On what grounds can it be blocked?
None.
What are the reasons people want to block it...not legal ones are they.

It becomes an infringement of rights when you apply the laws in a manner that is not generally applicable, thats why the "but its zoning so it isn't the constitution" angle is a crock of crap as its the follow on stage which brings the constitution into play.
Simple steps ain't it , you can't keep saying but #1 isn't an issue as its only #1 in a situation where #1 must inevitably be followed by #2 and #2 will without doubt say that #1 is a violation of the constitution

errrrrrrr....hey breaking news, it isn't at ground zero:doh:

Thats a material issue. I do find the weft to be unsuitable for a construction site though and if it is encouraged you may well end up with a great stain.

I never realised Iran had a law which meant being American was a capital offence punishable by decapitation. you really should gather some examples of this and send it to the government so thay can act:up:

The trick with zoning or historic places is that it is already arbitrary in many cases already. The latter board could absolutely have said the structure was "historic" with ZERO indication that the real motive might be something else. "it has unique moldings and must be preserved."

Done.

I'm not saying that would not be an abuse of the 1st, it would be. But it would be impossible to prove, so it would stand up.

As I said, such practice is already common.

Zoning may seem arbitary but unless its applicable it still fails the test.

Which wouldn't have shut down the mosque and wouldn't prevent the same people doing the redevelopment into a bigger mosque/communtiy center

So......
.......Not in the slightest.


Well done for facing that:up:
Thats the problem, throwing the constitution out the window to deal with some hysteria whipped up over a pile of false representations would be an insult to the nation and a gift wrapped prize to the fundy nuts.
Several people have written that allowing the development is amounting to a victory for OBL or whoever runs that small silly organisation nowadays but the reverse is true, stopping the building would be a victory for al-qaida.

(I've always said there is no way to ban that building because it is a mosque because of the 1st. In every thread/discussion here, I've been 100% consistent)

Stopping the building within the letter of the law would be just fine. If a historic preservation board---which is in effect given broad latitude to discriminate on any basis they feel like due to the 100% subjective nature of their rulings---said the building could not be demolished, then they'd have a 2 story mosque, or whatever the building is. Or they'd have to buy someplace else.

Zoning had some latitude as well to have a say I'm sure.

Since both (particularly neighborhood covenants and historic preservation boards) have some entirely subjective latitude, there is no constitutional issue (legally) without some proof of conspiracy. Failure to get approval isn't enough, you'd need proof they decided the way they did to cancel a MOSQUE.

Note that if instead, they let it slide BECAUSE it was a mosque, that will bite them in the ass, too. Someone with a similar building who ever gets denied can claim "you let the mosque tear down THAT 1851 building, why is my porno superstore being persecuted against!

Note that in NYC, such stores WERE persecuted in Times Squiare in the name of development.

I presume you must also be an enemy of "eminent domain" laws (I certainly am) to be consistent.

Anyway, as I've said, I don't like the idea of any mosque, frankly, they represent misogyny, and backwardness. That said, if they own the property, they can do with it as they please---as long as their existence in that place doesn't prevent anyone from using their, nearby property for anything that THEY please.

A ruling on historic preservation wouldn't mean the building couldn't be demolished, it would just mean that certain specific elements have to be included in any redevelopment, since the only remotely notable feature was the fascade on one section of the frontage of the properties it means that even if the lame attempt had succeeded you would have a big new mosque with a little brick and stone feature on one part of the front of it.

Can you think of any possibility of a district with zoning for mixed development being able to find some way of blocking a building on zoning grounds when it fits that zones criteria?

Remember how much of a dump times square was.
Besides which all those evictions were down to usage weren't they, generally applicable so its all hunky dory and legal and nowhere near unconstitutional.
The only way that could work in this case and avoid the constitutional pitfall would be to ban all religious establishments from the district.....which itself opens up another big constitutional pitfall.

Where would eminent domain even enter this issue?

As a counter point if you aren't muslim you cannot enter the entire city of Mecca.


Not trying to compare the US to the Saudi state but.....sinse when is my political left in favor of religious freedom?

Already answered that one, and you're way off base.

Has anyone here actually tried to deny that? You're barking up the wrong tree.

If the grant program is legitimate then they have to give it to whoever applies. That's the law. That the other money will "almost certainly" come from a terrorist organization is reprehensible. The problem is that we don't issue permits based on where money "might" come from, or even where it does come from.

And that's what I meant when I said you're barking up the wrong tree. Has one person here claimed it was about religious tolerance? Not that I've read. What it's about is whether the New York zoning commission has the legal right to issue the permit. Should they have? Not my call, or yours.

But since you raised the question of tolerance, what do you suggest we do? Drive all muslims from our shores? Act the way they do? Throw out what made America in the first place?

We react to acts that hurt us, not to beliefs that might. We have to prevent attempts on our freedoms, and be vigilant, but do you suggest that include denying religious freedom to those who disagree with us? If they turn violent, fight them. Otherwise you destroy the very thing you're trying to protect.

I oppose this mosque as much as any of you, simply because I agree the motivations of the people who want to build it are evil. But the law provides equality, no matter how we dislike it. Find a legal reason to deny it? Sure. And if that happens I'll support it. But for now the law has said they can build it, and for now that's what we have to live with.

Wow, I can hardly believe you're serious...

So let's straighten this out, shall we? You wish to equate a sub sandwich shop with a monument to the religion which spurned the attach on the WTC?

Really?

Can you get over your party-line liberalism for just one second and be a decent human being and American??? When did your ability to independently understand an issue cease? Or better, do you even like the nation you live in? Does the Constitution factor into that?

And finally, do you believe that if the Constitution were completely destroyed due to Constitutional means, that would be okay because the Constitution allows it and who's to argue with the spirit of the law when the letter of it is so clearly more important?

You post was one of the most disgusting rants I've ever read on here - moreso than some of the obvious flames because yours was written with the malice of foresight that somehow believes that building a sandwich shop equates to an icon of a religion which by and large celebrated the attacks of 9/11.

The greatest threat to this country are not those who openly wish to destroy it - it is those, apparently like yourself, who wish to extend them the protections as those who embrace it ... and for what? Just to believe that you're progressive?

Again, wow. At least those such as Sailor Steve had the decency to approach the issue from a legal standpoint rather than a "you shouldn't be taken seriously if you're on the other side" opinion.

I happen to think that the victims of 9/11 have a right to be sensitive to this issue. Apperantly sensitivity to you ceases if it doesn't involve gays getting married or pregnant minors desiring abortions.

Unbelievable. I bet you didn't even bother to actually consider the article in question because you were too busy formulating a poorly conceived response.

You are comparing it to the Saudi state.

Aramike missed out on using the "why do you hate freedom?" line.
He is kinda right about the independantly understanding the issue, as he is demonstrating how independant of understanding the issue he is.
I suppose his lack of independant understanding prevents him from seeing how crap Krauhammers article really was

Well done. :salute:

Infiltration tsctics thus are totally acceptable to you since they are not violent and are not causing riots, and getting destroyed over several decades from within is something you readily submit to.

Have you ever taken into account that their tactics have been choosen right because of this willingness of you and others to let things slide?

They tell your what they are doing right in your face. They publish it in their home countries. And your reaction is to tell them that they are free to do so.

Get real. You are under a legalised siege. Which means the legals rules themselves are a problem in this case. And I have explained why this is so: that constitutions and law systems that base on a separation between religion and politics are totally helpless against the attack of somebody who does not subscrbe to this separation and actiovely denies it, that way pusihing his poltical goals under protection of relgious freedom, making his poltiical ambitions unavailable from criticsm and opposition that way.

And you are the perfect illustration for this explanation being true, Steve.

Come to your senses. You often gave the impression that you are more reasonable than this. This is not the founding time of your nation. This is the present. And the present is such that you are already under attack and are losing the future. Not your future, but that of your children and children's children.

-----

On ground zero, there is a solution how it can be stopped. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers could rally and seize the place, day for day. If the police disperse them, thexy can come back from the other direction. Day for day. Civil disobedience. Having the single letter of the laws on your side, is one thing. Being able to implement it, is something different - and the latter can be prevented, if the people want it. Twenty years ago, a certain tyranny in Eastgerman brought down to its knees and finally got overthrown this way, peacefully. Becasue the thousands and thisuands who first assembled regularly every Monday, later marched in and bloicked the streets every day, were absolutely right when they shouted the slogan of theirs: "Wir sind das Volk" - We are the people. Americans (as well as Europeans regarding problems with Islam ineurope) should rally in the streets and block this thing from happening - at least when they are real about "defending freedom".

Becasue this is what the ongpoing buolding of Islamic presence in the West is about: destroying western concepts of freedom - not by weapons and wars, but smiles - so that the victim does not dare to resist: that would be uncivilised, that would be unreasonable.

Come to your senses. Wake up. A friendly, smiling, polite, well-dressed bully - still is a bully.

We have the advantage here Sky. Its not infiltration. They are already here and have been. We can give the appearance of acceptance and tolerance while keeping a watchfull eye. This site is likely to bring in all kinds of undesirables we've been looking for. Its like keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. I'd rather them have a gathering spot out in the open rather than being scattered and elusive. I'm willing to bet this community center will lead to many more arrests and foiled plots. Besides, if we did as you suggest and go all out war against a religion it would only benefit them and we'd lose many of our powerful friends. This war will/can only be won through intelligence, diplomacy, and modernization.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

errrrrrr...it isn't at ground zero .

It is however in Manhatten and thats the one place where people are not all hysterical over the hyped up bull people have been fed.
So what is called for is for a bunck of people not from Manhatten to go there and piss of the locals by blocking major streets and hundreds of business premisis.

Earth calling skybird, return to reality.

BTW anyone see the latest crazy "Muslims spit in the face of 9/11 victims" crap from that hate filled bigot who runs "Americans against hate" that was broadcast on FoxNews?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I was living in Connecticut when 9/11 happened. I donated blood and money to the Red Cross on 9/12. I have sympathy for those that were affected by the murders that day.

What I do not have sympathy for is people that use the 9/11 victims to push their political and ideological agendas. You (the general "you" not you specifically) hate Muslims. Fine. You'd rather see Islam banned from America. Alright. Don't disguise that by hiding behind the 9/11 victims. Don't say you're doing this out of sensitivity towards them. Be honest with yourself and your arguments. People like Krauthammer are deserving of all the snark and scorn and disdain I can muster because people like him are the ones using the 9/11 murder victims as a way of tearing down liberals or whoever else he's politically opposed to in order to sell column space.

If you want to talk outrage and insensitivity towards 9/11 victims, start by writing your congressmen (both R and D) and telling them that you're disgusted by their bullpucky vote to not extend medical benefits to 9/11 first responders who are now suffering respiratory and all other kinds of health problems due to the conditions that day. No? Well, I guess hero worship only goes so far when you're using it as a political drum to beat.

I seem to recall it was you who stuck to the "they want special rights" argument when it came to gay marriage. Well how is it that 9/11 victims get special rights to veto the zoning laws of New York City? How is that they get special rights to say that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment doesn't apply if you're Muslim?

Of course I like the nation I live in. I'm trying to keep it the nation that I love, also. And in order to do that, you follow the laws of the land. You don't get to throw them out when they don't suit your particular caprices. This is what folks like the Tea Party are the joke they are - they scream about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, but yet they want to discard it and worm around it when it comes to an issue that doesn't suit their spun up political issue of the day. It doesn't work that way. You either stick to the Constitution at all times, or you're an intellectual hypocrite.

I don't like the idea of there being this mosque built 2 blocks from the WTC site. I do believe it's being done as an "in your face". But are you going to shred the Constitution to see that it doesn't get built? Burn down the village to save it? I don't happen to buy into that.

Careful what you say ;)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...wtc-mosque-op/

Wonder if She and Reed had words :haha: