not always true. Few years back some baptist (I think) group wanted to build a mega church in Davidsonville.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.
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.
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.Most would not equate the rights of a religious establishment to a porn theater.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.