[Conscience of a Conservative]

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.

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.

[P-Marlowe]

Why is this mosque creating a nuisance while the other one (just as close to the WTC site) is not?

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.