Posted on 07/22/2010 2:29:33 PM PDT by HonestConservative
The Center for Security Policy today unveiled a powerful 1-minute video opposing the construction of a 13-story, $100 million mega-mosque near the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center. The Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11 by adherents to the barbaric, supremacist and totalitarian program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah." And the imam who is promoting this mosque has publicly declared that he seeks to "bring Shariah to America."
As the ad makes clear, Shariah's followers have long built mosques on the most sacred sites of those they have conquered - for example, on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, at Constantinople/Istanbul's St. Sophia Basilica and in Cordoba, Spain, the capital of the occupying Moors' Muslim kingdom.
A growing chorus of New Yorkers and other Americans - including, notably, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich- have expressed outrage at the prospect of a similar, permanent beachhead for Shariah being use to defile Ground Zero, and symbolize America's defeat at the hands of her enemies. We say, "No Mosque at Ground Zero."
(Excerpt) Read more at centerforsecuritypolicy.org ...
Zoning laws take too long. We should have started on this on September 12. But who guessed they would try such a stunt?
Why is this mosque creating a nuisance while the other one (just as close to the WTC site) is not?
Personally I would favor a law which states that all new buildings built within 800 feet of ground zero must have a 40 foot cross attached to the top in memory of the victims of 9/11.
If you would genuinely support such a law, I hope you don't consider yourself a defender of the Constitution.
Why should American muzzies speak out? they support the destruction of the last remnants of Christendom in the Islamic infested world.
http://israelhaiom.com/Iraqi-Christians-face-bomb-threats-in-run-up-to-Christmas.html
Little do the American people know (or care) that today we are in greater danger with the Muslims in our midst than the 101st Airborne was in Bastogne.
At least the 101st had the American people behind them — today the American people have leaders who side with the muslim enemy.
Because a lot of Americans are just itching to burn it to the ground before it is finished. That might cause damage to adjoining properties and could be considered a safety hazard.
If you would genuinely support such a law, I hope you don't consider yourself a defender of the Constitution.
Why would having a local government require that all new buildings near a historical site have a cross on top as a memorial to the 3000 people who died there violate the constitution?
Are you one of those people who insist that cities purge themselves of any reference to our Christian heritage? Are you opposed to Cities acknowledging our christian heritage by erecting crosses as memorials as opposed to monoliths or pentagrams?
If so, then maybe you are the one that is not a defender of the constitution.
Where in the constitution does it prohibit a city from requiring certain decorative items to be placed on new buildings as a condition of obtaining a building permit? And where in the constitution does it prohibit the city from directing what kind of decoration is to be placed there? And where in the constitution does it prohibit a city from requiring that that decorative addition be a monument to people who died in the vicinity? And where in the constitution does it prohibit a city from using a decorative item that is traditionally associated with death and the honoring of the dead (i.e. a cross)?
I suspect that your vision of the constitution is one that was not common in America at the time of its founding or even at the time the 14th Amendment was passed. Indeed your view of the Constitution appears to be fluid and adjustable with the times; i.e., the idea of a "Living Document" Constitution.
Upon learning of the initial German success, Lieutenant Colonel Creighton Abrams, then a tank battalion commander in the 4th Armored Division, made the second most famous remark of the battle as his unit prepared to launch its counter-offensive, "They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards."
A government may not prohibit religious exercise (or speech, or assembly, etc) simply because other people want to damage that exercise.
Why would having a local government require that all new buildings near a historical site have a cross on top as a memorial to the 3000 people who died there violate the constitution?
Are you one of those people who insist that cities purge themselves of any reference to our Christian heritage? Are you opposed to Cities acknowledging our christian heritage by erecting crosses as memorials as opposed to monoliths or pentagrams?
If so, then maybe you are the one that is not a defender of the constitution.
There is a huge difference between insisting that "cities purge themselves of any reference to our Christian heritage" and cities requiring the use of religious symbols on any new (private) construction. Would your proposed law require a new synagogue to include a 40-foot cross?
Where in the constitution does it prohibit a city from requiring certain decorative items to be placed on new buildings as a condition of obtaining a building permit? And where in the constitution does it prohibit the city from directing what kind of decoration is to be placed there? And where in the constitution does it prohibit a city from requiring that that decorative addition be a monument to people who died in the vicinity? And where in the constitution does it prohibit a city from using a decorative item that is traditionally associated with death and the honoring of the dead (i.e. a cross)?
The government (Federal, under the first amendment, and state/local under the 14th) may not require the exercise of religion - including the use of particular religious imagery - as a condition of issuing a license, including a building permit. I don't believe that the Constitution prohibits a city from using a cross as a memorial, but I do believe that a city may not require private citizens to use a cross as a memorial. Again, it goes back to the synagogue situation - why should those who don't believe that the cross holds any sort of significance be forced to use that symbol (rather than, say, a star of david)?
I suspect that your vision of the constitution is one that was not common in America at the time of its founding or even at the time the 14th Amendment was passed. Indeed your view of the Constitution appears to be fluid and adjustable with the times; i.e., the idea of a "Living Document" Constitution.
If you can point me to a single law that required the use of religious imagery, then, by all means, let's see it.
No intention of flaming you, Sir.
If Islam was a religion you’d have a point. However it is a form of fascist governance that does not and would not permit others to practice their freedom of religion once they have the power. History has shown no exceptions to this point.
Further, the connections to the Moslem Brotherhood, a terrorist organization are becoming more and more evident. Those Imams who are incharge of these mosques will not call Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist organizations nor will they condemn their murderous actions.
Sharia law does not permit the freedom of infidels. Period. Sharia law allows for the molestation of children. This should be permitted in America?
If you disagree, fine. Fortunately, as more and more Americans become aware of the history of Islam, they are learning that it is antithetical to freedom and to our constitutional form of government.
Well said.
Note that the struts of one of the planes from 911 crashed down threw the building in question. Thus it has standing as an historical site. In addition, It has been supposed to have been declared an hisorically significant piece of architecture for 20 years and the bureaucrats never got around to it.
The key point is that Islam is not a religion, but a fascist form of governance.
So that the Bill of Rights does not apply to this situation.
Further, the funding for the operation is well on its way to being tracked to terrorist organizations, which supports the concept that Islam has little to do with religion, but about oppression of human beings, if not their death.
If the Muslem leadership were interested in building bridges, as westerners understand the concept, they would have assisted the Greek Orthodox rebuild their destroyed Church at the site, before ever considering such a brazen act.
Muslems everywhere would have everywhere condemned the mass murders and further condemn Hamas, Hezbollah and the MB. Yet, we hear crickets.
In fact, the “Cordoba Initiative” began in 2002. So their was little or no sensitivity to the deaths of thousands of mostly Christians and Jews. It is almost as if the destruction of the towers was planned in order for such a monument to intolerance as this 15 story mosque to be constructed.
Really?
Gee, here is the text of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
.
Please point out the clause or section of that amendment that says that a city can't require that a building in a historical district of a city must have a designated symbol commemorating and honoring the deaths of 3000 people on the top of their new building as a condition to getting a building permit.
I don't see it there. I suspect it must be somewhere in the pneumbras (the empty space between the lines).
Tell me does the Constitution also guarantee a woman the right to kill her unborn baby? Is that in that amendment somewhere?
It is well-settled law that the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the First Amendment (and several others) against the states. To the same extent that the Federal government cannot establish a religion or restrict the free exercise thereof, neither can the states/localities. Are you suggesting that the states may establish a religion or restrict the free exercise thereof? Could a city require a person to sign a statement attesting to the fact that they believe that Christ is their lord and personal savior, as a condition of receiving a building permit?
You still have not answered my question - under your law, would a synagogue built near the WTC site be required to have a 40-foot cross on it?
>Yet, we hear crickets.<
.
But you don’t understand — American Muslims are shy, peaceful and too moderate to comment on their fellow-Muslims’ mass murder world-wide.
I stand corrected. /s
Yes it is. Thank you.
If they ever build it, I think someone will destroy it and that would be funny....
It's not in the language of the statute is it?
Hmmm?
It's also well settled law that a woman has a "Constitutional Right" to kill her posterity in the womb. Is that the way you view the constitution? Is it your position that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means?
Are you suggesting that the states may establish a religion or restrict the free exercise thereof?
Well to be honest, from a strict reading of the Constitution and the language of the First and 14th Amendments, I don't see any such prohibition. Frankly I don't think the history of the 14th Amendment suggests that it was the intention of the drafters of that amendment to give the entire bill of rights guarantees to citizens of the several states. And neither have the courts so concluded (especially in regard to the 2nd amendment). The courts have more or less cherry picked the rights from the Bill of Rights to attach to the fourteenth amendment and unless it was the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment to include all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the citizens of the several states, then I don't think you can say that it was their intention just to include the first amendment.
You still have not answered my question - under your law, would a synagogue built near the WTC site be required to have a 40-foot cross on it?
Well under the equal protection clause, if you grant an exception to one building, you might have to grant an exception to all buildings. If you started granting all these exceptions based on religious expression, then you wouldn't be able to achieve your purpose of putting up memorials on the buildings surrounding your historical landmark.
FWIW, I also would have no problem if the city decided to mark the buildings with a 40 foot Star of David rather than a cross and if some Christian church decided to build a 16 story cathedral in the midst of the historical district, then they would, of course, have to comply or they would be denied a building permit.
Both the cross and the Star of David are traditional AMERICAN symbols of respect for the dead.
“Are you suggesting that the states may establish a religion or restrict the free exercise thereof?”
Seems to me, the way things are going, all the Feds need to do is say you are selling religion, cover it under the commerce clause and then they can tell you to do whatever the hell they want to!
Now....there’s a slippery slope if I ever saw one. There are a lot of people with “fascist” and socialist philosphies in the U.S. Believers in Obamacare and Rev. Wright are examples. To be consistent, you would also have to ALSO deny them property rights (because that is fundamentally what is stake here) as well as freedom of religion. Would you? If so, we fundamentally disagree. I don’t trust the government to make such judgements. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and fully uphold the same constitutonal right of people you abhor...be they the Rev. Wright or the owners of this mosque. We learned that after the hystria of World War I. I place my trust in the marketplace of ideas not some politician or tin-pot bureaucrat to decide that question.
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.