From AVG's link:Gotta love Krauthammer. :salute:

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/16...#ixzz0wsbmIseZ

I think that in fact this mosque is getting POSITIVE special treatment because of religion. THAT, I have a problem with.

Would, for example, the Westborough (sp?) Baptist Church have had any problems? (assuming their inbreed congregation could cobble up enough money to buy a hotdog stand in NYC, let alone a large parcel of land) That is the "god hates fags" church.

Think THAT would manage to get through zoning in NYC? Or would they have found SOME reason to disallow them—say in the same area as Stonewall in the Village.

My guess is that "god hates fags" in the Village would manage to get disallowed using the same legal methods used to ALLOW a mosque.

Oh give it a rest, Krauthammer. How much of Lower Manhattan needs to meet the approval of the 9/11 victims/families of victims? Does every bodega need to include a picture of an eagle crying over a burning twin towers for it to be built? Does the Subway sandwich shop need to give a portion of its proceeds to the NYFD?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Whos to say the church that no one would have a problem with if it were built there would spawn another Timothy McVeigh? Whos to say!? We need to start using "Who's to say!?!?! OMG Think of the children!" as our basis for handing out building permits?

And this place passed zoning. It's got city permits.

Barf.

Yes, it passed NYC zoning. The point is should it have?

Again, as long as this didn't get special PC treatment because it's muslim, then you are right, NYC decided what they wanted, we should all get over it.

But I have to say that if it was some Christian hate-church (the worst Christian church like those "god hates fags" guys are pretty much in line with mainstream Islam, tolerance wise), it would not get permission in the Village, for example. They'd have found some reason to deny it.

As long as the Mosque didn't get special treatment (so NYC could look like they bend over backwards to be tolerant of the hateful religion responsible for 9-11), it's NYC's decision, and they clearly have spoken.

You don't have to support it, but unless you have some legal grounds to oppose it then tough luck on the opposition front.
But since it isn't actually at the WTC site how far from the site should mosques be prohibited, obviously a couple of blocks ain't enough. Would a ten block radius be sufficient? Maybe draw a line along Canal and say no Mosques below this ? Maybe close all mosques in Manhatten or in NYC.
Though of course any ofthat would be unconstitutional just like closing the shrines was when Pearl Harbour was still only part of a territory

You object to the building and say it will probably be attacked, bringing that aspect of thought into a topic where you are objecting to the building is saying part of your objection is because the building may be attacked.

So you only care once the "liberal" media and politicians build a controversy.

You mean the created controversy has created controversy which then feeds upon itself.


Of course insensitivity plays a roll, which is why it should be left to go ahead.


Is that because he's as thick as pig excrement?
"That’s why we have zoning laws."
Point proved Krauthammer is dumb.:haha:
"It’s why while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive."
Really dumb.:har::har::har:

What possible grounds can they have refused on without facing a constitutional challenge they would be bound to lose?

But building it in tis and no other pqalce is the intention behind it. Ifd oyu think they do not know that they are raising an issue, then you most likely are wrong. the challenge is absolutely intentionally. It is no mispercpetion, and it is no niavety of theirs, and no misclaculation. It is a plan.

Yes. Right that is the purpose of that building, in that place, and in no other. ;)

Zoning? There would be no Constitutional issue. Building permits are statutory, not a "Right." Zoning could come up with any reason they wanted, they do so all the time. Zoning laws have plenty of wiggle to allow the city in question pretty broad control over what goes where. Really. In addition, the historical buildings guys made (and make, every day) 100% arbitrary rulings. They allowed the mosque because the extant building was not "architecturally interesting" and could therefor be torn down. That is 100% subjective. Had they wanted to deny, they'd have said the 1851 (whatever it is) building on the site is important. Game over. They do this all the time.

Anyone who has ever dealt with US zoning officials, or neighborhood associations, or historic preservation boards knows that what I'm saying is true. They can basically rule as they see fit, and you're beholden to them.

Again, my only problem is iof they gave the mosque a pass they would not give ALL other comers. IF they would have denied permits for anyone else, then they got special treatment---and that would violate the 1st Amendment (establishment).

no one opposes muslums from building a mosque, there are hundreds of them that were built all over new york but to those who support building this mosque at ground zero, IMO then you have to also support a nazi monument at the concentration camps celebrating the killing of the jews and you must support a monument being built at pearl harbor celebrating the attack on our base there since they would symbolise the exact same purpose for being built, to cellebrate a victory over your enemy. and you can deny it all you want but this mosque is being built at this site for the sole reason to become a monument to the terrorists victory over america at that site, the Imam said it himself that he chose that site specifically because it would overlook the site of 9/11

and as for the private money being used to build the mosque, they have no money as of this moment, the Imam has only $18,000 which probably isnt enough to even cover the building permits but it has been reported that the US goverment will give them several million dollars to help build it through a goverment grant program. the remaining money will almost certainly come from terrorist orginazations since the modderate muslum groups have denied to fund it saying it is in bad taste to build there.

do those who speak about this as a religeous tollerance issue really doubt that this building will not be a muslum extremists tourist attraction to come see the site of the great victory over the great satin America. "come to pray to Ala at the very site where our brothers martered themselves for our cause" will be the banner they will hang over the door.

if you cant see this then you should go bring your family on a vacation to Iran and see if your "tollerance" will keep you out of jail or from being beheaded just for being an American. see what the muslum extremists really think about your warm and fuzzy tollerance as they laugh at you.

Have you actually been there?

Yep.

Oh come on Webster...it is a community center.

open your eyes AVG and look in to the background of this Imam and not just what he says in english but what he really says when he is talking to non americans.

if you still dissagree then i guess we dissagree on this but he tells the west what they want to hear but then says the opposite when speaking to others

i have no doubt this man wishes harm to america

I was kidding Webster! I see this a big HA HA at the US. Others not so much.

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?