. The argument there is you can't endanger the public or incite them to endanger themselves. The mosque is being built there as a means of radicals thumbing their noses at us. It could be argued that the feelings are so high that its presence in that location would, right or wrong, incite violence. And in that case, public good, as a precedence, perhaps trumps the constitutional right, or at least it has historically.

[marauder_77868]

[wesleydnunder]

I would think you could make a legal challenge to this mosque much the same way that freedom of speech is limited by the "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument. The argument there is you can't endanger the public or incite them to endanger themselves. The mosque is being built there as a means of radicals thumbing their noses at us. It could be argued that the feelings are so high that its presence in that location would, right or wrong, incite violence. And in that case, public good, as a precedence, perhaps trumps the constitutional right, or at least it has historically.

OK Charles, with that logic then we should outlaw Gay Pride Parades, Black Panther Rallies, Nazi Rallies, abortion clinics and anything else that will incite someone to violence. That thinking is the other side of the coin of the "Pappa knows best" attitude that the Dems and the current administration are using right now. 40 years ago in Ireland people were afraid to build Catholic churches in Protestant areas for fear of terrorism and vice versa. Not doing something which is not prohibited by law out of fear is giving in to that fear. If violence ensues, maybe something will finally be brought to bear before the local governments in this country allow entire neighborhoods to be governed by Islamic law, like they have in France and Canada.

Mark

[Delock]

I thought polls was not allowed in here?

[Delock]

Do you really think radical Muslims is funding this project?

[wesleydnunder]

Do you really think radical Muslims is funding this project?

Probably no way of knowing for sure, D. Just like there's no way to know if Mob money ever went to fund Catholic Church.

Mark