Posted on 09/02/2010 7:24:44 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
I was watching a video on the anti-mosque rally on youtube, and I was surprised to see people in the comment section invoking “private property rights” to defend the mosque.
First off it’s a bit odd for ‘these people’, broadly speaking, to be defending that. Where were they when American Renaissance meetings were shut down by “anti-racist” race terrorists? Where were they when Scientology meetups get harassed? I’m sure if you looked you could find many other examples. If they don’t want to defend “private property”, fine. But this selective invocation of principles is hypocrisy.
Second off, if you support property tax then you oppose private property. When a landlord makes you pay to live in a section, you pay him rent. This is because you don’t own the apartment, you are renting, and so you pay rent. If you owned it, you wouldn’t pay rent. Property “tax” is rent. So sorry, there is no “private” property in the US, it’s all rented from the state. And any invocation of “private property” is meaningless if you support property taxes.
Third off, obscenities are routinely banned. If someone made a building that displayed disemowelment or hardcore sex scenes, or flashing epileptic lights, who would be against shutting down that establishment? In fact this is done all the time. Okay, so things that are obscene to the local majority are routinely shut down, and clearly a mosque is an obscenity. This has nothing to do with 9/11. There is nothing inconsistent in advocating the use of force to destroy the mosque. “Private” property is complicated. It is a topic, not a single concise position.
(Excerpt) Read more at fringeelements.info ...
If they own the property, they have a right to build it there, period.
The article says that obscenities are banned; however, the middle finger is not banned but regarded as free speech. This is what the upcoming ground zero mosque represents. A giant middle finger to America of how Islam triumphed over us nine years ago.
True, but most people are saying they should not build it, even though they have a legal right to do it.
Yes and I agree. Who wants a mosque overlooking the biggest act of muslim islamofascist terrorism in history???? NOT ME. BUT I want the gov. to respect private property rights REGARDLESS. The Founding Fathers wanted small gov. only functioning to protect individual rights and private property rights. Think about it. If the gov. steps in and says no to the ground zero victory mosque (which I’m against) they’ll be able to say no to a church across the street from a gov.-run school or a crisis pregnancy center next to a planned parenthood abortion mill. THINK ABOUT IT. If the gov. steps in and says no to the GZVM then who knows what else theyll be able to stop.
Not necessarily. We can’t all just do whatever we want on our privately owned property. Consider zoning laws, protected wetlands, public accommodations, etc. Also consider the fact that church bells have been silenced on behalf of those in their communities who consider the sounds to be offensive. And the guy who got arrested for walking around nude in his own home.
Private property is the ESSENCE of capitalism and the free market. So liberals get church bells silenced so what? Are you saying we should sink to the level of libs and commies?
Thank you!!!!!!!!
The ppl calling for the gov. to step in need to be careful about what they mean. Should the gov. be allowed to tell Christians where they can build a church or Jews where they can build a temple? Should the gov. be allowed to tell me I can’t build a treehouse in a tree in my backyard even when I own the yard? Do whatever u can to stop this but dont tell the gov. they need to get involved this is not something the gov. should be doing.
Would these intellectual cripples trot out the "private property" argument passionately if Osama bin Laden proposed to purchase a North American heaquarters building in New York and called it a mosque?
No reason to pursue the issue beyond that question, regardless of how it is answered.
Government should have kept out of it. Obama should have kept his big mouth shut. And Bloomberg is an actual ADVOCATE for this mosque - so much so - one might wonder if he wasn’t a part of their PR firm.
They’re already praying in this mosque. Is it up to city code?
I am amazed that there are so many individuals on FR who are unable to grasp the simple idea why a Supreme Court Justice once wrote, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Listen, private property is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and the BACKBONE OF CAPITALISM. Without private property we’d have communism or anarchy. I’M AGAINST THE VICTORY MOSQUE but NO ONE in the gov. should have say in this. It is a property issue.
I’m saying that laws should be enforced fairly and equitably. Is it OK that church bells are silenced but Muslim calls to prayer are not? Does that represent equal justice under the law? No.
Do u think the gov. should be allowed to tell a pro-life group they cant build a crisis pregnancy center two blocks away from a planned parenthood? So why do you think the gov. should be dictating what ppl should do in this case?
No church bells should be silenced by gov. actions but why then should PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken away by the gov?
“Should the gov. be allowed to tell me I can’t build a treehouse in a tree in my backyard even when I own the yard?”
Maybe not, but the fact is that the government CAN and DOES do things like this all the time. If you happen to have a wetland area on your private property you may not build on it - you may not develop it - you may not disturb it in any way. So your argument holds no water here (pun acknowledged).
In the same way, do you think Christians and Jews haven’t had buildings regulated in the past? Do you think that doesn’t happen now? When new construction is considered, we have environmental impact statements to consider, and that’s only one thing to think about. A church or a synagogue can’t just be plunked down wherever someone thinks it’s a good idea to put one in.
The fact is that we simply can’t do whatever we want on our private property. Maybe we SHOULD be able to do that but we ARE NOT able to do that.
Keep in mind that there’s a Greek Orthodox church that has been waiting for permission to rebuild at Ground Zero. Are you as agitated about that as you are about the mosque?
From an email making the rounds: If it is true that the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero is to promote tolerance:
It has been suggested that a gay nightclub be open next door to the mosque.
Two names proposed for the club are;”The Turban Cowboy” & “You Mecca Me Hot”.
On the other side should be a butcher shop specializing in pork.
Across the street, a store that sells and displays ladies lingerie and bikinis on live models.
Private property should never be taken away by the government. But in this case, private property isn’t being taken away. In any case, it looks like the “owners” of the property don’t even own it yet.
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.