NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I refuse to waste breath for just another round around the house - the grass already is flat like asphalt, so I am out of this thread. Either you get it now, after numerous repetitions of mine, or you don't.

Okay, then I'll get to basics.

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

Please answer all three questions, without saying "I've already done so" or "You know the answer to that", because I can't see that you've already done so and I don't know the answers.

And I'm certainly not going to presume to give the answers for you, because I don't build straw men.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by razark

Well, then we shouldn't allow any Catholic churches to be across the street from schools. After all, I've heard in the news that they do some pretty nasty things with children in those places.


The difference is that NAMBLA is an organization dedicated to a certain wrong behavior, while the Catholic Church is an organization with some members who have engaged in a wrong behavior.

If someone wants to build a mosque on their property, that's fine. If someone want to open a branch office for Al Quida, that's not fine.

(No offense to any Catholics)

Okay, I'll bite. I believe that the Muslim faith is by nature dedicated to the destruction those of other faiths, a certain "wrong behavior" as you put it. There are many examples of why I believe so in this thread.

Now, care to show me how I'm wrong in that belief with actual facts?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Okay, then I'll get to basics.


3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

IMO no it should never be built at that site because it is tantamount to spitting on the dead bodies from the WTC

so many completely miss the fact that that site as it was originally zoned wouldnt allow a mosque to be built there (i believe historic or something) but they bent over backwards changing local zoning laws and ordinences so a religeous building could be built there so lets not forget how major changes were made specifically to create a situation where a mosque could be built in the first place. this isnt simply a completely legally normal situation where they came in and wanted to build something that is normally allowed but people dont want to allow it because its muslums.

the law as it previously was written said the mosque could not be built there before it was changed so unchange it to how it was and the law states the mosque cant be built for zoning reasons and then first amendment and religeon have nothing to do with it.

this religeous freedom first amendment crap is all BS smokescreen to avoid the fact that this mosque is intended as a monument to the great victory over america and to memorialize and honor the terrorists who blew it up.

the whole arab world is laughing at how stupid the americans are and like sheep to be lead around in the name of tollerance and understanding.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Okay, then I'll get to basics.

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

By making it illegal and sending everyone abusing it back home.

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?

See above, plus stopping mass immigration of Muslims into our countries.

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

Within current laws? Difficult. I don't know about petitions in the US maybe something like that could work.

I answered number one and two according to what Skybird has written now a few times in this thread.

[Task Force]

hmm, Someone should open a pork store next to/ accrost the street!

[Aramike]

Let me take a crack at your questions, Steve:

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

It's the same principle as not being able to shout "FIRE" in a movie theatre. There is a difference between saying that "the infidel is wrong" and saying that the "infidel must be destroyed". If your speech and reasonably be taken as that which is inciteful enough to possibly limit the speech of others, than it ALREADY is restricted. Such is why large assemblies need permits - those are a step in assuring that one group's speech don't infringe upon another's.

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?

Not giving them the unrestricted ability to promulgate their anti-American propaganda within our borders is a start.

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

The same way communities stop Walmarts - withhold the building permits.

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Webster

this religeous freedom first amendment crap is all BS smokescreen to avoid the fact that this mosque is intended as a monument to the great victory over america and to memorialize and honor the terrorists who blew it up.

the whole arab world is laughing at how stupid the americans are and like sheep to be lead around in the name of tollerance and understanding.

I'm quite literally speechless. And not in a good way, mind you.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

By making it illegal and sending everyone abusing it back home.

Making it illegal to abuse the right to speak freely. Possibly, but it's going to have some definition problems.

See above, plus stopping mass immigration of Muslims into our countries.

That's difficult where I live. Country founded by immigrants and all that.

Within current laws? Difficult. I don't know about petitions in the US maybe something like that could work.

There have been petitions. Didn't work. My question in all of this has been the one of legality vs freedom vs protection.

I answered number one and two according to what Skybird has written now a few times in this thread.

Thank you. That's what I was looking for. I like Skybird, but sometimes he likes to get on his high horse and talk down to people. That's what always gets me going "I'm right and you're stupid", as I like to say.

I'm not stupid, but I don't pretend I'm always right either. If someone wants to argue with what I say, or with what I believe, fine. Just don't tell me I have to agree with you or I'm blind or ignorant, or can't see the truth. That's not argument, that's arrogance.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Let me take a crack at your questions, Steve:It's the same principle as not being able to shout "FIRE" in a movie theatre. There is a difference between saying that "the infidel is wrong" and saying that the "infidel must be destroyed". If your speech and reasonably be taken as that which is inciteful enough to possibly limit the speech of others, than it ALREADY is restricted. Such is why large assemblies need permits - those are a step in assuring that one group's speech don't infringe upon another's.

Good points. But it must be done carefully. I was a big fan of the 'deportation' argument in 1979. While certain people compared it to the incarceration of American citizens in 1942 based on national origin, in fact we didn't threaten to lock up Iranians who protested here at all - we merely offered them a free ticket home.

What you say is a good start.

Not giving them the unrestricted ability to promulgate their anti-American propaganda within our borders is a start.

A good idea on the face of it, but I think we must tread very carefully when defining how that will be implemented.

The same way communities stop Walmarts - withhold the building permits.

Again a good idea. The only problem I see is what happened in this case - the community decided to give the permits. Criticize their motives all we want, it was still their decision to make.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Okay, then I'll get to basics.

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

I already asnwered that, amongst others by referring to the German constitution. Here is the explicit detail
Consider this:

Originally Posted by German Basic Law

Article 4 [Freedom of faith, conscience, and creed]

(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.
(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

and limit it by this:

Originally Posted by German Basic Law

Article 18 [Forfeiture of basic rights]

Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Article 20 [Basic institutional principles; defense of the constitutional order]

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

That is in principla the same what I have said over and over again now.

( I do not wish to say by that reference that things are being handled like these basic articles express. Much deformation and distortion to existing laws and even the basic law is existing and is being tolerated in Germany. We have too many laws, the one getting quoted to nullify the other, because the contradictions between existing laws are legions and can no longer be overwatched. And often it is rightout simple resignation not to follow a law (the police refusing to follow it's duties in certain parts of major cities, for example, quoting its unability to protect itself when not going in by the hundreds and officers are too initmidated and scared - and right they are - of the chnace to get bullied or beaten up by whole family clans and residents of all the street), or ignoring of such laws because it is en vogue in the current cultural climate. From the surrounding of the constitutional high court it is to be heared that some judges refuse to accept that article 20 section 4 indeed means "resistence" when it claims the right of resistence. so, refering to these articles is how things could and very much should be - but they are no matching the practical reality in their implementing, which is much more miserable. It gets worse by massive infringement by the EU. I tend to think of the legal landscape to be a total chaos where bureaucrats, predators and opportunists of all colours have the say. I have no faith and no trust in it - not only in context with battling Islam, but in almost every other as well. Relying on the law these days is nothing else but playing roulette. You may be lucky - or not. And on another day it could have been the other way around. what kind of respectable law should that be...?)

And also consider a chnage to the constitution like I suggested: that idoelogy that refuse to strictly differ between poltics and relgion, that do not fully submit to the principle of strict secularism, shall loose the constitutional portection for free religious practicing so that this freedom can no longer be abused to push politics that are against the constitution, but claim relgious untouchability. This point is not just cosmetics, but i cosnider it to be one of the most important steps to protect the constitution and the German law against Islam. The very confused sentences we have gotten in germany in masses on Islamic issues in the past years show the dramatic urgency to strengthen the constitution and the law against Islam and Shariah.

You want the protection of the secular society? than you need to be secular yourself, too. give and take. Benefit and duty. Reciprocity. That's the deal.

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?

Stopping Islamic migration. making their active integration legally binding and mandatory, not leaving them the freedom to refuse integration, like the overhwelming majority of Turks for example do. Learning the nation's language is mandatory. Compliance with local rites and nhabits, values and cultural rules must be mandatory (no more girls banned from school sports, biologx classes, etc). Prohibition of the burqua, and headscarf, both are politivcal combat symbols of Islam. Banning of very many islamic organisation that belong to the terror-supporting spectrum, to foeign nationalistic branches (Milli Görus), the muslim brotherhood, and other orthodox organisations. Full stop to further mosque building. no islamic party formation in politics allowed, since islam is not secular and does not differ between politics and religion, In germany: banning Turkey'S influence via the turkish ministry of religion, which has a tremendous and practically uncontrolled influence in German inner poltics. Full stop to mosque building. First they have to buiold as man culture centres and chruches and synagoes in Muslim ****ries like we have allowed them to build Muslim houses in europe and america. Get independent from oil - and then kick ass to the Saudis and several others, expropriation of their shares they hold in western corporations. No further support to the EU policy of pro-islamisation, and the UN.

The deal is clear: our house - our rules. Like it, or leave.

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

Don't care for the laws that much anymore since European courts foudn so amny highly hilaroious rulings to please islam, and since the Islamic group we battled in court told us afterwards into the face (after they lost): "of course we lied to you - else you would not have sold the property to us." (they lost because of fraud and betraying over the identity of theirs, in later weeks and months they harassed the initiave's president's wife on open street and threateend his family until the finally left the city. That was the time when I received the first set of death threats, too. Two other people got beaten up). For Islam, our laws mean not so much, they are inferior to Shariah law. My priority is not necessarily legality, because the law already has been tailored by the EU to support islam and make opposition to Islamisation a crime, my priority is to stop islam, make Islamic communities in Europe change themselves so that they are no longer Islamic (I do not believe in this insane idea of a tamed "euro-islam" that suddenly is compatible with western values), or in the long run give them strong motivations and incentives to voluntarily leave again (like the vast majority of former German guestworkers already did all by themselves: the spnaish, the itlaians, the Greek, The yugoslavs - most of them went back after some time, and those who stayed, stayed for love of Germany, and for the very, very most integrated them perfectly. Just turks and Albanians, Afghans and Lebanese do not do that). If all that is possible legally - okay. If legality must be breached to stop it - I'm all for it. Stopping islam is more imprtant than our laws, becaseu if we fail in stopping Islam. islam will make our laws system obsolete and sooner or later enforce shariah.

I indeed reject any further mosques being built, at GZ, and elsewhere. And as i also said earlier, the courts decision was found in a climate where our courts already bow to the favour of Islamic interests, in order to not disturb the "consensus" and not to disturb poltival correctness. I even would say that the court under no circumstances would have had the courage to stop that mosque at GZ. the political pressure was immense, too.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Good points. But it must be done carefully. I was a big fan of the 'deportation' argument in 1979. While certain people compared it to the incarceration of American citizens in 1942 based on national origin, in fact we didn't threaten to lock up Iranians who protested here at all - we merely offered them a free ticket home.

What you say is a good start.


A good idea on the face of it, but I think we must tread very carefully when defining how that will be implemented.


Again a good idea. The only problem I see is what happened in this case - the community decided to give the permits. Criticize their motives all we want, it was still their decision to make.

I do agree with you that these ideas are very difficult to implement safely. By and large our system is supposed to allow for impartial judicial review but political leanings, interpretations, and the overuse of precedent is quickly corrupting our judiciary.

As for this case, I wouldn't say that the community has approved of the permits, but rather that the community bureaucracy has. This seems to be yet another case of elected officials ignoring the objections of their constituents. While they are certainly allowed to do so, the frequency of this type of defiance from elected officials is alarming to me.

The deal is clear: our house - our rules. Like it, or leave.

So forced deportations, I wonder how that works with citizens.
Oh yeah Sky addresed that too, stripping citizenship because of their religion.
Wow its the Fourth Reich.
Anyone notice that Skys ideas on legislation makes him directly in violation of the basic law he cites as justification.


Schroeder

By making it illegal and sending everyone abusing it back home.

How does that work with citizens? Are you proposing sending Germans to Germany to get them out of Germany?

so many completely miss the fact that that site as it was originally zoned wouldnt allow a mosque to be built there (i believe historic or something)

Thats strange, can you find any zoning laws covering that area which specificly ban a Muslim place of worship?
After all if it is a "fact" that so many have completely missed you really should enlighten us with the factual zoning laws.
Though I think what you refer to is the original ban on anything apart from mainstream protestant worship anywhere which was done away with in the second half of the 1700s which meant Catholics could finally build a church in NY and Quakers could have meetings.

As for this case, I wouldn't say that the community has approved of the permits

If you look at the recent surveys the locals didn't object.

What I find funny about those who are upset that the dump didn't get preservation status is that such status wouldn't prevent it from being used as a mosque or prevent it from being redeveloped as a bigger mosque.

[Schroeder]

BTW since we are talking about free speech. The newly assigned minister for social affairs of Lower Saxony, Mrs Özkan, a German born Muslim of Turkish decent, wanted to get representatives of the German media to sign a so called "Media Charter". This charter included that all the media should only use "integration supporting language" in their articles. In other words, if a crime has been committed by a member of the religion of peace then don't mention to what ethnic group he belongs. Another blatant attempt to gloss over the real situation here. Thank god that she failed.
Here is an article about it from a Turkish source: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...fer-2010-08-02

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

BTW since we are talking about free speech. The newly assigned minister for social affairs of Lower Saxony, Mrs Özkan, a German born Muslim of Turkish decent, wanted to get representatives of the German media to sign a so called "Media Charter". This charter included that all the media should only use "immigration supporting language" in their articles. In other words, if a crime has been committed by a member of the religion of peace than don't mention to what ethnic group he belongs. Another blatant attempt to gloss over the real situation here. Thank god that she failed.
Here is an article about it from a Turkish source: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...fer-2010-08-02

Oh for crying out loud...

Oh for crying out loud...

Indeed, how does Schroeder manage to change "integration" to "immigration"?
So its integration supporting language not immigration supporting language, which is exactly what people are calling for or has their islamaphobia simply blinded them?
Likewise the crucifix ban mentioned in that article, a ban on religious symbols in State schools for example crucifixes and head scarfs....which is in line with the german courts isn't it, hey wasn't a pile of people here in favour of banning head scarfs entirely not just in State schools.

So when Schroeder writes "In other words" it means he is simply talking rubbish s he is changing words to try to get towards the meaning he wants and then just making more crap up about what he just made up.