Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[eeyore1954]

There's a great deal of case law that says that the establishment clause in the First Amendment means that governments can't be in the business of building churches. So again, if the proposal were to build a mosque on publicly-owned land, I would object.

But that's not the case here. There is no entanglement issue. No one is proposing a mosque at Ground Zero, despite the many false claims to the contrary.

Is there a great deal of case law dealing with the renting of publicly owned lands to religious organizations?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Has anyone noticed that those running about opposing the mosque are using the same arguments that the radical islamics used in reaction to the Danish Mohammad cartoons?

(that culture takes precedance over fundamental rights)

We need a heavy duty irony meter here.

Well said!

Since the 9/11 hijackers choose to spend one of their last nights on earth visiting, not a mosque, but a strip club, I would argue that the right wingers should be up in arms over the two strip bars near GZ.

(Oddly enough, I think those opposing the mosque probably have a similar view of strip clubs as the 9/11 hijackers.)

 

[Cleon]

And similar objections would be raised if a waco christian militia group bombed a building causing massive deaths then wanted to build a church near the spot.

No, I don't think that's true - and your "waco" typo hints at why.

Remember the Waco Siege in 1993? The site where almost a hundred people died because a crazy, apocalyptic Christian cult faced off against the US government?

Not only did a "waco christian milita group" build a church near the spot, the compound site itself is still in use by the Branch Davidian sect.

No "similar objections" have been raised.

Yes, there is a legitimate concern that it would attract extremists to the area.

That's a fearmongering concern, not a legitimate concern.

 

[leftysergeant]

Yes, there is a legitimate concern that it would attract extremists to the area.

That is not a legitimate concern. Southern Baptist churches attract terrorists, too, but I think we would see a real crap storm if we tried to ban them from our neighborhoods.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is there a great deal of case law dealing with the renting of publicly owned lands to religious organizations?

That's not what I said. You're also trying to derail the discussion. (At any rate, the situation you're trying to describe where you rent publicly-owned land to a private organization to build a permanent religious building doesn't sound legitimate. Since a building isn't something you can pick up and move, the property would effectively be one thing--and you can't both rent and own it at the same time. The issue behind the use of public property by religious organizations is whether or not there is a secular purpose and whether or not the use is prolonged and causes excessive entanglement. Building a permanent structure would not be temporary use. Here's a decent essay on the topic.)

The point that you seem to be missing is that there is no entanglement issue whatsoever in the actual proposed project. It's being built with private funds on privately-owned land in accordance with zoning laws and local ordinances.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And similar objections would be raised if a waco christian militia group bombed a building causing massive deaths then wanted to build a church near the spot.

Again, you've got your facts wrong. This analogy would only be accurate if the people who planned and executed the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the same ones trying to build a mosque.

In fact, if they were the same people, there would be no problem banning their presence and their ability to build anything anywhere in the country. In fact, if they were the same people, we'd actually arrest them for their crimes.

But they're not, and you know that.

So nothing about this project is comparable to "a waco christian militia group" bombing a building and then trying to build a church near the spot. In that situation, the same thing would apply. If they were the same people, we'd not only not allow them to build anything anywhere, we'd arrest them and throw them in prison for their crimes.

 

[Thunder]

Again, you've got your facts wrong. This analogy would only be accurate if the people who planned and executed the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the same ones trying to build a mosque.
.

You don't get it, do you?

Al Qaeda are Muslims. Al Qaeda did 9-11.

The folks who want to build the Mosque at Ground Zero, are Muslim.

Ifso-facto, Al Qaeda is trying to build a Mosque at Ground Zero.

 

[Thunder]

Yes, there is a legitimate concern that it would attract extremists to the area.

And I am concerned that the local RCC church is a meeting ground for pedophiles. I want that church removed immediately.

btw, when did Conservatives abandon their commitment to Freedom of Religion? Seems to be a recent event.

 

[leftysergeant]

Southern Baptists have killed more people in terrorist attacks than al Qaeda did. Ban them from New York.

 

[The Painter]

You don't get it, do you?

Al Qaeda are Muslims. Al Qaeda did 9-11.

The folks who want to build the Mosque at Ground Zero, are Muslim.

Ifso-facto, Al Qaeda is trying to build a Mosque at Ground Zero.

Ifso-facto????? That's a good one.

Oh yeah, So again, why not in Ground Zero?

 

[The Painter]

Southern Baptists have killed more people in terrorist attacks than al Qaeda did..

Evidence?

 

[Cleon]

Oh yeah, So again, why not in Ground Zero?

AFAIK nobody is proposing a mosque (or any other house of worship) actually inGround Zero, so I don't know why this is relevant. If there's a point you're trying to make, please just state it and get it over with.

 

[hgc]

Yes, there is a legitimate concern that it would attract extremists to the area.

How is that a concern? What's the concern with "extremists" in the area. Does their presence in the area cause a threat? If "extremists" had some nefarious purpose in being in the area, don't you think they'd go there anyway, with or without this mosque attracting them?

If by "legitimate," you mean "makes not sense whatsoever," then I get your point.

 

[leftysergeant]

Evidence?

Where do you think KKKlowns worship?

 

[johnny karate]

Oh yeah, So again, why not in Ground Zero?

Why not in the middle of Central Park or Yankee Stadium?

Seriously, your question is idiotic.

 

[Cleon]

Where do you think KKKlowns worship?

Nah...You're mistaken if you think the majority of today's Kluxers are Southern Baptists. Maybe 40 years ago or so that was the case, but since they've declined in power and popularity they mostly stick to their own independent "Christian Identity" churches.

 

[leftysergeant]

Nah...You're mistaken if you think the majority of today's Kluxers are Southern Baptists. Maybe 40 years ago or so that was the case, but since they've declined in power and popularity they mostly stick to their own independent "Christian Identity" churches.

Christian Identity is a whole different phenomenon. They are too extreme even for most KKK. Historicly, KKK were SB. And most of their terrorist acts were long ago, and have declined only because the public is less tolerant of their crap now.

 

[Kestrel]

Where do you think KKKlowns worship?

Interesting point. KKK lynchings killed far more Americans than the 9/11 attack. The KKK also incorporated Christian symbolism into it's rituals.

It may be a good assumption, but do we have proof that most KKK members were Southern Baptists?

 

[Thunder]

Ifso-facto????? That's a good one.

Oh yeah, So again, why not in Ground Zero?

what are you trying to accomplish with this line of questions?

cut to the chase and tell us what you REALLY want to say.

 

[mikeyx]

I have to question whether 70% of rational and well-informed citizens oppose the Islamic Center at that location.

The nutbars and dimwits who listen to the Rushblob, BillO, Hannity and that ranting moron Wiener probably think it is right in the footprint of the south tower.

It's only a big deal because the foaming-at-the-mouth channel made it a big deal, and most people are too freaking lazy to fact-check them.

These are the same people who accused the horrible black lady of reverse racist and got her fired, only to be proven as little than agitators, what's different now?