Ground zero mosque.

Yes. Sadly enough, I've seen things of this nature first hand. They may not all be extremists, but none of them are pro America.

I don't believe every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist that wants to destroy this country because we all don't believe in Islam is Muslim. If they are good Muslims they accept and/or commit acts of terrorism. Bin Laden and the ones that flew the planes into the Trade Centers are good Muslims.
 
I don't believe every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist that wants to destroy this country because we all don't believe in Islam is Muslim. If they are good Muslims they accept and/or commit acts of terrorism. Bin Laden and the ones that flew the planes into the Trade Centers are good Muslims.

We are in agreement on this.
 
Lol! Not all 'good Muslims' want to destroy America. Jihadi extremists are the real problem, not Joe Muslim. The jihadi extremists worship a perverted version of Islam - they are taught they receive salvation for acts of terrorism - but this isn't the case for all Muslims - just the extremists.
 
You missed a great discussion how terrorists can only be muslim.

I'm just surprised the ones who want to destroy this country because we all don't believe in Islam are Muslim. I would have guessed Jewish but would have been wrong
 
Lol! Not all 'good Muslims' want to destroy America. Jihadi extremists are the real problem, not Joe Muslim. The jihadi extremists worship a perverted version of Islam - they are taught they receive salvation for acts of terrorism - but this isn't the case for all Muslims - just the extremists.

It's clear you don't understand their teachings.
 
I know that whenever I want to understand a foreign culture, religion, or political structure, the first person I think of asking is volfanjustin.

You should go to those who have actually studied and experienced their religion from the inside then come out of it.

The "estimate" that is often bounced around is that about 10% of Muslims agree with the more extreme views of jihad. About 1% are actually radical enough to become "soldiers"... the problem is that amounts to an army of 10 million.

Worse yet, most of the supposed moderate 90% aren't convicted enough to stand up and stop the 10%.

A fundamental, Koran thumping Muslim... is more likely than the avg Muslim to be a violent extremist. A fundamental, Bible thumping Christian is more likely than the avg professing Christian to be law abiding and non-violent. NT Christianity teaches spiritual "warfare" by persuasion using the weapons of love, peace, charity, goodness, morality, etc. A NT Christian is willing to die for his faith but not kill for it. The Koran teaches that violence is a legitimate option for spreading Islam and suppressing infidels. A fundamental jihadist is willing to both die and kill for his faith.

The biggest problem with liberals and the west generally is that our paradigm says that there is separation between religion and politics. Though liberals go to radical extremes, we very much have that separation in the US. Few advocate supporting churches directly through taxes or adopting church doctrine as law. Religion certainly informs the political views of individuals which is completely legitimate... but no one is trying to establish the type of church-state relationship the USC addresses.

Islam is thoroughly theocratic. There is no distinction or separation. To separate political from religious objectives is antithetical to their worldview.

We are failing to assess a very real political threat because it is clothed in a religion that has a large number of benign followers. But there is no question- the political acts of Islamic countries and terrorists are ultimately in agreement with Islam's doctrinal belief that it must rule the world.
 
Here is a question for those of you well versed in the law: How are certain communities able to block the construction of a new Wal-Mart in their area? Taking religion out of this - can the members of the community not take up a petition to stop this they same way they've moved against Wal-Mart? Are the citizens of New York powerless against Metropolis?
 
Here is a question for those of you well versed in the law: How are certain communities able to block the construction of a new Wal-Mart in their area? Taking religion out of this - can the members of the community not take up a petition to stop this they same way they've moved against Wal-Mart? Are the citizens of New York powerless against Metropolis?


Generally speaking, the construction of a Wal-Mart is not an exercise in free expression.
 
Here is a question for those of you well versed in the law: How are certain communities able to block the construction of a new Wal-Mart in their area? Taking religion out of this - can the members of the community not take up a petition to stop this they same way they've moved against Wal-Mart? Are the citizens of New York powerless against Metropolis?

locales can certainly preclude particular activities based upon any one of a number of issues, but that's typically a zoning issue. Walmart would typically petition the city council, or similar body, to change the zoning to include a commercial enterprise. Local constituents weigh into that and the council members vote it. I'm not sure that the mosque needs zoning differences to build. As long as they can exist within current zoning, the onus is on the city to show a need to rezone, but that would impact all the other surrounding property.

Our courts have also historically struck down unconstitutional rulings, regardless of popularity.
 
Generally speaking, the construction of a Wal-Mart is not an exercise in free expression.

nor is the mosque. Either has to fit within local zoning rules. If they do, the city really has no leeway in killing the plan.
 
I'll believe the good intentions of the builders when Benjamin Netanyahu is invited to become a regular speaker.
 
Here is a question for those of you well versed in the law: How are certain communities able to block the construction of a new Wal-Mart in their area? Taking religion out of this - can the members of the community not take up a petition to stop this they same way they've moved against Wal-Mart? Are the citizens of New York powerless against Metropolis?

Maybe, through Zoning laws?
 
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Freedom of religion = freedom from religion

and? Who's going to be forced into the mosque?

If we don't allow mosques to go where other churches might, we are giving tacit governmental approval of certain religions and declaring others as less than worthy.
 
Generally speaking, the construction of a Wal-Mart is not an exercise in free expression.

Right, it is an exercise in free commerce and property rights.

To answer the question, yes, communities have zoning laws that "may" prevent some enterprises to include religious establishments from operating. Usually they have to be neutral.

You can't necessarily say that you can't build a church here. You can say that you cannot have an organization that creates a certain amount of traffic flow, noise, etc.
 
I agree that this is a really tough issue. Generally, I think if it is their property and do not directly impose on the rights of their neighbors then it should be allowed.

OTOH, Islam is not a purely religious movement. It is theocratic and doctrinally allows if not demands that violence be used to spread the Islamic state. They have a history of building mosques on sites of battle victories.

I am more concerned about the "sensitivity" of whoever sold them the land to start with. There was a time when an "American" would have said no at any price.
 
Say the person was motivated my money..... what is wrong with that?

We are either free or we are not.
 
nor is the mosque. Either has to fit within local zoning rules. If they do, the city really has no leeway in killing the plan.


My point was, any sort of zoning law that got adopted now and that would stop the project would almost certainly be investigated and the subject of legal action on the theory that it was put in place for purposes of stopping the mosque because of its religious/political/whatever you want to call it, component.

Whenever someone plans to build something controversial like this and the municipality comes up with a regulatory scheme that is supposedly neutral -- but which everyone knows was made that way even though the intent was to go after that particular project -- the municipality almost always loses the legal batle, is embarrassed in the process, and forks over big bucks in attorneys' fees to their own defense lawyers and, ultimately, the project proponent when he invariably successfully challenges the new regulatory scheme.
 

VN Store



Back
Top