Isn't that what they do in Germany? :O:

Yes. In 80 years we had two totalitarian dictatorships, first the Nazis, then the Soviets. Nevertheless many are eager two embrace totalitarian tyrannies No. 3 and 4: the EU, and Islam.

There is nothing new under the sun - just things that got forgotten.

If someone was building in Yamagushi and called it Hiroshima for sensationalist effect would it be clearer to you?


And Sky wants a third, his own personal dreamland:rotfl2:
Like magic non existant legislation that really exists if you make up the words yourself.:doh:

At least you can admit to having a feeling about it rather than hiding behind some Constutionality which doesn't exist, or rhetoric implying that only a bunch of flag-waving hicks are against this construction. The courts have ruled again and again that zoning and restricting building for the public's interest is completely Constitutional.

Here's one: should NAMBLA be allowed to build a headquarters across from a boy's school? What if they were issued permits?

By the way, the fact that you think this is nothing more than a bunch of political hacks attempting to push an agenda doesn't jive. Polls have shown an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers do not want this built. Considering that the politics of New Yorkers are anything but a right wing, anti-Islam agenda, calling it political makes little sense.

This is about decency.

My friend, it boils down to this: you don't like it, and I don't like it. But we can't take the easy way out. You either believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech or you don't. It's easy to support those when they agree with your beliefs. Its hard to support them when they don't. But that's what makes us strong in our convictions - supporting our constitutional ideals even when they're at odds with our personal beliefs. Our Constitution and our nation are indeed strong enough to survive extending those freedoms to all. The founding fathers would not have ensured those freedoms if they believed it wouldn't. This is what ultimately makes us great.

And New Yorkers agree with that:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/0...titutionality/

Yes they have, and zoning boards have the authority to make those decisions. This zoning board made their decision. That you or I think it's wrong is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the board is completely within their rights, and within the law.

You want to oppose it. That's your right as well, but you keep arguing that they shouldn't have been allowed to make that decision. On what legal grounds do you base that judgement?

If by some chance it is overturned by a court, you won't hear me complaining. My argument is for the legality, and for the freedom.

Completely separate question. Again it would the the decision of a zoning board, not of you or me.

Your opposition is about decency. Whether it happens or not is about the law. You seem to be equating the two, and that's what doesn't jive.

Where have I argued that?

My argument is that they made the WRONG decision, and a reversal should be considered.How is this separate?

I'm taking the EXACT same situation, giving different conditions, and asking whether or not consideration in said scenario should be given towards overturning a zoning boards decision.Only half right. Yes, my opposition is about decency and therefore the decision should be reconsidered. Somewhere along the way your side has decided that since the board has made such a decision, it would be Constitutionally impossible to reverse it, which is rubbish.

Am I saying that a zoning commission does not have the legal right to make the decision? No. Please provide where. My point is that, in my opinion, it was the wrong decision and, also in my opinion, it should be reconsidered.

Somewhere along the way you've decided to apply a Constitutional argument which, according to decades of caselaw, doesn't apply.

The Constitution is not a license for subversion. What makes us great is that as a society we've by and large understood the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and have generally judged according to the latter.

Freedom of speech and religion does not apply here (I happen to strongly believe in both). I also happen to believe that the 1st Amendment doesn't permit one to yell "fire" in a movie theatre.

Our Constitutional ideals needn't be twisted to meet every situation that arises. The founding fathers never ensured any freedoms - the Constitution can be amended. They allowed for unforeseen circumstances, and there is just enough leeway to allow common sense to prevail (wouldn't you agree regarding, say, Roe V Wade?).

What makes is great is not the blind reliance upon a singular document, but the understanding the spirit in which that document was written and interpretting said spirit into case-law. That which is fundamental to this country need not necessarily allow that which is antithetical of it to openly practice its disdain.

In any case, as I've said many many times, this isn't really a Constitutional issue. My problem with your original post was that you equated those who opposed this construction with both political hacks and redneck flag-wavers, rather than those who would have legitimate cause to see this as an affront to their ideals. You minimized people who deserved sympathy rather than trivialization, and that I find revolting and purely politically motivated (ironic, right?), as ultimately you stated that you agree with their belief that this construction goes against what you believe would be the right thing to do.

:haha: Ha, my thoughts exactly. My mom and I argued about this this morning. I just can't escape this subject.:shifty: The thing that makes me laugh the most at this whole subject is the left's (since they are in charge of everything) new found love of protecting religious rights.

So when christmas time rolls around we can put a big nativity scene there right? The ACLU will have no issues, right?

Do they have the right to: Yes
Should they: No

I wonder if there are any muslims that are against this?

Thats easy.

No you are not, and if you were not choosing to live in the land of ignorance perhaps you would know.

There are no real legal grounds for that arguement.

Errrrrr....that would be generally applicable :rotfl2:
ingnorance is bliss:up:

Fine, amend the constitution.

Aramike has not the faintest idea whatsoever.

All Muslims are the same so they all are in favour, just ask Skybird.:rotfl2:
Though some fundys are against it due to its outreach and cross community angle.
Some sufis are against it because they don't go for the big buildings thing.
Shias are a bit funny about it as its the wrong version.
The Ahmadiyya are probably really pissed off as they get grief over their mosques too everytime someone brings mosques back into the news.

Perhaps your question needs some examination as it the whole story isn't really a support or oppose issue is it.

Much wisdom, in this one is.

Interesting post from The Daily Dish on this Imam fellow.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...rspective.html

That's a breath of fresh air. :)

Oh ... lord.. cant.. stop ... laughing...

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...ue-controversy

Hey by the way where are the Clintons on this matter??

Dont expect their opinion unless there is something in it for them.

I dont, I know what there up to.. simply waiting to pick up the pieces.

But hold on Sky keeps saying he is a fundamentalist terrorist supporter who wants to overthrow the United States and the western world.

What if they built a mosque and no one came? :hmmm:

Fair enough, but you argue with everyone who says the board had the legal right to do this. Maybe what you mean and how people percieve it are not the same.


But you seem to be arguing that that decision should be made to go away by other than legal means. That you haven't said something directly is a good fallback when someone contests, it, but now you're saying you didn't mean what everyone assumes you meant. Blame me for that if you like, but at the very least you weren't very clear on where you were going with your argument.

And now you misunderstand what I've been trying to say. Earlier you thanked me for agreeing that the state and local laws supercede the Constitution, but failed to see that I pointed out that the Constitution makes that so.

This is a local matter, yes, but you seem to feel that the Federal courts should order it to change, which is where the Constitutional arguments come in.

Fair enough, and I don't disagree on that. But if they don't reconsider it someone else has to do it for them, and that involves the Feds, and that involves the Constitution. And if you're going to cite "caselaw", please show some of the cases involved.

One more thing to overcome before the Hamas approved, radical Imam directed, questionably funded 'well intentioned' Mosque gets built.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...tc_mosque.html