Any opinions on this?

[rich76]

The NY "Landmarks Preservation Committee" has denied landmark status for a building (150 yrs old) 2 blocks from "Ground Zero". This in and of itself is not a bad thing BUT.....it now paves the way for a new Mosque to be built on those grounds when the old building is demolished.

The Mosque is being built by a group called the Cordoba Initiative and their iman is a guy named Feisal Abdul Rauf, a scumbag that supports Hamas and said in a 60 minutes interview that the US policies were one of the causes of 9/11.

So....any comments?

[SayOw]

Let's get the facts straight first before we debate...

It's not actually a mosque, and it's not at ground zero. It's a couple of city blocks away, past a university and down a street. You can't even see the World Trade Center site from the proposed location of the Cordoba House project. It's also not a mosque, but a cultural center that will contain a basketball court, swimming pool, childcare, art exhibitions, and a prayer room—not exactly a dedicated house of worship. "That it may even be called a mosque is debatable. It is designed as a multi-use complex with a space set aside for prayer -- no minarets, no muezzin calls to prayer blaring onto Park Place."(Link)

[hork]

okay so i can see where some might rationalize in their minds that this is an affront to them. my question is, when did the rights to religion, peaceful assembly, and own land become rationed and arbitrary?

the same folks (read as political pundits and mouthpieces) who continue to ----- about the nationalization of health care, banks, etc., and who continue to tell us the government should be minimalist and not involve itself in a free-market society are now trying to justify their stance on who can and who can't own property? worship a god of their choice?

there's no justification for that kind of thinking and no place for it in a society that claim's to be a free-nation. how can anyone claim to be a "proud American" and then tolerate or worse yet advocate for the marginalizing of an entire group of legal US citizens who are in now way harming or endangering anyone's rights and/or liberties?

as the link sayow posted points out far more eloquently than i can, it's imperative to remember that not all Muslims are responsible, none of the attackers were U.S. citizens, and there were indeed people of the Islamic faith who perished in those attacks. before one begins to condemn an entire people or an entire faith (not you rich I'm talking about the mouthpieces from both sides who get off on displaying ignorance) they might be better advised to consider what they're saying and avoid making themselves look like the uninformed morons they are.

[rich76]

Originally Posted by SayOw

Let's get the facts straight first before we debate...

It's not actually a mosque, and it's not at ground zero. It's a couple of city blocks away, past a university and down a street. You can't even see the World Trade Center site from the proposed location of the Cordoba House project. It's also not a mosque, but a cultural center that will contain a basketball court, swimming pool, childcare, art exhibitions, and a prayer room—not exactly a dedicated house of worship. "That it may even be called a mosque is debatable. It is designed as a multi-use complex with a space set aside for prayer -- no minarets, no muezzin calls to prayer blaring onto Park Place."(Link)

I stated above that it was 2 blocks away....you must have missed that. I've gone to a number of sources...Bloomberg "Plans to build an Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site moved forward after New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to allow the demolition of a building that would be replaced by a mosque. , AP
"NEW YORK — A city panel Tuesday cleared the way for the construction near ground zero of a mosque that has caused a political uproar over religious freedom and Sept. 11 even as opponents vowed to press their case in court."
The NY Times "President Obama, who made outreach to Muslims a central theme of his first year in office, has decided to sit out the national debate now raging over the plan to build a mosque near the site of Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan."

and a few others that are calling it a Mosque. So.....now that the facts are straight................

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by rich76

So.....now that the facts are straight................

Ok, if those are the facts we are going to use...

I have no problem with the Mosque being built and agree with Ken. There should be no reason for the obstruction of building and usage of this Mosque.

In fact, I hope this Mosque would be the largest on the planet. Showing the world how great and diverse our country is.

[SayOw]

Again....

There still seems to be much debate on the labeling of "Ground Zero Mosque"...

From this article:

There is no mosque being built on the site of Ground Zero. It's a simple fact, but one that news consumers can be forgiven for missing.

In covering the growing controversy over the proposed Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, the national media, led by the big cable networks, have by default shaped the increasingly heated debate by repeatedly referring to the project as the "Ground Zero mosque."

I thought this was of interest as well...

If built, the 13-story community center and mosque project will be one of hundreds of buildings located within blocks of Ground Zero — a densely populated area that already includes a couple of mosques, along with less "hallowed" institutions, like strip clubs, bars and Off Track Betting operations.

[P562045]

If we really want to be technical about it there should be no mosque built in the U.S. because of equal protection where everyone must be treated equally no matter what.

"AMENDMENT XIV

part of section one

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Well a mosque discriminates based on gender when it comes to praying at a mosque. Men and women are not allowed to pray together at a mosque I am quite sure of this.

But then the first amendment of the constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion as they see fit as long as it does not involve injuring someone. An example of this would be a parent not bringing their child to a doctor because of their religion. I would hope that in this very specific case that this child would be protected by the constitution and actually the first amendment rights for the parents would not apply if the child was harmed in any way. This has happened several times that I can remember distinctly.

"Amendment I

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."

Then there is the story of the Greek Orthodox church that was damaged when the two towers fell. A Greek Orthodox church has a pretty big dome on the top of it. I don't really know when this happened but their was a height limit put in place and a building around ground zero could not be higher than the memorial that was to be built that was to honor the people that died on that day. And there is legal wrangling at great cost for both sides I am sure about this to this day.

I am just wondering how far this height requirement extends to. Because I very much doubt that a however many story cultural center this is supposed to be would be below the height requirement for the building around ground zero. I just hope there is an exemption for the whatever the building is supposed to be called because I seem to remember that it is supposed to be 1,776 feet tall.

Then I thought of something else with regards to this whole matter as well. There is a yearly pilgrimage to Mecca called the Hajj. I know that Christians are not allowed in at least parts of Mecca during this time. So they are excluding at least one religion and maybe more during this time of the year.

And yes I know full well that people are upset about this whole situation for a variety of reasons. But should we uphold the first amendment or not just because we don't like one particular situation like this?

"Amendment I

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."

[hork]

umm peter you're logic is a bit flawed. first there was no act of congress or state legislature that is responsible for constructing the community center. second, the whole point is freedom to worship as you see fit, not as i think you should.

i agree with both passages you cited. in addition I'd point to the gallons of blood spilled through this nation's history in order to establish and protect the ideals we were founded on. i think the mere point that this is even a discussion show's how far many in this nation have strayed from what we are supposed to be about. and to be quite honest it's more than a bit disheartening. i often wonder if anyone who claims to be a proud american, who claims to support our nation and her way of life, even knows what any of that means anymore.

my hat's off to the President on this one. at least he seems to recall what we're about, and is man enough to stand up and face the masses who have forgotten and publicly defend our nation and her ideology. too bad more folks didn't get it or didn't have the intestinal fortitude to say it if they do. but then it's always easier to go with the mob i suppose rather than be an individual and stand up for what's right. and no where is that more obvious or a larger issue than here in the DC area

[rich76]

i think the mere point that this is even a discussion show's how far many in this nation have strayed from what we are supposed to be about.

Ken....really....are you kidding me? We shouldn't have a discussion on this? Please don't reiterate about religious freedom etc......I'm quite aware....and are one of only a handful of Vets here that served for those things. But....we shouldn't discuss it and by doing so we've strayed?

[hork]

Originally Posted by rich76

Ken....really....are you kidding me? We shouldn't have a discussion on this? Please don't reiterate about religious freedom etc......I'm quite aware....and are one of only a handful of Vets here that served for those things. But....we shouldn't discuss it and by doing so we've strayed?

by claiming they don't have a right to build it where they want with property they purchased, then yes the way is lost. unless there's some magic justification out there that supercedes constitutional law, the blood of the patriot, and the decency of humanity that i'm unaware of.

however, if anyone knows of that logic i'm more than happy to hear it. as long as it can be presented and account for the law, the ideals of a nation, and avoids beings stupid and grouping an entire faith due to the actions of a few. by all means if that can be accomplished, then let's discuss it.

[P562045]

So sorry I can't think of an example of where the federal or state government makes the rules on the requirements that must be met to make any building really. That is done at the county and local level.

So I ask again as I did earlier today does the first amendment really mean what it says or not.

"Amendment I

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."

And to me if a person says no to the cultural center just because they don't like like that it is so close to ground zero than all I have to say to that person is really think about what the first amendment is trying to say.

The only grounds that I can think of that the cultural center should not be built where the cultural center is proposed to be built is if something at the cultural center intends to harm someone. And somebody better start screaming at the top of their lungs if they think that will indeed be the case. And this cultural center has been known about for a while but no one has said anything about what I just mentioned.

I sort of think of this as a test. Are we who we really are or not. What we are discussing is a good example of this. Should a person be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit as long as they harm no one or not.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by rich76

So....any comments?

*Yawn*

Oh, more specific? Just another hot-buttoned issue framed by the conservative media apparatus in a way to stoke the flames of nativism and to try to use it as the new wedge issue for the upcoming election season (though wouldnt you want to hold off such a thing til after Labor Day given the collective short attention span of the electorate?...well no one ever accused those in Washington of being S-M-R-T). In the meantime the economy still sucks, our Eurasian misadventures still suck, the ecology of the gulf still sucks no matter what the powers that be say about any of those or a myriad of any other far more substantive issues.

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

*Yawn*

Oh, more specific? Just another hot-buttoned issue framed by the conservative media apparatus in a way to stoke the flames of nativism and to try to use it as the new wedge issue for the upcoming election season (though wouldnt you want to hold off such a thing til after Labor Day given the collective short attention span of the electorate?...well no one ever accused those in Washington of being S-M-R-T). In the meantime the economy still sucks, our Eurasian misadventures still suck, the ecology of the gulf still sucks no matter what the powers that be say about any of those or a myriad of any other far more substantive issues.

+1

But I will add, that the Dems are more than willing partners at the dance. As long as the Dems and Repubs keep the dance limited with only their players they are more than happy to divert the American population's attention to any subject that has less of a factor in their daily life and bicker over artificially created controversy rather than actually debate substantial issues that actually effect most Americans.

[hork]

Originally Posted by SayOw

+1

But I will add, that the Dems are more than willing partners at the dance. As long as the Dems and Repubs keep the dance limited with only their players they are more than happy to divert the American population's attention to any subject that has less of a factor in their daily life and bicker over artificially created controversy rather than actually debate substantial issues that actually effect most Americans.

and that can be illustrated by looking at the recent weighing in comments offered by Sen. Reid.

[SiteWolf]

hmm...there appear to be a couple points in this you guys aren't discussing....one that you all can identify with, one most of us can't

I'm not saying it automatically changes anything, but is it not a fair point to at least question a situation that benefits a supporter of Hamas?

The other point to me is....unless you are FROM New York, can you really understand the feelings surrounding the World Trade Center attacks?