Posted on 08/18/2010 6:30:21 AM PDT by detritus
It is hard to imagine that anything has gone unsaid about the so-called Ground Zero mosque, but an important point seems to be missing.
The mosque should be built precisely because we don't like the idea very much. We don't need constitutional protections to be agreeable, after all.
This point surpasses even all the obvious reasons for allowing the mosque, principally that there's no law against it. Precluding any such law, we let people worship when and where they please. That it hurts some people's feelings is, well, irrelevant in a nation of laws. And, really, don't we want to keep it that way?...
...[T]he more compelling point is that mosque opponents may lose by winning. Radical Muslims have set cities afire because their feelings were hurt. When a Muslim murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, it was because his feelings were hurt. Ditto the Muslims who rioted about cartoons depicting the image of Muhammad and sent frightened doodlers into hiding...
This is why plans for the mosque near Ground Zero should be allowed to proceed, if that's what these Muslims want. We teach tolerance by being tolerant. We can't insist that our freedom of speech allows us to draw cartoons or produce plays that Muslims find offensive and then demand that they be more sensitive to our feelings....
Nobody ever said freedom would be easy. We are challenged every day to reconcile what is allowable and what is acceptable. Compromise, though sometimes maddening, is part of the bargain. We let the Ku Klux Klan march, not because we agree with them but because they have a right to display their hideous ignorance.
Ultimately, when sensitivity becomes a cudgel against lawful expressions of speech or religious belief--or disbelief--we all lose.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Agreed.
The Greeks aren't a PC victim group, so they haven't been able to get permits.
He also posted some obamanation propaganda about obama’s passport proving he’s a natural born citizen.
As you said, IBTZ.
Total BS. Go read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s piece in today’s WSJ to learn why.
How to win the clash of civilizations
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338471355710184.html
Okay, let me make it it crystal clear. I am defending the specific PRIVATE PROPERTY rights of a specific owner to build, or not build on, a specific piece of land that he her or she purchased legally. If you, on the other hand, want to use for the force of governemnt to selectively prohibit that specific owner from building on his specific land, then we disagree. Do we? Now is is your turn to clarify your remarks.
Your point about the denial of rights to Christians is perfectly true. The best strategy to achieve justice is to emphasize the fight against those violations of private property, not SELECTIVELY EXTEND those violations to others. For example, opponents of the mosque would be far more effective if they focused their efforts on helping the the Greek Orthodox church at ground zero in its fight to build a taller steeple on a specific piece of land. Instead of stressing this hypocrisy, however, they only weaken the case of that church, when they divert the issue into a campaign to selectively violate the private property rights of another specific owner.
Let's use this analogy. Let's say a specific willing seller and buyer in NYC want to build a new Christian church two blocks away from a Muslim cemetery. How would respond to the anti-Church argument that "why do they need to build near Muslim 'sacred ground' since there are thousands of Christians church in New York and they can build elsewhere?"
Zoning restrictions have the force of law. You cant build a church in certain areas if the Board doesent want you to, you cant build an apartment complex on land the County want to keep as agricultural, and so on.
The zoning board ignored the desires of its constituents and this bimbo wants to turn this into a religious freedom issue. What a maroon.
Both you and Parker are completely clueless. What we as citizens determine as appropriate has nothing to do with the first amendment. That is a restriction on government not us.
OK, remember this the next time some liberal gets his feelings hurt and cries foul. Remember this the next time voters decide an issue, but some judge decides to legislate from the bench because the vote did not go his way (gays in California). Remember this the next time some kid wants to pray in school. Remember this the next time the atheists and muslims come out of the woodwork around Christmas time to protest the nativity scene in front of town hall.
I hope those words come back to haunt this moron and every other left-winger out there. I hope they choke on these words.
But.. you know, you cant build an apartment complex on land that is zoned agricultural, for example. The zoning board in this case buckled under pressure from the multicultural billionaire Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg. If it was doing its job at least 5 or so square blocks should have been rezoned to reflect public desire that this be a "memorial" area.
Given the fact that 61 % of the whole city is against this, and that the city zoning officials were not acting in the interests of its constituents, isnt a protest on those points warranted? ? Sheesh, the whole thing is surreal.
I’ve been seeing NewsMax commercials on FNC saying one reason you should subscribe is that Kathleen Parker is one of their columnists. This article is reason enough not to bother.
See ya, troll
This mosque is going to be, and already is, a huge nuisance to the neighborhood it is in as well as to the city at large. Building this mosque ‘where’ they want to build it is deleterious to the public interest. It should be denied on that basis.
My opinion is that you and I agree more than we disagree and would probably be friends if we worked together.
Certainly, zoning boards trample on the private property rights all the time, quite often for corrupt, arbitrary, reasons.. Excuse me, however, but I don't see the justice of giving them even more arbitrary pretexts to deny the private property rights of a specific owner. That's like pouring gasoline on the fire which is burning away our rights to property in every knook and cranny of the U.S. Why not use this valuable energy to rally to the private and first amendment rights of the Greek Orthodox church? Right now, the plight of that church is nothing more than a debating point for opponents of the mosque. As long as the emphasis is on denying the right to build on this specific land, it will remain a side issue.
"Arbitrary" ?? Arent you painting with a broad brush? One man's "arbitrary" might be another man's non-arbitrary.
How about building a strip club next to an elementary school? How about you spend your life savings to buy 5 acres of land in a forested area and you build your own house with blood , sweat and tears and then someone buys the adjoining plots and put in an amusement park? Wouldnt you want the zoning board to protect your "rights" ? You didnt think "they" could "do" that, and its blatantly unfair, isnt it?
IMO, the only way you can come down in favor of this obvious intentional provocation and affront is if you just don't give a spit about a whole bunch of people's legitimate feelings and interests.
False. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, meaning you can worship green peas if you would care to, and nobody can stop you. It does not guarantee that you can do so in any place you wish. (For instance, I highly doubt your neighbors would appreciate your turning your home into the great church of the lovely green peas, congregation 500). There are zoning restrictions and, lately, the delicate sensibilities of others (hence no prayer before football games, no “Merry Christmas” greetings, no nativities or menorahs in public places, etc) which serve to restrict not how you worship, but where. Those of the muslim faith do not need to or deserve to be accorded any more rights than are accorded the Christians (such as the Greek Orthodox church which was already in place and destroyed by 9/11, and has been given the run around in trying to get rebuilt for 9 years now, St. Nicholas) and Jews who comprise the vast majority of this great country. They can either deal with it, or go back where they came from, where they can build mosques (but no other house of worship) wherever they wish.
Even though I own my land and house, I couldn't build a pig farm regardless of what the zoning law says. When I purchased that property, I also agreed to private covenant that the land could not be used for anything but residential use. There are hundreds of thousands of such private contracts in the U.S. and in a free market (without the crutch of arbitrary and politicized zoning) there would be even more.
As to the specific scenario you cite, no private owner in his right mind would build a pig factory in Times Square since the best use of the land is for other uses. Having said that, it is true that many areas don't have private land-use contracts and thus are the mercy of zoning boards. What about those areas? The best solution, IMHO, is to transfer this power to private block associations who could by majority or two thirds vote decide whether they want to have deed restrictions. For a detailed plan on how to accomplish this, see here
Of course, such a transition to a more just system of private property rights is not likely any time soonin the future. For this reason, IMHO, the best solution in the here and now is to limit the often arbitary and selective nature of zoning law as applied to specific parcels in favor of more general rules that won't change overnight because of the vagaries of politics. Needless to say, a selective attack on the right of a specific owner to use his own land to build a mosque is a gigantic step away from that goal.
See post 78.
Yes thanks for catching that FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.