It Amuses Me Too....

TurboK9

New Member
Please reread my post.



I'm agreeing with on this one. I just pointed out that the delay doesn't seem to be directed AT the church. There's other stuff involved. Still doesn't make it right though. Also, there are different goverment entities involved with each case we're talking about here. The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the "mosque". The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is causing the delays in the church reconstruction.

No reread necessary :yay:. I wasn't refuting you in any way, I was just continuing on. :biggrin:

I just don't think that their inaction for 'everyone' involved excuses their screams of religious tolerance and 1st amendment etc on the one hand, all the while (regardless of reason or motive) ignoring the same for nine years on the other. :shrug:
 

hooknline

New Member
And, for the record, I do not think that Park 51 guy is some kindly good-hearted Muslim who wants peace for all mankind. I think he's an Islamic nutty instigator who is trying to provoke a violent reaction. Shoot, they know our culture and our laws better than we do - they know what they can and can't get away with, and what the non-consequences will be if they piss us off. We might burn a Koran! Woo woo!

We could also read about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire - it's all pretty much just history repeating itself.

Your probably right. I have thought that very thing about the way we do business in this Country verses the way the Roman Empire did theirs. Scary we resemble that timeframe. anywhoooo, buy the book if you get the opportunity.
 

thatguy

New Member
This is pretty ef'd up. All though the problem isn't because of it being a church. It seems there are other projects on hold on the site because of a need to build the southern foundation wall which is needed for the entire site. This can't be done until some "land exchange" takes place. The length of the delay is totally wrong.

it sounds from the poorly written article like these are completly different situations. the mosque is planned for a piece of privately owned land outside the actual ground zero site and the proper permits were applied for and recieved. While the church was destroyed in the attack, i cn only assume that the property was then taken through eminent domain for the new ground zero memorial (assuming because the article didn't say but did indicate) and that the complicated "deal" the city and NJ are trying to work out with all the associated landowners is moving slow. And the city/state has certainly not said the church can not rebuild.
so again, two different situations.
 
it sounds from the poorly written article like these are completly different situations. the mosque is planned for a piece of privately owned land outside the actual ground zero site and the proper permits were applied for and recieved. While the church was destroyed in the attack, i cn only assume that the property was then taken through eminent domain for the new ground zero memorial (assuming because the article didn't say but did indicate) and that the complicated "deal" the city and NJ are trying to work out with all the associated landowners is moving slow. And the city/state has certainly not said the church can not rebuild.
so again, two different situations.

It's a very different situation.
 
Top