Jon Stewart

[punjabigyrl]

Wish You Weren't Here - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 07/07/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[bcp]

couple points.
The space program.
He showed the clip of Ronald Regan saying that a joing venture between the Soviets and the U.S would benifit all of mankind.
then he tried to use that to make bammys demand to recognize the muslim world for their accomplishments in the space program.
Russia had a space program, they had a very good space program and by working with them it was a chance to share technology and advance at a quicker rate.
Unless bammy is speaking directly about muslim Americans that happened to work in the space program, there is no other contribution by muslim countries other than fuel oil. The are only now figuring out how to send a missle a few thousand miles. Hardley on the scale of the space program.

Next, it is true that both the muslims and the Christians are tasked by their religions to spread the word of their respective Gods. and, it is true that Christians send missionaries around the world to do this. However, the overall Christian attitude is not to kill those that refuse to comply with their religion, or is it a task of the missionaries to try and convert governments or laws to reflect the Bible.
muslims on the other hand work differently. They build up their own numbers in a given country and then try to work from within that countries laws to effect change that will reflect their religions beliefs. as in the Sharia law.

I will agree that people should just not be so sensitive about the offense of the mosque just as soon as my stars and bars are met with compassion, joy and understanding.

I wonder if a chapter of the KKK would be a welcomed addition to a majority black neighborhood, would they be met with a welcoming part bringing pies and other home cooked foods or would they be chased out of town. What position would bammy take on this if they were building their grand pubah meeting house on their own legally purchased land in the middle of the black neighborhood.

 

[Lan]

Sure, building the mosque so close to ground zero is distasteful and the motivation questionable, but on legal and constitutional grounds there is no question that the owners of the land have the right to build a mosque there if they so desire.

Compromising our nation's integrity and the principles it was founded upon is far more harmful to this country than allowing them to build the mosque there. So to me, the 1st Amendment trumps the populist, public outrage, no matter how repulsive and offensive it is.

In truth, if they build the mosque there, I'm hoping the public takes things into their own hands... i.e. vandals throw Molotov cocktails through the building's windows in the dark of night.

Then we'll see how fast the NYC fire dept come running to put it out.

 

[bcp]

Sure, building the mosque so close to ground zero is distasteful and the motivation questionable, but on legal and constitutional grounds there is no question that the owners of the land have to rights to build whatever it is they want there.

not always true. Few years back some baptist (I think) group wanted to build a mega church in Davidsonville.
It really was going to be spectacular, class rooms, worship rooms, a place to do plays, day care, school etc... and in a different setting it would be something to behold.
However, it did not fit into the Davidsonville community plan, couldnt handle the traffic and it would have been seriously out of place.

Long story short, a year or so of court battles and they ended up having to find a better location for their church. I pray that they did and it is going well for them.
The right to do with your land what you want is subject to community standards. Of course in the case of the mosque someone would have to be able to prove that it did not comply with current community standards.


I didnt quote your comment about how fast the fire department would react to a fire at the new mosque, but let me comment on that anyway.
I suspect that the emergency crews in New York would treat the mosque with as much dedication as they treated the Towers as they burned.
The are professionals and I would not expect them to do any less.

 

[GWguy]

Sure, building the mosque so close to ground zero is distasteful and the motivation questionable, but on legal and constitutional grounds there is no question that the owners of the land have to rights to build whatever it is they want there.

Then how was it that all of the porn theaters and sex shops were systematically removed from the Times Square area? The shops were distasteful and questionable, had every right to be there, rent-paying tax-paying, and probably US Citizens, but they were removed because people didn't want them there. What's the difference if it's based on religion or not at that point? People don't want the mosque in that location, as people did not want the porn shops at Times Square. In my mind, a precedent has already been set.

 

[Lan]

Then how was it that all of the porn theaters and sex shops were systematically removed from the Times Square area? The shops were distasteful and questionable, had every right to be there, rent-paying tax-paying, and probably US Citizens, but they were removed because people didn't want them there. What's the difference if it's based on religion or not at that point? People don't want the mosque in that location, as people did not want the porn shops at Times Square. In my mind, a precedent has already been set.

You're comparing apples to oranges. As far as I'm aware, I am not barred from walking into a mosque, cathedral, synagogue, etc. because I am not at least 18. I am however barred from walking into strip clubs, liquor stores, porn theaters, etc. if I'm not 18.

I find it funny that someone is comparing a religious establishment to sin-related establishment to argue their point. Sounds like something I'd do as I am a godless man. This forum is the last place I thought I'd find someone arguing that the rights protected to religion should be no different than those afforded to sex-related businesses. Most would not equate the rights of a religious establishment to a porn theater.

In the case of NY and Times Square, it seems sex-related business are making a comeback despite the zoning laws put specifically in place to get rid of them: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/nyregion/15adult.html

I'd agree though, that precedence has been set and if NYC wanted to craft zoning laws specifically to bar building of the mosque there, they could. That still doesn't mean that the law wouldn't be unconstitutional. As far as I'm concerned, we have plenty of legislation that I'd deem as unconstitutional.

It's not a matter of CAN they stop the mosque of building built, it's a matter of SHOULD they do it.

 

[hvp05]

Most would not equate the rights of a religious establishment to a porn theater.

You're thinking too hard about this. The freedom of religion does NOT include the freedom to do it wherever practitioners want - that is where the city has the power to give a thumbs up or down, and where public opinion can have an influence. Numerous communities nationwide have opposed a variety of establishments for any number of reasons, and usually, the local governments have yielded; that NYC has not in the face of overwhelming opposition illustrates the political, "feel good" nature behind this.

Besides, proponents have been earnestly minimizing the mosque/prayer room aspect of this while promoting the community center angle. They have argued there is a dearth of Islamic prayer space, but if the new space is merely a room, how much more capacity could it add? (In case you haven't seen it, here the map.)

 

[Larry Gude]

Anyone catch the episode of the Daily Show where Stewie mocks and makes great fun of Islam and their holy book? It was great! He totally busted them out on some of the more absurd and silly ways and tenants of their faith, stuff and beliefs they continue to this day. It was a total hoot!! It was...


Wait. I'm sorry. I didn't see that episode either. Guess we'll have to wait for them to actually produce that episode. :shrug:

 

[Bann]

Then how was it that all of the porn theaters and sex shops were systematically removed from the Times Square area? The shops were distasteful and questionable, had every right to be there, rent-paying tax-paying, and probably US Citizens, but they were removed because people didn't want them there. What's the difference if it's based on religion or not at that point? People don't want the mosque in that location, as people did not want the porn shops at Times Square. In my mind, a precedent has already been set.

And then there's that pesky document that starts with "WE, The People..."

You're comparing apples to oranges. As far as I'm aware, I am not barred from walking into a mosque, cathedral, synagogue, etc. because I am not at least 18. I am however barred from walking into strip clubs, liquor stores, porn theaters, etc. if I'm not 18.

I find it funny that someone is comparing a religious establishment to sin-related establishment to argue their point. Sounds like something I'd do as I am a godless man. This forum is the last place I thought I'd find someone arguing that the rights protected to religion should be no different than those afforded to sex-related businesses. Most would not equate the rights of a religious establishment to a porn theater.

Straw man argument. This is not about free exercise of religion, the FIRST Constitutional right to practice any religion you want. It's about where to build a building.

You're thinking too hard about this. The freedom of religion does NOT include the freedom to do it wherever practitioners want - that is where the city has the power to give a thumbs up or down, and where public opinion can have an influence. Numerous communities nationwide have opposed a variety of establishments for any number of reasons, and usually, the local governments have yielded; that NYC has not in the face of overwhelming opposition illustrates the political, "feel good" nature behind this.

 

[Pushrod]

Sure, building the mosque so close to ground zero is distasteful and the motivation questionable, but on legal and constitutional grounds there is no question that the owners of the land have the right to build a mosque there if they so desire.

Compromising our nation's integrity and the principles it was founded upon is far more harmful to this country than allowing them to build the mosque there. So to me, the 1st Amendment trumps the populist, public outrage, no matter how repulsive and offensive it is.

In truth, if they build the mosque there, I'm hoping the public takes things into their own hands... i.e. vandals throw Molotov cocktails through the building's windows in the dark of night.

Then we'll see how fast the NYC fire dept come running to put it out.

How about the Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero that the city refused to issue a rebuilding permit to? Do they not have the same rights as the muzzies?

 

[philibusters]

not always true. Few years back some baptist (I think) group wanted to build a mega church in Davidsonville.
It really was going to be spectacular, class rooms, worship rooms, a place to do plays, day care, school etc... and in a different setting it would be something to behold.
However, it did not fit into the Davidsonville community plan, couldnt handle the traffic and it would have been seriously out of place.

Long story short, a year or so of court battles and they ended up having to find a better location for their church. I pray that they did and it is going well for them.
The right to do with your land what you want is subject to community standards. Of course in the case of the mosque someone would have to be able to prove that it did not comply with current community standards.


I didnt quote your comment about how fast the fire department would react to a fire at the new mosque, but let me comment on that anyway.
I suspect that the emergency crews in New York would treat the mosque with as much dedication as they treated the Towers as they burned.
The are professionals and I would not expect them to do any less.

I think there is a difference between community standards and community standards reflected in a local ordinance. For example if want to open a business open to the public in Charles County you have to do it on property zoned commercial (theres actually a few different classifications in Charles County that allow commercial use, but you get my point). If you have residential property and want to open a business you can apply for an exception or to have reclassified by the County Commissions. At that point, the County Commissioners can take into account community standards.

On the other hand, if the property is already zoned for the intended use and their is no regulation on the book preventing it, they you should be legally allowed to use it like you want. NYC can pass a zoning ordinance to prevent the Mosque but if there is nothing on the book preventing it, then its clear they do have the legal right to build it at this point in time.

 

[Larry Gude]

NYC can pass a zoning ordinance to prevent the Mosque but if there is nothing on the book preventing it, then its clear they do have the legal right to build it at this point in time.

I thought, after two weeks of this nonsense, that we were all in agreement that this was a case of 'just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should'?