The Payback for Political Correctness...
in [Design]
|
Prev: esd diodes as diodes
Next: Earbud plug weirdness
From: j on 5 Aug 2010 03:39 On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, flipper <flip...(a)fish.net> wrote: > I've not heard anyone argue that Muslims should not be allowed to > build Mosques or practice their religion in this country so the First > Amendment is not at issue. The only issue is 'where' and it is my > opinion that, even if one is devoid of common courtesy and > consideration of others, the victims of an attack have the superior > right in determining what shall, or shall not, go in or near their > shrine to it and with the 9/11 perpetrators professing to be the 'true > believers of Islam' chanting Allahu Akbar as they slammed planes into > the buildings it is not surprising that anything even remotely > smacking of Islam, whether 'guilty or not, arouses controversy. Well with all due respect, you might be well served to re-read some of the interpretations of this issue in this thread. It is a first amendment issue. As you said yourself, anything remotely smacking of Islam arouses controversy the question then becomes the context of the argument. In this case whats in question is the right of a religious group to exercise its constitutional granted privilege of establishing a place of worship on private property. As much as youd like it to be, it has nothing to due with courtesy or consideration. That maybe nice but its not relevant. . And as sad as it may seem, the victims dont have superior rights in this case.
From: Nunya on 5 Aug 2010 08:00 On Aug 4, 8:51 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 6:23 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > > > > > flipper wrote: > > > > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:05:17 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > > > <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > > > > >As long as we don't let anyone build a church in Oklahoma City anywhere > > > >near the site of the Murrah Federal Building. > > > > Would be fine with me if your mythical 'church' had anything to do > > > with the ideology of the bombing. > > > It was payback for the ATF attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco > > (according to McVeigh). > > > -- > > Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...(a)Hovnanian.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my pants! > > I don't think the Branch Davidians have much of a church any more. Before or after they were attacked? And would that apply to those among them that actually thought they were part of a church?
From: Nobody on 5 Aug 2010 16:05 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 06:55:51 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote: >> Well with all due respect, you might be well served to re-read some of >> the interpretations of this issue in this thread. It is a first >> amendment issue. As you said yourself, “anything remotely smacking of >> Islam” arouses controversy … the question then becomes the context of >> the argument. In this case what's in question is the right of a >> religious group to exercise it's constitutional granted privilege of >> establishing a place of worship on private property. > > It's nothing to do with the first amendment. No one has told anyone > they can't be Muslims or practice their religion. It's a zoning > issue, plain and simple. If New Yorkers don't like their Zoning > Board's decision then they can protest the decision, and / or toss the > decision-makers out. However, a zoning board can only decide rules for a "place of worship". It can't distinguish between a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. That would contravene the first amendment, and it would take more than the local electorate to change that. The event that appears to have pushed this case into the news was the ruling on whether the existing building should be preserved as a historical building (it wasn't). That decision had to be based solely upon the nature of the existing building; what would replace it doesn't enter into the equation.
From: Richard Henry on 5 Aug 2010 16:21 On Aug 5, 1:05 pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 06:55:51 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote: > >> Well with all due respect, you might be well served to re-read some of > >> the interpretations of this issue in this thread. It is a first > >> amendment issue. As you said yourself, anything remotely smacking of > >> Islam arouses controversy the question then becomes the context of > >> the argument. In this case whats in question is the right of a > >> religious group to exercise its constitutional granted privilege of > >> establishing a place of worship on private property. > > > It's nothing to do with the first amendment. No one has told anyone > > they can't be Muslims or practice their religion. It's a zoning > > issue, plain and simple. If New Yorkers don't like their Zoning > > Board's decision then they can protest the decision, and / or toss the > > decision-makers out. > > However, a zoning board can only decide rules for a "place of worship". It > can't distinguish between a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. That > would contravene the first amendment, and it would take more than the > local electorate to change that. > > The event that appears to have pushed this case into the news was the > ruling on whether the existing building should be preserved as a > historical building (it wasn't). That decision had to be based solely upon > the nature of the existing building; what would replace it doesn't enter > into the equation. True, but the board could have decided on historical status for reasons that were political in nature. It appears from today's news that the only people remaining in opposition are JDL and Glen Beck fans.
From: j on 5 Aug 2010 16:38
On Aug 5, 1:21 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 1:05 pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 06:55:51 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote: > > >> Well with all due respect, you might be well served to re-read some of > > >> the interpretations of this issue in this thread. It is a first > > >> amendment issue. As you said yourself, anything remotely smacking of > > >> Islam arouses controversy the question then becomes the context of > > >> the argument. In this case whats in question is the right of a > > >> religious group to exercise its constitutional granted privilege of > > >> establishing a place of worship on private property. > > > > It's nothing to do with the first amendment. No one has told anyone > > > they can't be Muslims or practice their religion. It's a zoning > > > issue, plain and simple. If New Yorkers don't like their Zoning > > > Board's decision then they can protest the decision, and / or toss the > > > decision-makers out. > > > However, a zoning board can only decide rules for a "place of worship". It > > can't distinguish between a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. That > > would contravene the first amendment, and it would take more than the > > local electorate to change that. > > > The event that appears to have pushed this case into the news was the > > ruling on whether the existing building should be preserved as a > > historical building (it wasn't). That decision had to be based solely upon > > the nature of the existing building; what would replace it doesn't enter > > into the equation. > > True, but the board could have decided on historical status for > reasons that were political in nature. > > It appears from today's news that the only people remaining in > opposition are JDL and Glen Beck fans.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yeah, I made the assumption based on news reports that since the landmark issue had been settled and the reported claim was that the owners were given the go-ahead to demolish and start construction that all permits, fillings and procedural stuff had been taken care of. I noticed that Pat Robertson and the ACLJ have filed a lawsuit to stop construction I suspect itll eventually end up as a supreme court issue. But it really is all about religion the root of all evil in my opinion. |