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.
Zoning laws take too long. We should have started on this on September 12. But who guessed they would try such a stunt?
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.