Rex Murphy: Testing America’s tolerance

[Lady's Human]

Building and zoning are local laws, however, the right to freedom from government interference in practicing one's religion overrides zoning laws. They cannot simply state "No mosques in X radius around the WTC site"

[RICHARD]

They cannot simply state "No mosques in X radius around the WTC site"

Oh, thanks, I really suck at algebra......

[lizbud]

Building and zoning are local laws, however, the right to freedom from government interference in practicing one's religion overrides zoning laws. They cannot simply state "No mosques in X radius around the WTC site"

Not saying that NY should do that, but it would make an interesting
case in court. All cities have zoning laws that forbid specific tyes of buildings
or businesses from certain areas of the city. Banning them from building in
a specific area, does not infringe on their right to build & worship(whatever)
in another location.

[Lady's Human]

Not saying that NY should do that, but it would make an interesting
case in court. All cities have zoning laws that forbid specific tyes of buildings
or businesses from certain areas of the city. Banning them from building in
a specific area, does not infringe on their right to build & worship(whatever)
in another location.

Yes, but a change in zoning laws at this point would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.

Had the ordinance been in place prior to their purchase of the property, it would be different.

[Cataholic]

Building and zoning are local laws, however, the right to freedom from government interference in practicing one's religion overrides zoning laws. They cannot simply state "No mosques in X radius around the WTC site"

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.

It could be, conceivably, legally permissible to say, "no mosques in X radius" if there were an overriding governmental interest to protect or assert.

[Lady's Human]

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.

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)

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.

[Bonny]

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?

[Catty1]

smokey, you may have a point...everyone follow Newt here:

[Lady's Human]

Other than the fact that that's a wildly inaccurate, inflammatory cartoon which typifies the modern press, what's your point?

[wombat2u2004]

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?

They ain't gonna sell it to you sweety....at any price.
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"