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 ...
First, the Mosque is four blocks away (there is another Mosque just as close), not at “ground zero.” Second, I was under the impression that conservatives actually believed in the first amendment and property rights. I guess some conservatives only support those ideals for people the like. Flame away.
It apparently also makes you abandon the first amendment and property rights (at least for people you don't like).
Here is the obstacle that must be crossed according to our constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
I understand this mosque is actually about 200 meters from the WTC site.
However, what would be said if it were a Christian church building that was being opposed.
Seriously, someone please provide a constitutional reason for forbidding the building of that mosque in that location. Does zoning forbid it?
I have absolutely zero respect for Islam. I’m an ordained Christian minister, and I think it’s an affront to the dead, because of who the terrorists were and what they represented.
But, we must legitimately answer the constitutional question.
I completely agree. I think that there is a tremendous difference between saying that the mosque should not be built (an entirely reasonable position - of course it shouldn’t) and saying that the mosque should not be allowed to be built (a position that is very difficult to square with principles of religious liberty, private property rights, and constitutionally-limited government)
I believe that the first amendment does not prohibit a local government (City of New York) from instituting reasonable zoning restrictions on religious organizations. All they would need to do would be to pass a zoning ordinance prohibiting the erection of any large religious edifice within one mile of the site of the WTC building.
Seriously, someone please provide a constitutional reason for forbidding the building of that mosque in that location. Does zoning forbid it?
I think one could identify a religion that has, as its ultimate goal, the subjugation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists under a political order known as Shariah law, a political organization and the functional equivalent of the KKK or the Aryan Nation. Islam is nothing less than Religion and Politics mixed to the point where there is no separation and the difference between Nazism and Islam is that at least Nazis were more tolerant.
I would tend to think that as an Originalist (rather than a strict constructionist) the founders would not have considered Islam a religion as much as they would consider it a political ideology. Religions traditionally existed to promote charity and respect for life and the movement towards the betterment of mankind. Islam exists soley for the purpose of subjugating men, destroying all other religions and setting up a system of government which would encourage the violent overthrow of the US Government and the destruction by force of the Constitution. In that sense Islam is not a religion.
However, what would be said if it were a Christian church building that was being opposed.
If it were an Aryan Nation church, they would not allow it on the grounds that it would create a "nuisance". I think under the circumstances a giant Mosque built on the site where radical Islamists killed 3000 New Yorkers could be considered a nuisance.
Hell, if they build it WE will tear it down! How's that?
I agree that islam is more about subjugating and ruling populations and nations than it is about religion. However, it gets the protection of religion. Thomas Jefferson, however, had no problem attacking jihadist barbary pirates who really did consider their religion their justification for demanding tribute from all who would venture near their waterways.
Existing zoning regulations obviously aren’t now in place or someone would have mentioned it.
However, I see no problem with someone wanting to build a chapel near the location for meditation and prayer. In my mind, I see the chapel, obviously, as a Christian chapel.
At some point, with the crusader popes and kings, we will have to decide, this far and no farther. They stood for their uniquely Christian culture. That is reason enough for me, but I’m still not sure it will pass a literalist reading of the US Constitution.
Yes, reasonable zoning restrictions that happen to affect religious organizations are permissible under the first amendment. But those zoning restrictions must be neutral, and must not be specifically intended to restrict religious practice. In this case, (a) there are already numerous religious institutions within a 1-mile radius of the WTC site (as an aside, in that part of Manhattan, 1 mile is actually a significant distance that covers numerous neighborhoods), and (b) any such zoning restrictions have been proposed only after this religious organization announced plans to build (and, therefore, a court would likely say that the zoning restrictions are not neutral and are targeted at restricting religious practice).
I think one could identify a religion that has, as its ultimate goal, the subjugation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists under a political order known as Shariah law, a political organization and the functional equivalent of the KKK or the Aryan Nation. Islam is nothing less than Religion and Politics mixed to the point where there is no separation and the difference between Nazism and Islam is that at least Nazis were more tolerant.
I would tend to think that as an Originalist (rather than a strict constructionist) the founders would not have considered Islam a religion as much as they would consider it a political ideology. Religions traditionally existed to promote charity and respect for life and the movement towards the betterment of mankind. Islam exists soley for the purpose of subjugating men, destroying all other religions and setting up a system of government which would encourage the violent overthrow of the US Government and the destruction by force of the Constitution. In that sense Islam is not a religion.
As a strong defender of our Constitutionally-limited government and religious freedom, I believe that it is abhorrent and antithetical to the Constitutional principles upon which this country was founded to suggest that the government (federal, state, or local) has the authority to decide what is, and is not, a religion.
Again, I agree completely that this mosque ought not to be built. However, I strongly believe that granting the government the power to decide that a certain religion may not build a house of worship in a particular place is incompatible with the Constitution.
Oh hell - let ‘em build it.
I’ll really enjoy reading the news reports about it burning down.
The founders had no problems with state and local governments deciding which religions they would favor and which they would not. The 14th Amendment was not an originalist concept. Indeed, it was in many ways antithetical to the founders principles.
I don't think the founders would have had any objection to the prohibition of the building of a giant mosque next to a place where members of that religion killed 4000 residents of that city.
The fact of the matter is that this mosque will create a nuisance. Loyal Americans and New Yorkers may have the uncontrollable urge to burn the damned building to the ground. And that could damage adjoining properties. And that would be bad. We wouldn't want to damage adjoining properties.
It makes no sense to say that the "14th Amendment was not an originalist concept." Originalism does not mean that we interpret the entire constitution through the eyes of the founders, it means that we interpret the document through the eyes of the drafters. So, in the context of the 14th amendment, we would interpret it as it was originally understood when it was adopted. To say that an amendment to the constitution is not "originalist" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the term "originalist."
Regardless of whether or not the 14th amendment is consistent with how the founders envisioned the nation, it is a part of the Constitution. To the extent that state and local governments could favor/disfavor religion prior to the 14th amendment, they cannot do so now.
So the question would then be whether or not the drafters of the 14th Amendment envisioned that this amendment would prevent cities from drafting safety and nuisance regulations that might impact one religion more than another and whether or not the doctrines and mission statements of a religion that were in conflict with the notion of public good might be taken into consideration in determining whether or not to allow a large religious edifice to be erected within a certain historical district within that city?
Do you think that Congress should have allowed Mormons to continue in Polygamy? Should Muslims be allowed to have multiple wives and beat them at their leisure as part of their religious tradition?
What is the first word of the first amendment?
www.shoebat.com/ ... check him out he is excellent source for all things having to do with the Muslim mind and the Koran and how it is they can lie, kill, suicide bomb, etc all in the name of ALLAH.
He is Christian, and does teaching on many aspects of what is happening now. Churches do not like hearing about their own ineptitude in dealing with Muslims.
Hey Captain, board the Enterprise and take off.
LOL. Now tell me WHY I should do this. Please enlighten me with your wisdom.
In every city today, the vague excuse of "nuisance" is being used to deprive countless Non-Moslem people of property rights. By extending this concept, you are only underming their rights. Sometimes, you have to protect the rights of people you despise to protect your own. BTW, another pre-9-11 mosque is now just as close to ground zero as this proposed one. Are you suggesting that it also be torn down on this basis?
Well said. Unfortunately, the crusaders against the mosque don't seem to care about that pesky amendment (or related property rights arguments). They'll care, of course, when their rights are threatened....but it will be too late by that time.
Not really keeping up with the issue, are you.
No one is abandoning anyone’s precious rights. We are trying to exert public pressure from around the country to scotch this obscenity. Thanks for your support for America’s enemies.
Congress didn’t make any law. So what’s your problem?
No, because it is not creating a nuisance. If the presence of a specific building is likely to create a situation where it could pose a safety hazard, then it can be prohibited on the basis that it was going to create a nuisance. For instance if the American Nazi Party or the Aryan Nation Church wanted to build a headquarters next to the Simon Weisenthal Museum, I doubt very seriously if the LA City Council would approve it and secondly I don't think it would be struck down as anything other than a reasonable zoning restriction designed to avoid the creation of a nuisance.
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.
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.