Government restricts construction all the time through zoning laws. Establishments which serve alcohol have to be a certain distance from schools, theoretically, the primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. Which may be the case with the NYC mosque idea.

You are correct but the Constitution also affords us the right to complain, voice our opinions and be a general nuisance...within the law of course. Many are exercising that right under the Constitution.

I believe the objection to this building is based on a moral stance to be sure. Many feel that Islam is thumbing their nose at the US by building this structure very close to the World Trade Center grounds. Perhaps some are not seeing this as a religious house of worship but a political statement.

Heh I heard of a guy who wants to build a deli meat (including sausage) store accross the street from the Mosque. :haha: :har:

I presume he will be making pork sausage.

Take a look at the nature of the pig for example. The pig is naturally lazy and indulgent in sex, it is dirty, greedy and gluttonous. It dislikes sunlight and lacks the spirit and will to "fight." It eats almost anything, be it human excreta or anything foul and unwholesome. Amongst all animal flesh, pork is the favoured cradle of harmful germs. Pork also serves as a carrier of diseases to mankind. It is for this reason that its flesh is not suitable for consumption.

Not to get to far off topic but hey do you like Crab? how about Lobster?

You should see what they eat ;)

Back on topic, which do you think will be built first the Mosque or a Memorial?

The idea of a mosque close to the attacks in NYC may very well be legal as it stands today. But it is a bad idea for a group hoping to spread good will and hoping to create a different relationship with the people and victims of the attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001, as is often expoused by the Imam and his faithful.

I would have to agree on this. To me this proposed building looks to be a big 'ha ha'. There a other places to build such a building in NY. Why this spot? Were is the money coming from. It all seems very suspect to me.

Its legal even if distasteful. There isn't anything that can be done about it. Take solace in the fact that the place will likely be monitored 24/7 by government agents, putting all of its members on watch lists. If anything nefarious is going down there, it wont be a secret.

Isnt there already a Mosque in the neighborhood?

Oh and what about the Greek Orhtidox church that was denied?

It really is hard for me to grasp in any way how this is a good idea.

Why is there 10 different churches within a mile of my house? Its the land of the free. You cant have your cake and eat it too they say, and whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Oh thats his obligatory thing he had to do, shouldn't but he did.Whole different ballgame with Obama.

Wholy crap you had thousands of innocent pepole murdered in your neighborhood? Man I am so sorry.

I tend to agree and I have no doubt that there are at least some people are laughing about this. Nonetheless (and perhaps this is a bit naive of me) I see the preservation of freedom of religion and property rights as a slap in the face to Islam, not the other way 'round. My only regret is that we didn't decide to build even bigger towers on ground zero using money taxed from the private firms in Iraq. Now that would have been funny.

I'm not afraid of Muslims, I'm not afraid of bass-ackwards Islamic fundamentalists, and I'm not afraid of them building their mosques wherever they choose. I've seen first-hand just how effectively free choice can dismantle even rigid theocracy. Wealth, free choice, and social mobility can absolutely own just about any ideology. What I am afraid of is the Muslim church, or any church for that matter, being afforded a protected status of any kind. Protection breeds stagnation and stagnation is conducive to stratification of power; and we don't want churches ever having power over anything besides voluntary believers.

Umm, wrong. Very much so.

We have zoning laws, for one. Do you honestly think someone would have, say, the Constitutional right to build a 50 story tower next door to an airport?

Here's a great line from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZoningEmphasis mine, of course.

The Supreme Court has ruled again and again in favor zoning laws, and only facial challenge has ever be brough. Zoning laws were upheld in that case as well.

There ARE special considerations given to land to be used for religious purposes, but quite frankly I find that unConstitutional and offensive, and should a challenge ever come, this would be one time I'd be happy to have a left-leaning Supreme Court (although I suspect that any SCOTUS would overturn that aspect of the RLUIPA if a major challenge were ever presented).

In any case, my point is simple: legally, this construction COULD be legally averted (it happens all the time), and to suggest otherwise is a mischaracterization of what SHOULD be the debate - that being whether or not issuing the permit was the right thing to do.

That in general is the problem I have with political hacks on both sides - they are always attempting to excuse their decision-making with this notion that they have no other choice. Sure, they had a choice and they made it.

Here, let's try another hypothetical: I want to start a new church. A church where nude women swing around on poles and offerings are taken in the form of dollar bills. I want to place that establishment in a location across from an elementary school that is commercially zoned.

Would you issue that permit?

Yes and it is a tragedy, and in a country founded on the notion of religious freedom, what better way to show these godless terrorists they haven't won?

Ditto that, hence my opposition to RLUIPA law mentioned in the previous post.

Tribesman, really going to say someone who majored in legal studies/pre law and begins law school in less than a month is ignorant of the constitution? get real.

This is not a constitutional issue as I see it.I see people who think the constitution is outdated and never invoke it unless it serves them, such as in this purpose , trying to make it a constitutional issue but it's not.This just about about gloating of radical muslims and using the ridiculous amount of "tolerance" we have for muslims etc against us.The liberal fools like Bloomberg etc are too blinded by their pc mentality to see it.

While we are at it lets build some type of Hitler memorial at Normandy or a Japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor, give me a f'n break.

Other than being a philosophical notion (albiet a well-thought out one), in a practical sense I don't see how this would matter.

In a pratical sense, radicals will show up and our agents will be watching. It could very well become a boon for our intelligence network.

My understanding of Islamic worship is, that a mosque is not required to do a beliver well in his/her obligatory service of worship to Allah.

I could be wrong, but unlike Christian religions, Islam was and is designed for the nomadic people.

Beyond that a president by his remarks on friday last, may have delved into the unknown US field of state sponsored endorsement.