Mosque being built at Ground zero

Damocles said:
Again, "usually due to reasons not the religion"...

In this case they already have the permits. If they take them away because of the religion it will be unconstitutional government intervention in a religion. So their goal is to end-run it by making a nearby building an historical landmark. It is my opinion that we shouldn't do an end-run on the constitution, instead we should attack it head on through protest.
Click to expand...

You have your facts skewed. The building in question has a request for preservation as a historical site BEFORE the requests for building permits of the mosque (2 fucking decades before) which has NOT had its permits granted as of yet. The building in question is not "nearby" it was purchased by the islamic group and would have to be torn down.The favorable vote from the City Council for the mosque has NO impact on the granting of permits, but merly lends towards a show of support. Remember though that the majority of local citizens are against that vote.

The fact that historical preservation would cost money and the mosque would cerate revenue is the real consideration before the local government, though they will likely not confess it. It is the purview of local government to consider all impacts, including economic ones as I said previously. That said, denying permits due to emotional impacts because of 9/11, the building's being on application of historical registry and in fact a piece of one of the planes from 9/11 fell through its roof make for reasons to refuse permits... it is NOT denial of religious freedoms!
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yeah. I think they can shine shoes if they bow low enough.

There are race based checkpoints. Different roads for jews etc.

It's s. africa all over again.



Let's keep arguing this. Zionist racism will be further exposed.
Click to expand...

So, you wouldn't do the same if you were surrounded by thousands of terrorists?
 
Ice Dancer said:
You have your facts skewed. The building in question has a request for preservation as a historical site BEFORE the requests for building permits of the mosque (2 fucking decades before) which has NOT had its permits granted as of yet. The building in question is not "nearby" it was purchased by the islamic group and would have to be torn down.The favorable vote from the City Council for the mosque has NO impact on the granting of permits, but merly lends towards a show of support. Remember though that the majority of local citizens are against that vote.

The fact that historical preservation would cost money and the mosque would cerate revenue is the real consideration before the local government, though they will likely not confess it. It is the purview of local government to consider all impacts, including economic ones as I said previously. That said, denying permits due to emotional impacts because of 9/11, the building's being on application of historical registry and in fact a piece of one of the planes from 9/11 fell through its roof make for reasons to refuse permits... it is NOT denial of religious freedoms!
Click to expand...

A coat factory is going to be preserved as a historical site? Ok, it was built in 1850, so its old. But it was empty long before the 9/11/01 attacks. And the fact that the building was damaged makes it even less likely that it could be saved.

If this mosque is denied, its not to save an antique building, because there was little or no interest shown before the attacks, and being empty for 9 years AFTER the damages means the structure is likely in pitiful shape.

If it were anything but a mosque, the area would be jumping at the chance to remove the old building.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Wait until a greater number of jihadists gets in and feels emboldened, because of morons like you and damo who think protecting religions means protecting violent theocrats.

It's not totalitarianism to disallow a mosque building in a highly symbolic area.

don't be so scared, sissy.
Click to expand...

Highly symbolic area?? How many blocks away from the actual WTC buildings does the "highly symbolic area" end?? Or shall we just make the entire island of Manhattan a "highly symbolic area"?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Because his violent beliefs did not come from christianity? maybe?
Click to expand...

So why isn't christianity as a whole held accountable for the insanity of Fred Phelps and his ilk??

Or do you lump him (and his God Hate Fags protests of military funerals) in with all christians?
 
WinterBorn said:
A coat factory is going to be preserved as a historical site? Ok, it was built in 1850, so its old. But it was empty long before the 9/11/01 attacks. And the fact that the building was damaged makes it even less likely that it could be saved.

If this mosque is denied, its not to save an antique building, because there was little or no interest shown before the attacks, and being empty for 9 years AFTER the damages means the structure is likely in pitiful shape.

If it were anything but a mosque, the area would be jumping at the chance to remove the old building.
Click to expand...

Just shut your noahide stupid anti-american mouth.
 
WinterBorn said:
So why isn't christianity as a whole held accountable for the insanity of Fred Phelps and his ilk??

Or do you lump him (and his God Hate Fags protests of military funerals) in with all christians?
Click to expand...

It's fine with me really. christianity is stupid too.

Fred phelps? I don't know who he is. Did he blow something up?
 
AssHatZombie said:
10 blocks in all directions.
Click to expand...

So you want to decide whether a privately owned building can be sold, and to whom it can be sold??

Or are you deciding whether the rightful owners of the land get to do what they choose with their own land?


And just as an FYI, the building in question is already being used as a muslim prayer space. Its currently an annex of Tribeca's Al Farah mosque. So its already happening, and it hasn't had an effect at all.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Just shut your noahide stupid anti-american mouth.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would be easier for you to think you won an argument, if I just shutup.

But the facts are against you. But keep up the paranoid nonsense. Its amusing.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Allowing jihadists to take over society is not brave constitutionalism. It's just stupidity.
Click to expand...
Allowing a mosque or synagogue is not "allowing them to take over society"...

If it was, we'd have been "taken over" by allowing people to build Buddhist Temples, and nobody would be having this argument.
 
WinterBorn said:
So you want to decide whether a privately owned building can be sold, and to whom it can be sold??

Or are you deciding whether the rightful owners of the land get to do what they choose with their own land?


And just as an FYI, the building in question is already being used as a muslim prayer space. Its currently an annex of Tribeca's Al Farah mosque. So its already happening, and it hasn't had an effect at all.
Click to expand...

Nah, he just wants all of Islam to fear his jack-booted thugs, he'll call it "freedom".
 
WinterBorn said:
A coat factory is going to be preserved as a historical site? Ok, it was built in 1850, so its old. But it was empty long before the 9/11/01 attacks. And the fact that the building was damaged makes it even less likely that it could be saved.

If this mosque is denied, its not to save an antique building, because there was little or no interest shown before the attacks, and being empty for 9 years AFTER the damages means the structure is likely in pitiful shape.

If it were anything but a mosque, the area would be jumping at the chance to remove the old building.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the site was languishing on the list. There is no pressing historical value to a coat factory. They are trying to get them to expedite it through now after two decades of languishing on the list in order to stop this "outrage"..

While I agree it is distasteful and wrong, I disagree that we should use government power to stop it. I don't think we should allow that kind of government action, and I think that it was the reason the 1st Amendment was written and adopted.
 
WinterBorn said:
A coat factory is going to be preserved as a historical site? Ok, it was built in 1850, so its old. But it was empty long before the 9/11/01 attacks. And the fact that the building was damaged makes it even less likely that it could be saved.

If this mosque is denied, its not to save an antique building, because there was little or no interest shown before the attacks, and being empty for 9 years AFTER the damages means the structure is likely in pitiful shape.

If it were anything but a mosque, the area would be jumping at the chance to remove the old building.
Click to expand...

What a crock! The desire by a community to preserve the building as a historical site pre-dates even 9/11! There was plenty of interest shown, but it was up against what these kinds of things always are...a fucking local government!

That said, the point I was making is that there are reasons and rationales for NOT allowing a mosque to be built on the site that DO NOT break any kind of Constitutional boundaries!
 
Damocles said:
Not only that, but the site was languishing on the list. There is no pressing historical value to a coat factory. They are trying to get them to expedite it through now after two decades of languishing on the list in order to stop this "outrage"..

While I agree it is distasteful and wrong, I disagree that we should use government power to stop it. I don't think we should allow that kind of government action, and I think that it was the reason the 1st Amendment was written and adopted.
Click to expand...

See, now you are shilling! The only "rush" is by those who want to move ahead with granting permits for the mosque. The feelings and emotions of the community being a part of the consideration breaks absolutely NO Constitutional boundaries.

That a coat factory was allowed to operate in a building that was under consideration for inclusion to a historical registry does not mean jack-shit to the fucking argument! The fact is the COMMUNITY wants to preserve its historical significance. By getting it included to the registry would open up money for its restoration...and THAT is what has delayed the process...and THAT is what would continue to delay the process if it were not for the city hoping to get some money by allowing it to be torn down and not have to pay money...THAT is government intereference in what the PEOPLE WANT for their community where THEY PAY TAXES!

So I guess you accept the governments interference so long as it is in favor of what you want? When that building was sold to the group who wish to build the Mosque they knew that they had to overcome this hurdle. So the city was doing some double dealing to get rid of what they felt to be a financial albatross even though they KNEW what the community they are charged with serving wanted. Then we add the emotional impact of what is going to be put in the place of the building the community wants to preserve.
 
Ice Dancer said:
See, now you are shilling! The only "rush" is by those who want to move ahead with granting permits for the mosque. The feelings and emotions of the community being a part of the consideration breaks absolutely NO Constitutional boundaries.

That a coat factory was allowed to operate in a building that was under consideration for inclusion to a historical registry does not mean jack-shit to the fucking argument! The fact is the COMMUNITY wants to preserve its historical significance. By getting it included to the registry would open up money for its restoration...and THAT is what has delayed the process...and THAT is what would continue to delay the process if it were not for the city hoping to get some money by allowing it to be torn down and not have to pay money...THAT is government intereference in what the PEOPLE WANT for their community where THEY PAY TAXES!

So I guess you accept the governments interference so long as it is in favor of what you want? When that building was sold to the group who wish to build the Mosque they knew that they had to overcome this hurdle. So the city was doing some double dealing to get rid of what they felt to be a financial albatross even though they KNEW what the community they are charged with serving wanted. Then we add the emotional impact of what is going to be put in the place of the building the community wants to preserve.
Click to expand...

The coat factory was not operating at all by 9/11/01. The building was empty when the piece of the plane's landing gear hit it.

And the building is already being used as a muslim prayer building. No fuss was raised about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top