Obama and the NYC "Ground Zero" Mosque

[jackson33]

You said that no conservative "is worried about private property rights in this case". "No" is an absolute -- you spoke for all conservatives -- and therefore required a response. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; If you wish a re-statement, objections to a Mosque at "Ground Zero" are NOT based on property rights. I don't care what kind of conservative they are, or in fact liberal, Muslim or anything else, if they object it's based on some principle other than a right to build the Mosque.

 

I'm not arguing against their right to object, I'm arguing against their objection. Which, as you just said, is my right to do. [/Quote]

 

Of course you have a right to object to those objections, but your foundation is flawed...

 

I guess question #2 is: Is building the mosque a good idea? My opinion is that it's not a good idea, but that it has to be allowed. As Jon Stewart pointed out the other night, there's another mosque in the neighborhood so it's not exactly a new thing. The only problem with it is that it's unnecessarily provocative.[/Quote]

 

If that Mosque had not existed before 9-11, you or Mr. Stewart might have a point, but it was there and 9-11 then happened, which changed everything.

 

I've already gone through the list of millions, then through today, that in some manner felt violated (unnecessary provocation), then to in any manner, however seen, to reward those that approved and carried out that attack is a simple extension of that violation, I'll say IMO, but this includes probably a billion people around the World that had been, have been or are being subjected to the same GROUP, that performed on 9-11.

 

And I noticed that you didn't acknowledge that the 1st Amendment is a direct refutation to your statement that the Islamic religion and culture are not compatible with the Constitution. Darned inconvenient at times, that Constitution. [/Quote]

 

Keep in mind, we're talking about a significant portion of one Religion, with an even larger portion that feels Sharia Law should be practiced for any person of that faith. The 1st A, does not grant any rights to practice anything, otherwise inconsistent with other laws of the land. I'll mention an attempt to overthrow the Government, the economic structure and the regular humiliation of women and/or children or maybe 100 more items practiced under Sharia and against American Culture, Traditions and LAW.

 

That argument would carry more weight if opponents agreed to call it an Islamic center instead of a mosque.[/Quote]

 

It's a Mosque with in an Islamic Center, both with the same stated purposes. I gave an example in Austin, Texas (Islamic Center) and suggest you read the entire charter. What it's NOT, is a Community Center!!!

 

Sure, and if you want to talk about how hypocritical progressive liberals have been on this issue I'm happy to go there with you. They sure seem to love supporting religious freedom when it's NOT christians, don't they? Any other time it's whoa nellie, somebody stop the crazies! [/Quote]

 

I know more would have supported the Evangelical Movements of the 19th Century (was strong) than I did in the 20th Century, milder form, with regards to Governing. I have and will support the rights of any group, including Moderate Muslim's, the Jewish, Mormons, Atheist or any group to the point of trying to impose their theology on the mass (collective). Progressive Liberalism is opposed to Free market Capitalism, not religious belief's and I do and will voice my opinions, on those issues.

 

But that's neither here nor there. As I said, I'm not arguing against their right to object, I'm arguing against their objection. [/Quote]

 

And I'm saying in this time frame, under the points I've laid out, you objections are ill conceived....

 

The city should have rebuilt the WTC twice as high as before, to show that we are not weak. Then they could have let them build the Mosque/Community Center nearby to show that we Americans are in fact a strong, tolerant, and freedom loving people. It would send a message to terrorist groups the world over:

 

If you push us down, we will stand again.

We will fight for our freedom, but will not sink to your level.

 

Whether any of this is true is up for debate, but I reckon that would send a positive message of strength and fairness to our enemy. [/Quote]

 

mississippi; An honorable and admiral approach, but not realistic. Originally the goals were to build it (WTC) higher and greater, but wouldn't that actually invite problems. We're no longer a World of a couple billion people (pushing 7) and there will always be factions that will try to destroy the economically powerful societies. "Turn the other cheek", IMO is also somewhat outdated, as those dead set on true annihilation of social order, will simply take advantage of whatever's offered.

 

 

Question: what do we do with the half-dozen other places of worship that are about the same distance of Ground Zero, or closer? (Trinity, St. Paul's, John Street United Methodist, St. Peter's, Battery Park Synagogue, St. Josephs) Do they get torn down, or what? Are they "imposing" something on the citizenry? [/Quote]

 

swansont; St. Joseph, I believe is the closest and it isn't clear how it withstood the force of the WTC collapse, but if 9-11 had been orchestrated by the Pope, with the intend to destroy the culture and way of life in Western Society, then the Church actually destroyed, then yes I would oppose it's rebuilding. Even here however, I'm not aware of the Catholic Church, building monuments on sites they had conquered.

 

Which right, specifically, is being imposed on anyone else? Are New Yorkers going to be forced to attend the community center?[/Quote]

 

Denying a right by one to another, is itself a right. We no longer allow a person that has consumed too much alcohol, to drive a motor vehicle, the obvious example. If I or anybody else perceives in any way, allowing a Memorial or tribute to even a small segment of a Religious Group (terrorist), it's the right even a duty IMO of those that perceive it in that manner to attempt to deny that right.

 

I'm not here to argue the reasoning, rather than the rights of the New Yorkers and pundits from around the World, to try and deny this construction, but if interested here is one article based on the Imam, who if erected will become the Head Imam (traditional policy).

 

Imam Faisal Abdur Rauf is the man behind the mosque project. The imam says that Shariah law is compatible with American law. According to his blog on Huffington Post, "What Shariah law is all about," it's not the stuff that makes us "cringe":

 

We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe...

 

There is a close similarity between the values expressed in American secular documents and those characterizing Islamic Law. We all know that the Declaration of Independence champions Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as "inalienable" rights -- but how many of us know that Islamic Law is built upon the "God-given" rights to life, human dignity, religious freedom, family cohesion, mental health and property? This should not be a surprise: after all, both value systems emanate from the Abrahamic Ethic.[/Quote]

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_manhattan_mosque_and_women.html

[Pangloss]

The city should have rebuilt the WTC twice as high as before

 

That would have been a nice gesture, but as I understand the problem of the NYC real estate market it would have been a massive economic failure, sending a completely different message.

 

But the new building is supposed to be taller than the previous structures at the symbolic height of 1776 feet with spire, versus the old apparent height of 1,368 feet, or 1,727 feet to the top of the antenna that was atop one of the old buildings.

 

 

Um, no. Nice try, though.

 

Um, yes. Nice try, though? (Seriously, that's it?)

 

 

Name change? It's the Muslim equivelant of a YMCA.

 

And a mosque, according to your own source.

 

http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm

[ydoaPs]

Um, yes. Nice try, though? (Seriously, that's it?)

What did you expect? You gave zero support to discuss for your claim.

 

 

And a mosque, according to your own source.

Do YMCAs no longer have chapels in them?

[Pangloss]

What did you expect? You gave zero support to discuss for your claim.

 

I didn't make a claim, I expressed an opinion about general tendencies in American politics. If you don't think that opinion is valid then you'll have to do better than "um, no".

 

 

Do YMCAs no longer have chapels in them?

 

Yup, and this Muslim community center has a mosque in it, and will promote a Muslim message to the local community, just as the Y promotes a Christian message. Which should be fine, IMO, but these people apparently have a problem with that. You're welcome to continue to point out that hypocrisy, but ignoring the religious angle is probably not the best approach.

 

 

If you wish a re-statement, objections to a Mosque at "Ground Zero" are NOT based on property rights.

 

Jackson, you don't get to choose which hypocrisies your opponents point out. That'd be like Bush saying "well yes I said that I don't believe in nation-building, but when I decided to invade Iraq my decision wasn't based on the concept of nation-building." Of COURSE it wasn't based on the concept of nation-building -- when does one country invade another just to "build a nation"? Duh! So the contradiction is there nontheless -- he stated opposition to the concept, then he used the concept himself. The fact that it later became a nation-building exercise out of necessity (instead of intent) doesn't mean that no nation-building has taken place.

 

Here we have the ideological right supporting the usurpation of property rights by the government. The contradiction is clear (though I certainly agree it doesn't apply to all conservatives). Best you can do is continue to explain why you think they're superceded in this case.

 

 

The 1st A, does not grant any rights to practice anything, otherwise inconsistent with other laws of the land. I'll mention an attempt to overthrow the Government, the economic structure and the regular humiliation of women and/or children or maybe 100 more items practiced under Sharia and against American Culture, Traditions and LAW.

 

Here's the problem with generalizing -- I get to hold you to those generalizations. You're condemning an entire religion based on the acts of some of its more extreme followers, while letting other religions that have the same sort of extreme followers off the hook.

 

So now you can back it up: Please provide examples of the entire Islamic faith attempting to overthrow the US government, destroy our economic structure, humiliate our women and children, and any (not even 100, any will do) more "items".

 

 

And I'm saying in this time frame, under the points I've laid out, you objections are ill conceived....

 

It doesn't seem to be turning out that way -- you haven't been able to construct a valid refutation of the points I've raised. But I still support their right to object and their right to have the concerns that they have, and I support a less provocative, more constructive approach than the one that the Mosque/Islamic Center's supporters have chosen.

 

 

if 9-11 had been orchestrated by the Pope

 

9/11 was not orchestrated by the Islamic equivalent of the Pope. Osama bin Laden does not represent the world's 1.3 billion Muslims in any way, shape or form.

 

 

I'm not aware of the Catholic Church, building monuments on sites they had conquered.

 

You mean like virtually every cathedral in Central and South America?!

[swansont]

 

Denying a right by one to another, is itself a right. We no longer allow a person that has consumed too much alcohol, to drive a motor vehicle, the obvious example. If I or anybody else perceives in any way, allowing a Memorial or tribute to even a small segment of a Religious Group (terrorist), it's the right even a duty IMO of those that perceive it in that manner to attempt to deny that right.

 

 

Driving a motor vehicle is not a right; the state is empowered to regulate driving on public roads. The government is not, however, empowered to deny rights to people. By definition.

 

The rest reads like gibberish. I'll ask again: What is being imposed on anyone, in violation of their rights?

[Pangloss]

I agree with swansont's question/point above, but I do think we should be careful not to get too hung up on what rights each party has and miss the point about sensitivity and common ground. This is a great battleground and the media is more than happy to feast away, but who wants to turn Ground Zero into Gaza Strip West? And what will that accomplish?

 

Also, let's be honest about the underlying factors -- would any of you have supported building it in 2002? I'm sure some of you would have, but wouldn't some refrained, saying it was "too soon"? And if that's the case, surely there must be some who still consider it too soon today, and aren't their feelings worth considering?

 

You know, the mosque's supporters aren't all sweetness and light here, trodden under the iron boot-heel of red state America. Not that anyone here said that, but I think it's worth noting because I think some here may not be aware of it. Some of those supporters are just as angry and combative as their opponents. They're mad about how Muslims have been treated since 9/11. Understandable, right? But that anger shows not only in some interviews but also in their plans. An "education center"? So they can keep telling stupid Americans how stupid we are? Yeah lemme go sign up for that! Is confrontation really the best we can do?

 

To me this feels like it's going the same way as immigration reform. We have a clear path to progress here -- obvious common ground that everyone can easily agree on (put the center a few blocks farther away). But that won't happen, and the reason it won't happen is because of the spectacle of the fight. The stage is set, the lights are on, and the tickets have all been sold.

[ydoaPs]

I agree with swansont's question/point above, but I do think we should be careful not to get too hung up on what rights each party has and miss the point about sensitivity and common ground. This is a great battleground and the media is more than happy to feast away, but who wants to turn Ground Zero into Gaza Strip West? And what will that accomplish?

Sensitivity is irrelevant; Al Qaeda-not Islam-attacked on 9/11. The proposed community center even has a memorial to the victims of 9/11(over a hundred of which were Muslim, btw).

 

By the way, it was unanimously approved, so it can't be THAT insensitive. This case has all the earmarks of a manufactured controversy.

 

But that anger shows not only in some interviews but also in their plans. An "education center"? So they can keep telling stupid Americans how stupid we are? Yeah lemme go sign up for that! Is confrontation really the best we can do?

I think you dropped your tin foil hat.

What exactly do think they plan on teaching there?

 

We have a clear path to progress here -- obvious common ground that everyone can easily agree on (put the center a few blocks farther away).

Really? You think that there wouldn't be bigots protesting if it was farther? You haven't kept up with the news, then.

[swansont]

I agree with swansont's question/point above, but I do think we should be careful not to get too hung up on what rights each party has and miss the point about sensitivity and common ground. This is a great battleground and the media is more than happy to feast away, but who wants to turn Ground Zero into Gaza Strip West? And what will that accomplish?

 

Also, let's be honest about the underlying factors -- would any of you have supported building it in 2002? I'm sure some of you would have, but wouldn't some refrained, saying it was "too soon"? And if that's the case, surely there must be some who still consider it too soon today, and aren't their feelings worth considering?

 

You know, the mosque's supporters aren't all sweetness and light here, trodden under the iron boot-heel of red state America. Not that anyone here said that, but I think it's worth noting because I think some here may not be aware of it. Some of those supporters are just as angry and combative as their opponents. They're mad about how Muslims have been treated since 9/11. Understandable, right? But that anger shows not only in some interviews but also in their plans. An "education center"? So they can keep telling stupid Americans how stupid we are? Yeah lemme go sign up for that! Is confrontation really the best we can do?

 

To me this feels like it's going the same way as immigration reform. We have a clear path to progress here -- obvious common ground that everyone can easily agree on (put the center a few blocks farther away). But that won't happen, and the reason it won't happen is because of the spectacle of the fight. The stage is set, the lights are on, and the tickets have all been sold.

 

As you pointed out in the OP, there are two different issues: legal and pragmatic. So making the point about rights is not missing the point about sensitivity.

 

As far as the "education center" goes, we have Sunday schools and Bible camp and home schooling. I don't think anyone involved is advocating giving these up. And more to the point, "keep telling stupid Americans how stupid we are" ignores the point that we're talking about Americans, too, who would attend the center.

[CharonY]

Also regarding sensitivities, is there data around how many of the 9/11 survivors are against the mosque?

[Marat]

Although many countries have 'anti-hate speech' laws which protect the majority of citizens from being offended by the expressed views of some irritating minority, the United States grants no one any right against offensive public statements of any sort, even if they are manifested by the building of a structure laden with offensive implications. Your right is just freely to practice or not practice the religion or conviction of your choice, not to be insulated from anyone else's practice next door.

 

Of course there are criminal laws which can limit certain rights, such as laws against polygamy or the use of certain drugs in religious ceremonies. But the balance between these laws and those protected religious rights is carefully calibrated by the 'levels of scrutiny' tests derived informally over the years from the 14th Amendment. These tests allowed Roman Catholics to continue using communion wine despite prohibition laws during the 1920s, but didn't permit Mormons to have plural marriages, and still keep Moslem men from having more than one wife, since the balance is drawn differently in different situations, depending on the public interests at stake.

 

If there were any attempt to use municipal zoning laws to restrict the building of Islamic centers near the site of the 9/11 tragedy on the grounds of a purely religious distinction, it would never pass constitutional muster. Even an attempt to find some religiously neutral reason for zoning such institutions out of the Ground Zero area would probably be interpreted by a reviewing court as a disguised attempt by the state to deny religious liberty and would be struck down.

[Pangloss]

An interesting and thoughtful post, Marat.

 

 

Sensitivity is irrelevant

 

This case has all the earmarks of a manufactured controversy.

 

I think you dropped your tin foil hat.

 

You haven't kept up with the news, then.

 

Okay, well, have fun storming the castle. I don't think you're wrong, I just think that as an approach it's a dead-end. But hey, I've been wrong before, and sometimes confrontation can produce results.

 

 

You think that there wouldn't be bigots protesting if it was farther?

 

On the contrary, I think you're absolutely right. Had the plan originally been for a building at 4 blocks the same knuckleheaded, sign-bearing types would have protested, and the same "legitimate" organizations would have leaped at the opportunity to support them. Then the compromise position would have been eight blocks. And I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it is what it is.

[jackson33]

Here we have the ideological right supporting the usurpation of property rights by the government. The contradiction is clear (though I certainly agree it doesn't apply to all conservatives). Best you can do is continue to explain why you think they're superceded in this case.[/Quote]

 

Pangloss, the right for this Mosque to be permitted has already been established, the permit granted and I have no objections. However in NYC, IMO when it becomes clear, where the money is coming from (Bloomberg doesn't "CARE") and what the "unintended consequences" might be, I don't believe the plans for the site and objective (requires a review) will be approved. Even if they are approved, NYC is a highly unionized area and I don't think they will get the contractors required, for the Construction. My personal objections, to any of this are based on purpose and a brief knowledge of the 'Muslim Brotherhood' (founded in the 1920's), which IMO has become radical thinking organization, brought on by WWII and the formation of the Israel State, opposed to Western Cultures, in general. It's thought (I have no way to prove) a good many, possibly most Imam's, are in fact members of this organization. Having said this;

 

Here's the problem with generalizing -- I get to hold you to those generalizations. You're condemning an entire religion based on the acts of some of its more extreme followers, while letting other religions that have the same sort of extreme followers off the hook. [/Quote]

 

Not really, any more than I condemn all Americans for the current trend in Federal Policy. However the "culture of Islam" has a track record, which follows the directions of the Religion, as preached by their local clergy. I'm not going to go through this history, especially currently in Africa, but whom ever you want to personally blame for the Attack on the WTC in '93', the 9-11 Attacks or the dozens of others around the World, their are many more involved than a few disgruntled activist, it's an ideology based on male dominance and a World acceptance of a 16th Century Culture.

 

So now you can back it up: Please provide examples of the entire Islamic faith attempting to overthrow the US government, destroy our economic structure, humiliate our women and children, and any (not even 100, any will do) more "items". [/Quote]

 

It's not necessarily the ENTIRE population of followers of the Islamic Faith'/Culture any more than the entire populations of Germany or Japan, wished to rule the World of whatever the goals were. The problems as I SEE them, is the entire Islamic Faith/Culture could very easily put and end to these radical movements, at anytime in the past or under the current leadership (whatever that is) and has not.

 

 

 

Driving a motor vehicle is not a right; the state is empowered to regulate driving on public roads. The government is not, however, empowered to deny rights to people. By definition. [/Quote]

 

swansont; Word games!!!; Actually, permits (drivers Licenses) weren't even issued in all States, until at least 1954 and there were various degrees to qualify. This might qualify as a good example of where rights, become privileges because somebody imposed their right over another and that IMO, still remains a right.

 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf

 

 

The rest reads like gibberish. I'll ask again: What is being imposed on anyone, in violation of their rights? [/Quote]

 

And I thought we were getting along just fine with out the personal attacks. Don't respond to my gibberish, just as I don't to many of you Science related thoughts and we will get along just fine.

AGAIN; It's my opinion, people have the right (1st A) to speak against any issue and be heard. When this becomes more than 60-70% of the effected people, those people must be allowed a hearing and have not been. Although in virtually every other area of permitting, these objections are heard. Would you like a list of Wal-Mart, problems getting permitted and Stores built in many areas of the Country and yes NYC....

 

Labor unions in Chicago struck a deal to allow Wal-Mart to expand throughout the city, but unions in New York aren't so willing to budge. [/Quote]

 

http://cbs2chicago.com/business/wal.mart.expansion.2.1778635.html

 

I have no idea what impositions will be involved with this Mosque, in this particular area (if even built), but I'm sure their will be some. More than likely it will be contrary to the feelings of NYC Government, as many people from around the World or in the US, will simply avoid NYC, not rent property in the New Buildings, both vital to their tax base...The thought, a recruiting site, often expressed, could be possible anyplace else much easier.

 

By the way, do you honestly believe 100M$, will take down the current building, then construct a 13 Story Mosque in NYC. I'm no expert on NYC building cost, but I'd bet we're talking 10-20 times this amount, 1 or 2 B$, minimum.

[Pangloss]

At any rate, here's what the president has accomplished by stepping into this issue: By confronting it head-on, instead of just letting Fox News rant about it, it now becomes a story with recognized national political scope. So now every seated Democrat in the country who is up for re-election this fall will be asked for their stance on this issue, instead of just a few ignorable crazies grabbing the mike at some rallies. And they'll be asked that question by a public that's nearly 70% opposed to the mosque's construction. That includes 54% of Democrats.

 

That is why confrontation is a bad plan.

[swansont]

 

 

swansont; Word games!!!; Actually, permits (drivers Licenses) weren't even issued in all States, until at least 1954 and there were various degrees to qualify. This might qualify as a good example of where rights, become privileges because somebody imposed their right over another and that IMO, still remains a right.

 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf

 

The constitution reserves the power to the federal government to establish post roads and regulate interstate commerce, and state constitutions no doubt have similar statements in them concerning public roads not part of the interstate highway system (I have confirmed that New York does, state and local government has the power to enact legislation regarding (6) The acquisition, care, management and use of its highways, roads, streets, avenues and property.

 

So no, it's not a right.

 

 

 

And I thought we were getting along just fine with out the personal attacks. Don't respond to my gibberish, just as I don't to many of you Science related thoughts and we will get along just fine.

AGAIN; It's my opinion, people have the right (1st A) to speak against any issue and be heard. When this becomes more than 60-70% of the effected people, those people must be allowed a hearing and have not been. Although in virtually every other area of permitting, these objections are heard. Would you like a list of Wal-Mart, problems getting permitted and Stores built in many areas of the Country and yes NYC....

 

 

What personal attack? I was commenting on what you wrote, which is fair game: it didn't address the question you were supposedly responding to, and consequently made no sense to me.

 

Yes, people have a right to speak their mind, and by the look of things, this right has not been infringed at all. People are speaking out against the project without interference by the government. Have you any evidence to the contrary? What law or right mandates that they be allowed a hearing? What would this hearing decide — whether a minority has rights under the first amendment of the Constitution? I think that's already been settled.

 

Is Wal-Mart a religious institution? I don't see how zoning laws or issues concerning unions are related to the first amendment.

 

 

I'll ask one more time, since you still haven't answered my question: What is being imposed on anyone, in violation of their rights? I really want to know, since I live a block and a half away from an Islamic community center. Which of my Constitutional rights are being trampled?

[jackson33]

At any rate, here's what the president has accomplished by stepping into this issue: By confronting it head-on, instead of just letting Fox News rant about it, it now becomes a story with recognized national political scope.[/Quote]

 

Pangloss, with all due respect to Obama, I don't think in a day he can change that many peoples outlook on any issue. As for Fox News, but down here in Texas and NM, this has been a major story since the Mosque permit was granted, on all the 6 or so local channels I can get, the Business outlets I receive and the political emails I receive.

 

So now every seated Democrat in the country who is up for re-election this fall will be asked for their stance on this issue, instead of just a few ignorable crazies grabbing the mike at some rallies.[/Quote]

 

Think you could add the seated Republicans as well, but can you recall the 2004, 06 and 08 elections, where everything debated was on Bush and it looks like we will see more this year.

One point, I've been trying to make, is that THIS IS a National Interest (maybe International), as people from around the Country took 9-11 personally, where ever they are from. On the morning of 9-11, I was on a Military Base, Tracy California, saw individual reactions I hope never again seen, when it first hit the TV screens. That afternoon, I stopped by a large Casino in Reno and thought the place was closed. This was an American Issue then and still is today. It was only by luck (an hour later) or an ineffective Fire Department (NYC the best) and the instant local response, that 30-40 thousand lives were not lost. Those '"crazies" probably have seen more than I had, but I need to again remind you those people are NOT necessarily Conservative or even Republican and I sincerely believe many of furthest left leaning politics, ALSO oppose the building of this ONE Mosque.

 

 

The constitution reserves the power to the federal government to establish post roads and regulate interstate commerce, and state constitutions no doubt have similar statements in them concerning public roads not part of the interstate highway system (I have confirmed that New York does, state and local government has the power to enact legislation regarding (6) The acquisition, care, management and use of its highways, roads, streets, avenues and property.

 

So no, it's not a right.[/Quote]

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. [/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

swansont; The Constitution as I read it, did nothing of the sort. Your probably confusing the 'National Highway Act' (1925, although it gave all power to the States)) and Eisenhower's Interstate System (1957) came in after every State required a License. As I recall the laws in those days, if you were from a State that didn't require a drivers license, your right to drive on any US road was unencumbered. Keep in mind any right, bar none including life itself is restricted to other law.

 

This system was created by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1925 as a response to the confusion created by the 250 or so named many named highways, such as the Lincoln Highway or the National Old Trails Highway. Instead of using names and colored bands on telephone poles, this new system would use uniform numbers for inter-state highways and a standardized shield that would be universally recognizable. The most important change was that this new system would be administered by the states, not by for-profit private road clubs. Even then, people decried the idea of giving roads numbers since they felt numbers would make highways cold and impersonal.[/Quote]

 

http://www.gbcnet.com/ushighways/history.html

 

What law or right mandates that they be allowed a hearing? What would this hearing decide — whether a minority has rights under the first amendment of the Constitution? I think that's already been settled. [/Quote]

 

In this case the hearing is CURRENTY in public discussion. I feel sure it will move to the Legal/Court system, or as Pangloss suggest, the voting Booth, but this MAJORITY (opposed to minority will get several hearings.

 

Is Wal-Mart a religious institution? I don't see how zoning laws or issues concerning unions are related to the first amendment.[/Quote]

 

Zoning laws are not oblivious to Religion. You can't simply build a Church, whatever called anyplace you wish, simply because it's a Church. Wal-Mart or if you prefer any non-profit organization are subject to the same zoning laws as interpreted by a local Government. As this Mosque, Wal-Mart has extenuating circumstances...

 

Which of my Constitutional rights are being trampled? [/Quote]

 

If neither you, your neighbors or your elected officials complained in advance of the building of your Mosque, then no rights were infringed. On this particular Mosque a VERY large number of people, will feel violated, but once started and legally condoned by the whomever gets involved, no rights will have been lost, the rights I'm inferring exist until that point.

[swansont]

 

swansont; The Constitution as I read it, did nothing of the sort. Your probably confusing the 'National Highway Act' (1925, although it gave all power to the States)) and Eisenhower's Interstate System (1957) came in after every State required a License. As I recall the laws in those days, if you were from a State that didn't require a drivers license, your right to drive on any US road was unencumbered. Keep in mind any right, bar none including life itself is restricted to other law.

 

No, the commerce cause as you quoted, and he post roads part you did not are certainly in the US Constitution, and the section about New York's power to legislate laws about the "care, management and use" of its roads was copy/pasted from the NY Constitution. I'm not confusing these documents with any others. If you were from a state that did not require a license, other states had to respect this due to the full faith and credit clause (article IV, section 1). Doesn't change the fact that the state can deny you a license for a wide number of reasons. Blind people can't drive, licenses can be taken away after convictions, you have to pass a test to get a license. Not a right.

 

 

 

In this case the hearing is CURRENTY in public discussion. I feel sure it will move to the Legal/Court system, or as Pangloss suggest, the voting Booth, but this MAJORITY (opposed to minority will get several hearings.

 

Again, what will the hearing entail?

 

Zoning laws are not oblivious to Religion. You can't simply build a Church, whatever called anyplace you wish, simply because it's a Church. Wal-Mart or if you prefer any non-profit organization are subject to the same zoning laws as interpreted by a local Government. As this Mosque, Wal-Mart has extenuating circumstances...

 

Given that there was a large building there before (and two much taller ones a few blocks away), and a half-dozen other religious institutions in the area, somehow I don't think zoning is the issue here. Did you have a point with Wal-Mart, or is it just a red herring?

 

If neither you, your neighbors or your elected officials complained in advance of the building of your Mosque, then no rights were infringed. On this particular Mosque a VERY large number of people, will feel violated, but once started and legally condoned by the whomever gets involved, no rights will have been lost, the rights I'm inferring exist until that point.

 

Yes, these rights you are inferring. Those are the ones I am asking about. Which rights? Which part of the bill of rights, or other amendments, applies here? Or are these, like your driving example, just "rights" that you have manufactured from opinion?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, with all due respect to Obama, I don't think in a day he can change that many peoples outlook on any issue.

 

I didn't say that he did. I said that he changed the level at which the discussion was taking place. He brought it to the forefront, and I'm not the only one who thinks so:

 

ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-obamas-mosque-comments-add-issue-democrats-election/story?id=11406308

The president's decision to elevate a New York issue into a national one by speaking out at a dinner Friday night marking the start of Ramadan will spin it into campaigns across the country -- where candidates largely felt like they already had enough baggage to carry from Washington.

 

The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081605425.html?hpid=topnews

President Obama's defense of a proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan has left many Democratic candidates and strategists concerned about the impact the issue might have on their midterm election campaigns this fall.

 

"How can this possibly be helpful when feelings are still so raw on the issue?" asked a senior Democratic political operative who is working on multiple congressional races. "It's best to say nothing and let the process and appeals unfold." Added another seasoned Democratic consultant: Obama "is right on substance but wrong on politics, and right now we need to focus on politics."

 

New Jersey Star Ledger:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/am_top_news_ground_zero.html

 

Some Americans are still clamoring after comments made by President Obama at a White House dinner Friday night, when he showed his support for Muslims' rights to construct an Islamic Cultural Center, including a mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero in accordance with American law.

 

... the issue could continue to haunt Democrats into November elections.

 

Etc.

 

He has caused other politicians to have to engage on this issue. First up to the plate was Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who today took a decidedly different (if only in nuance) stance from the president, saying the mosque should not be built at that location. Others followed in a similar vein, while others spoke out in support of the mosque. Others tried to continue to hide, like New York's Chuck "I Killed IndyMac" Schumer, but they'll find that a lot harder to do now.

 

-------------

 

Add:

 

I'll ask one more time, since you still haven't answered my question: What is being imposed on anyone, in violation of their rights? I really want to know, since I live a block and a half away from an Islamic community center. Which of my Constitutional rights are being trampled?

 

In watching Bill O'Reilly tonight I ran across something I thought you might find interesting given your discussion with Jackson. He appears to be misinformed about the motivation of majority opposition, and we have actual data on this. A Fox News poll asked not only whether people were opposed to the mosque, but whether they had the right to build it. 64% opposed the mosque, but 61% also recognized their right to build it.

 

From that data we can generalize that for most Americans the complaint is not that they don't have the right, but that it's just a bad idea.

[jackson33]

RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

 

PRIVILEGE: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

 

 

 

While government can put reasonable limitations on the manner we protest, we don't need Dr. Rice or anyone else in the Bush administration to give us permission to protest.

As for the second, courts also consider freedom to travel to be a right. However, the verdict appears to be mixed on whether the freedom to drive is a right or not. I'm frankly not sure how to categorize it.

 

It's important to be vigilant on how those in power attempt to define our rights. For, as Benjamin Franklin said, "It is the first responsibility of any citizen to question authority."[/Quote]

 

http://www.brianarner.com/weblog/archives/000264.html

 

swansont; In trying to come up with an all encompassing response to your comments, I ran across the above link, which pretty well states my opinions.

 

I'll conclude my discussion on this; Nothing defined as a 'Right' has ever been with out limitations and most the designed original rights have been diluted by permits, licensing, zoning or any number of regulations. As to being beneficial or destructive to the society, I'll leave that alone and could argue either case.

 

Again, what will the hearing entail?[/Quote]

 

Well, the first legal approach, was an old request to maintain the original building as a "Historical Site", which was denied. Another was the NY Governor's attempt to help and assist the "entire project" on another site, which was turned down by organizer. There are a great many now involved trying to keep this Mosque being built, on this location and I have no idea what all is involved. As in the Arizona 1070 Bill, public opinion and the right to protest authority has made a difference.

 

Given that there was a large building there before (and two much taller ones a few blocks away), and a half-dozen other religious institutions in the area, somehow I don't think zoning is the issue here. Did you have a point with Wal-Mart, or is it just a red herring?[/Quote]

 

You understand my Wal-Mart analogy, the zoning, permit and organized opposition aspects, connection very well and there is no sense in going over the same issues time after time, just to get the same questions. As for what is/was, the importance of THIS Mosque, in THIS area, at THIS time has nothing to do with any of it. THAT technicality was settled when the PERMIT begin planning was issued.

 

He appears to be misinformed about the motivation of majority opposition, and we have actual data on this. A Fox News poll asked not only whether people were opposed to the mosque, but whether they had the right to build it. 64% opposed the mosque, but 61% also recognized their right to build it.

 

From that data we can generalize that for most Americans the complaint is not that they don't have the right, but that it's just a bad idea. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; Maybe I've not been clear or maybe your understanding my comments as you wish, but that has been exactly my point. On September 10th 2001, if I had been on that board granting the permit, I'd have given my approval, no questions asked.

 

 

Note; Apparently Governor Patterson NY, will be meeting with the organizers, later this week, so that hearing is still open....

[swansont]

http://www.brianarner.com/weblog/archives/000264.html

 

swansont; In trying to come up with an all encompassing response to your comments, I ran across the above link, which pretty well states my opinions.

 

I'll conclude my discussion on this; Nothing defined as a 'Right' has ever been with out limitations and most the designed original rights have been diluted by permits, licensing, zoning or any number of regulations. As to being beneficial or destructive to the society, I'll leave that alone and could argue either case.

 

the verdict appears to be mixed on whether the freedom to drive is a right or not. I'm frankly not sure how to categorize it. is hardly a ringing endorsement of your position that driving is a right.

 

 

Well, the first legal approach, was an old request to maintain the original building as a "Historical Site", which was denied. Another was the NY Governor's attempt to help and assist the "entire project" on another site, which was turned down by organizer. There are a great many now involved trying to keep this Mosque being built, on this location and I have no idea what all is involved. As in the Arizona 1070 Bill, public opinion and the right to protest authority has made a difference.

 

…

 

Note; Apparently Governor Patterson NY, will be meeting with the organizers, later this week, so that hearing is still open....

 

 

Convincing the organizers that it's a bad idea is not a legal maneuver and has nothing to do with a legal hearing. Public opinion and the right to protest have nothing to do with a judgement obtained through the courts. The only legal argument you have described is the attempt to have it named as a historical site, and that didn't fly. And public opinion may yet backfire if it only stiffens the resolve of people who feel they are being unfairly persecuted via guilt by association.

[waitforufo]

Americans enjoy many rights. My favorite aspect of these rights is that they let us express our opinions clearly and in so many ways. By building this mosque so near the former world trade center site those Muslims supporting the construction are sending a clear and intentional message. They obviously take pride in the events of September 11, 2001. They are willing to spend millions of dollars to convey that pride. The building of this mosque is intended to be intentionally offensive to non Muslim Americans and particularly insensitive to the victims of 9/11 and their families. It says a lot about Muslims, or at least those Muslims supporting its construction. Of course they have the right to build the mosque, and I hope they do. It will confirm my opinion about them.

[Sisyphus]

They obviously take pride in the events of September 11, 2001.

 

What a ridiculous thing to think is obvious.

[padren]

Honestly I blame the fact that we still are yet to build anything at ground zero - memorial or otherwise - for why ten years later it's still such an open wound. This Islamic Rec Center they are building two blocks away probably wouldn't be on the radar if we hadn't sat on the actual WTC site so long. If this is salt... it's our own fault for the wound still being open. It's also worth noting that it's backed by the Mayor, Community Board No. 1, which represents Lower Manhattan, the City Council speaker Christine C. Quinn, and the Manhattan borough president Scott M. Stringer.

 

This isn't a handful of sneaky Muslims trying to squeak in a Mosque while no one is looking.

[waitforufo]

What a ridiculous thing to think is obvious.

 

What makes it ridiculous? Did they expect people to be happy about it? Did they think it would go unnoticed? No one builds such a structure without the intention of making a statement.

 

Ignoring the obvious does not make it indiscernible.

[swansont]

What makes it ridiculous? Did they expect people to be happy about it? Did they think it would go unnoticed? No one builds such a structure without the intention of making a statement.

 

Ignoring the obvious does not make it indiscernible.

 

I wonder what the message was behind these other structures near ground zero

http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

 

And then there are these two tweets to consider

[Sisyphus]

What makes it ridiculous?

 

I'm not even sure how to begin answering that question. Is the German deli that opened around the corner a celebration of the Holocaust? Would it be if it were in the town of Auschwitz? Let's try to have a little perspective.

 

Did they expect people to be happy about it?

 

Why not? Positive Islamic culture triumphing over the scars of hate, in the most multicultural city in the world. A great symbol of why America is better than those who sought to attack it. A symbol that they were not, in fact, acting on behalf of their religion, because Muslims are Americans too. Sounds good to me. Except that:

 

Did they think it would go unnoticed?

 

Why not? It's two blocks away. There's another one four blocks away. There are half a dozen churches, several strip clubs, betting parlors, and hundreds of other establishments and offices within the same radius. Nobody cared until demagogues started lying about it for ratings, and they're going to look very foolish when this nonsense calms down.

 

No one builds such a structure without the intention of making a statement.

 

Yes, they do.

 

Ignoring the obvious does not make it indiscernible.

 

Indeed!