It doesn't personally affect me either, I live in Indiana, but I also have a opinion about it.
Printable View
It doesn't personally affect me either, I live in Indiana, but I also have a opinion about it.
On a Constitutional basis it affects everyone in the United States. You know, that old, useless document written by a bunch of dead rich white guys?
Being that this is largely a constitutional issue, and we already know Wom thinks of our Constitution as an impediment to running a country the right way, his opinion is pretty much redundant.
BTW, Wom, nice mosques y'all have down there in Oz. Doing anything about them? After all, the only goal of Islam is a worldwide theocracy under the Caliphate.
http://www.visitmelbourne.com/displa...280C476A9046C/
[dons fireproof undies]
I just find the level of Islamophobia being manifested disturbing, although it appears that I am in the minority here. It's demonizing a religion/culture. It smells too much like the scrutiny given Germans during WWI, and the internment of Nisei in WWII. Near the WTC site is not the only places where mosques are being protested. None of those places were bombed by Islamist [emphasis mine] terrorists on 9/11 or any other time.
There is an unfortunate tendency in American history for there to be "undesirables", be it the newly-emancipated slaves; the Irish immigrants after the potato famine; the Chinese railway workers; the Germans in WWI; the Japanese-Americans in WWII; the Hispanics and Middle Eastern immigrants (legal or otherwise) now.
IMO, I see a ton of moral relativism in this whole debate. "They won't let Christians build a church in Mecca". Does that make a lesser wrong any less wrong? (Did that even make sense?)
Actually, I think it is better stated that building and zoning laws and the right to practice one's religion have competing interest. One doesn't override the other, unless the building/zoning code is expressly prohibiting something granted to someone by the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
It could be, conceivably, legally permissible to say, "no mosques in X radius" if there were an overriding governmental interest to protect or assert.
Granted. However, to do so at this point would be a very, very weak argument constitutionally. Not only would you be treading on the first amendment, it could also be very, very easily argued as a violation of the constitution's bar against ex post facto laws. (granted, that's a ban on criminal law, but given the creep seen with the interstate trade clause, I don't think it's a stretch)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataholic
To even have a snowball's chance in hades of standing up, the ordinance would have to be worded to eliminate the possibility of ANY religious structure within X radius, and then the howling would really begin.
I know lets take up a collection & buy that furture Mosque land near ground zero. Do you think they would sell it for the right price? Really has anyone thought about doing this?
smokey, you may have a point...everyone follow Newt here:
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress...4d02bf3f90.jpg
Other than the fact that that's a wildly inaccurate, inflammatory cartoon which typifies the modern press, what's your point?
Why does it make my opinion redundant ???? Enough people who share my opinion could only change things for the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
You know, you buy a McHeadache Shake from McDonalds and you get enough headaches, you don't buy the shakes anymore.
"BTW, Wom, nice mosques y'all have down there in Oz. Doing anything about them?"
Yep. There have been many Development Applications for the building of mosques within areas where public opinion against them has been high.
You see, our Consitution allows Freedom of Religion, but the public will not allow those religions to simply make fools of us by using our own existing laws against us...like your laws do.
"After all, the only goal of Islam is a worldwide theocracy under the Caliphate."
Glad to see that thought had crossed your mind. And the sooner you wake up to the fact that Islam is having a big party in your country, the sooner something may be done.
They ain't gonna sell it to you sweety....at any price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonny
They've moved in, and it looks like they are going to stay.
Save your money up. You never know, you may need it one day for the
"Lets buy the land back from the Japanese who want to build that temple at Pearl Harbor fund" ;)
By whose estimation is Islam having a "big party" in our country? They are still a vastly outnumbered minority, and most are peace-loving folks.
Source ??? Or is that just your opinion ????Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
That is my opinion, based on Popcornbird, several other people I know both in person and online, and any women in headscarves I have ever had a chance to talk to.
Now will you answer my question to you?
Sure.
"By whose estimation is Islam having a "big party" in our country?"
Mine.
And a minority ???
That will change.
My sources ???
Heaps...everywhere I go I see what is happening on a lesser scale than in your country.
We have a beach in Sydney in a suburb that is mostly muslim. White women in that suburb are too frightened to go to that beach wearing bikinis, because they get spat on and called whores by muslim men.
There is another agenda here......and you can listen to all the Popcornbirds you like, it's your choice.
Me ??? Well I guess I see the light, which is further evidenced by the fact that I don't see any so called moderate Popcornbirds condemning such a blatant insult to their host country as building a mosque on a site as sacred as WTC.
Go have a read The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America http://www.danielpipes.org/77/the-da...lam-in-america
As I see it, it's a matter of sensitivity and not legality. Why must Americans, and families of victims of 9/11 in particular, be sensitive to the wishes of Muslims, whether they are peace loving Muslims or not? Why aren't the Muslims who are so insistent on building the mosque there showing sensitivity to the 9/11 victims' families? Why did the imam say that the mosque must be built there? WHY? Why is it so important to them that it be built there when there are already over 100 mosques in NYC? I've yet to hear anyone question their legality to do so. It's legal; we know. Now that that's out of the way, why must they build there and why must those who object to their building there be labeled as anti anything other than the building of the mosque?