"Ground Zero Mosque"

[Zavero]

I have to agree with Volgathras. This is about the mosque they are starting in New York City, not your personal opinion about the U.S. Mya.

[mya]

I think he was refering to keeping it civil. But you are right. This is about the mosque.

[Zavero]

Yes I am aware he was trying to keep it civil. That is why I said I agree with him. The second sentence was my own personal thoughts how you are starting trouble and that this thread isn't about the U.S., but about the mosque.

I don't see a problem with the mosque being built in the general vicinity of "ground zero". I would like to see a memorial site where "ground zero" actually is, similar to the one in Oklahoma City where the bombing of the Murrah building took place in 1995.

Besides living in the U.S. and feeling bad for my country I was not directly affected by the Sep 11th attacks. That being said my feelings are most likely not as strong about it as someone who had loss from it would be.

[f0xx]

For stomping mudholes in the asses of people who kill others because they can and then walking it dry all over there faces? Nah... that's the only thing the US government does right my man. Remember this, since you are semi-close to the Balkans... ethnic cleansing doesn't stop without US bombs. We catch a lot of flak for wanting to be the world's police... but damn people cry for US aid a lot...

All that being said, we are a democratic nation... the fairest way is a referendum of all of new york city residents. Technically they are the only people who are involuntarily affected by this issue. I mean... if you visit the city, you choose to come. If you work in the city and not live here, once again that is your choice.

Hehe, it is funny that Mya actually grasped what I meant with that statement of mine and you didn't

I really love Mya sometimes

[Pali]

All that being said' date=' we are a democratic nation... the fairest way is a referendum of all of new york city residents.[/quote']

This idea I take issue with... voters are not allowed to strip people of their rights. It does not matter if 99% of New York doesn't want an Islamic center there - they are guaranteed by law the right to build it.

The majority doesn't get to strip rights from minorities.

[inscribed]

This idea I take issue with... voters are not allowed to strip people of their rights. It does not matter if 99% of New York doesn't want an Islamic center there - they are guaranteed by law the right to build it.

The majority doesn't get to strip rights from minorities.

lol, sometimes i disagree with you pali, but then sometimes you say just the right thing.

[KRins]

This idea I take issue with... voters are not allowed to strip people of their rights. It does not matter if 99% of New York doesn't want an Islamic center there - they are guaranteed by law the right to build it.

The majority doesn't get to strip rights from minorities.

I don't find it stripping the minority of their rights. In my mind it is the same as voting for the candidate that loses... you don't have some magical right to be represented by the person you like the best, the EXACT same way you don't have an all-inclusive right to build whatever you want where ever you want... see zoning laws for instance... I can't throw up a house in a commercial district even if I wanted to. They are GUARANTEED the right to practice, they aren't guaranteed command and control over city zoning or the city building permit commission. My grandmother had lived in the same house in the Bronx for nearly 50 years prior to her death... for 40 of those years, she wanted to put a 12 foot flag pole in her BACK YARD to fly the flag on holidays/to remember the death of her brother (US test pilot during WW2 who had the crappy luck of a plane with malfunctioning landing gear and selflessly flew his damaged plane out of the base and city he was stationed in so he wouldn't hurt anyone else when he eventually crashed from fuel loss)/ remember her husband, a FDNY batallion chief who died banging on apartment doors because someone decided to double park in front of the hydrant. She was flatly denied a permit for 40 YEARS. We ALL have sob stories and desires... but it doesn't mean that a small group can magically dictate the city to the majority. The US Constitution wasn't set up to make a magic portal for minority interest groups to get what they want... it was set up to protect their BASIC rights from the majority. Does having prime real estate in Manhattan for a minority religious group sound like a BASIC right to you? If so I have a shiny bridge in Brooklyn you can buy too. Don't be blinded by their right to practice, they don't have a right to dictate where they practice.

In closing: No, in no way, shape, or form are they guaranteed the right to build their Islamic Center where they want as Pali put it. There is no law that says you can build what you want where you want or I'd be writing you this from my apartment on top of the Empire State Building.

[Pali]

Except: no one is violating zoning with this building. Except: changing zoning laws with the sole purpose of preventing individual religious groups from having a place to worship is discrimination. Are you in favor of creating a zone around Ground Zero where no worship places are allowed at all (given the number of churches and synagogues and mosques already in the area, that'd be tough), or just not MUSLIM worship places (which is religious discrimination)?

The building was bought legally and the planned development is entirely allowed by NYC zoning laws. Comparing it to people attempting to violate zoning restrictions is disingenuous.

The US Constitution wasn't set up to make a magic portal for minority interest groups to get what they want... it was set up to protect their BASIC rights from the majority.

Yes, and one of those basic rights is to be able to build a prayer center wherever zoning laws allow for such - such as where Park 51 is located. The objection is not and has never been that it is violating zoning laws, because it isn't - the objection is that it is a MUSLIM community center somewhat near Ground Zero, and that objection is not enough to prevent it.

EDIT: Let me make sure this is abundantly clear: the people attempting to build Park 51 aren't asking for ANYTHING. They are not dictating to New York what must be built where, as KRins is insinuating. They are acting entirely within the already-existing laws, by legally purchasing property and developing it within the confines of zoning regulations - they haven't asked for anything special, and had right-wing media not decided to try to manufacture a controversy about it, no one would have ever heard about it. This is not a minority group trying to force the majority to do what it wants - this is a minority group doing its own thing quietly and legally and the majority throwing a fit about it because that minority is Muslim. Trying to get laws changed now specifically to prevent them from building it is an example of religious discrimination - which is about as anti-American as you can get.

[KRins]

Well my general point in all of that is twofold: 1. There is no law guaranteeing you can worship WHERE you want. You are only guaranteed the right to practice. 2. A referendum is a PERFECTLY legitimate method to determine an issue that would affect the entire population of an area. I am not privy to the entire zoning law of that particular area, as I am quite sure you are not either. Now if you have some source for stating that NO zoning violation is occurring I would be much more swayed, but zoning laws aren't just "you can only build this sort of building here." Zoning can dictate MANY things including size and shape of the building... hell in certain areas the COLOR of a building is subject to zoning laws.

I am in no way anti-Muslim, in fact I find many parts of their religion fascinating and perhaps a "better" way to live than the Christian examples. At the same time, if the vast majority finds it offensive or other wise disparaging to the site then they should have just as much right to assert their opinion as the builders of the Islamic center. You and I are both smart enough to realize that the location of this Islamic center was VERY tactically selected, whether it was to make the fairly predictable outcry frame the entire United States as anti-Muslim instead of anti-getting attacked by a violent minority or to simply garner the attention such a proposed center would cause. This isn't an example of something along the line of the Puritans fleeing religious persecution, there is a LOT of things going on below the surface. Unfortunately, the surface is how most people like to define an issue.

[Pali]

Well my general point in all of that is twofold: 1. There is no law guaranteeing you can worship WHERE you want. You are only guaranteed the right to practice. 2. A referendum is a PERFECTLY legitimate method to determine an issue that would affect the entire population of an area.

No, it is not, because there are lots of activities that minorities are guaranteed the right to do by the Constitution that majority groups in that area would happily vote away from them if given the opportunity. Say the NAACP wanted to build a black community center in some area that the white residents thought might increase crime rates - they still don't get to vote against it and stop it from being built purely on the grounds that it's a black community center.

I am not privy to the entire zoning law of that particular area, as I am quite sure you are not either. Now if you have some source for stating that NO zoning violation is occurring I would be much more swayed, but zoning laws aren't just "you can only build this sort of building here." Zoning can dictate MANY things including size and shape of the building... hell in certain areas the COLOR of a building is subject to zoning laws.

No, I am not very familiar with NYC zoning laws. However, the building was approved by the city LAST YEAR, and despite all the media coverage I have yet to hear anything related to possible zoning violations, so I think it a fairly safe assumption to make that it is in compliance with regulations.

Also, if you are trying to attack the building for being in violation of them, then YOU are the one who needs to show that it is, rather than just saying "Well, it might be!"

At the same time, if the vast majority finds it offensive or other wise disparaging to the site then they should have just as much right to assert their opinion as the builders of the Islamic center.

They certainly have the right to voice their opinion that it's offensive - but they do NOT have the right to stop it from being built on those grounds. Something being viewed as offensive is not sufficient justification to legally stop it from being said/done/built.

You and I are both smart enough to realize that the location of this Islamic center was VERY tactically selected, whether it was to make the fairly predictable outcry frame the entire United States as anti-Muslim instead of anti-getting attacked by a violent minority or to simply garner the attention such a proposed center would cause.

Tactically selected? A building you can't even see from Ground Zero is tactical selection (particularly when there's already another mosque about two blocks away)? You may say that you're not anti-Muslim at all here, but you are making the implicit assumption that they couldn't have possibly picked the location just because it was a good location, or a good price (building has been empty for years)?

Again, how far away from Ground Zero must a proposed mosque be to not be "tactically selected" in your mind? What's the minimum distance required for it to not be upsetting to people? And how are you drawing this line in any way that is not entirely arbitrary?

EDIT: By the way, there are fights being waged against the construction of mosques or Islamic centers across the country right now - this is just the one the media is focusing on, because at least with this one people can say with a straight face "It's not anti-Islamic, it's just too close to Ground Zero" - hard to do that when you're protesting the construction of a mosque in Wisconsin or Tennessee.

[KRins]

How wasn't it tactically selected? I promise you, even an empty building in Manhattan WILL NEVER be cheap... my Grandmother's house was upwards of 70 years old, and granted it was designed as a 3 family home... it sold for more than half a million dollars. In the South Bronx... The East Coast equivalent of South Central LA. They had to dump a BIG PILE of cash to buy that building. I honestly don't care if it was a mosque, a strip club, or a preschool... offensive is defined by the norms of a community. There are plenty of laws restricting certain buildings from being within x distance of another building. You can't throw up a strip club across the street from an elementary school as an example. Now that is more extreme since we are talking about very young children, but fact of the matter is that there are laws the strip club owner would call discriminatory. You will also notice I am not saying people would protest because it is an Islamic center... they would and can protest because it is an OFFENSIVE Islamic center.

In my mind, there is absolutely no way this center was not planned with Ground Zero firmly in mind... it is impossible to ignore even if you can't see it out of your window. Even if they had a benevolent reason to place it there, the public is WELL within their rights to both voice and litigate against anything they don't like. I know you are a bright guy, but fact of the matter is you are trying too hard to crusade for the minority while marginalizing the majority. Fact of the matter is: Not everyone is anywhere close to cool with this. You are neglecting the single most important factor in all of this, the majority elects the mayor and the governor... and it sure sounds like there are a lot more people pissed than excited about this place. You might win our little rhetoric war... but I bet I win over here in reality. If a building was approved a year ago, yet doesn't exist... you really think it will anytime soon?

Let's just address how smart placing an Islamic center there would be. Human beings are naturally terrible and vindictive creatures. You honestly think that building won't be rubble fairly shortly after it is completed? You think the people locked in despair over lost love ones wouldn't consider this a middle finger to over 3,000 dead? It could be the single most legal building in all the world, but it doesn't mean it will fly with the community. Do you really think the mayor and governor wants to deal with a retaliation attack? Do you HONESTLY believe they want to set a powder keg right next to the still smoldering fire of 9/11? I mean... forget legality... are these people honestly that stupid? Even if they are they are the greatest boon to the community, to the grieving they are and will ALWAYS be "them, the people who killed my (brother, sister, father, mother, grandparent, cousin, favorite clown)." Have you missed the Middle East for the past... oh... few millennium? People don't just say... damn that sucked and move on. People hold grudges, people hate. Zoning laws are designed to maintain the safest possible city design. I promise you, if they have a groundbreaking at that site... the bomb threats will come flying in and the zoning will change faster than you can change your drawers.

[Pali]

How wasn't it tactically selected?

None of this answers my question... what would you say is the minimum distance it would have to be to NOT be tactically selected? How far would be far enough? How do you decide how far is far enough? Is it anything more than "it feels too close"?

I honestly don't care if it was a mosque, a strip club, or a preschool... offensive is defined by the norms of a community. There are plenty of laws restricting certain buildings from being within x distance of another building. You can't throw up a strip club across the street from an elementary school as an example.

You are comparing zoning based on activities being held to zoning based on the religion of the group involved. The latter is religious discrimination and is unconstitutional. It does not matter whether the community finds it offensive or not - you are NOT allowed to make laws that discriminate along religious lines. This is not a question of rhetoric, but Constitutional law.

You will also notice I am not saying people would protest because it is an Islamic center... they would and can protest because it is an OFFENSIVE Islamic center.

Again, WHAT MAKES IT OFFENSIVE? You say the location - I am asking how you are determining what locations would be okay and wouldn't be okay. It's too close to Ground Zero? What ISN'T too close to Ground Zero, and how are you determining that with anything other than gut-level reactions?

Even if they had a benevolent reason to place it there, the public is WELL within their rights to both voice and litigate against anything they don't like.

No, actually, they really aren't - laws that are unconstitutional are not allowed, and the Constitution specifically prohibits laws being made that discriminate along religious lines.

I know you are a bright guy, but fact of the matter is you are trying too hard to crusade for the minority while marginalizing the majority.

When it is the majority trying to trample on the rights of the minority to free expression, you bet I am on the side of the minority. If the minority was trying to do the same to the majority, I'd be on the majority's side. Hell, personally I'm of the opinion that building any religious structure is a waste of time, space, and materials.

Fact of the matter is: Not everyone is anywhere close to cool with this. You are neglecting the single most important factor in all of this, the majority elects the mayor and the governor... and it sure sounds like there are a lot more people pissed than excited about this place.

And yet the more pertinent fact is that we live in a society where elected officials do not have the freedom to do whatever they wish - they are still constrained by rules, above all the Constitution. The Constitution specifically prohibits the making of laws based solely along religious lines - we are legally prohibited from stopping the construction of a religious center based on what religion it is.

...I promise you, if they have a groundbreaking at that site... the bomb threats will come flying in and the zoning will change faster than you can change your drawers.

So... we should not do the right thing here, because hypothetical crazy people might hurt us if we do. We should do the wrong thing and trample on the rights of innocent people to express themselves, because we're afraid of what hypothetical crazy people might do.

Congratulations. The terrorists won. What the hell happened to "give me liberty or give me death!"?

[f0xx]

Oh thats going bad...

[KRins]

Pali my man, you live in a world of ideals. I am telling exactly what is reality. Politicians want to be reelected... people get revenge. As far as offensive laws... I am a broadcast journalism major my man... I've taken 3 communication law classes... OFFENSIVE in all settings will be determined by the norms of the community where the case is being heard. As such, if the New Yorkers find it offensive, it is and can be restricted. Your rights go exactly as far as the nose of the next person. This is slamming into way too many noses to fly. That's a damn fact. Ideally, 9/11 would never happen and we would all attend multi-denominational services that end with a group hug. Here in reality... people not getting blown up is more important than you getting to sit in a pew where you'd like. Ideals are like wishes... nice to have, but fairly worthless. Back over here in reality, where it is illegal for a man to love another man as he would a woman... things aren't how they should be. Things are the way we can mash them together in such a way that we can forget that at any given second anyone on this planet can be crushed into powder and that death would mean exactly **** all in the cosmic perspective. You can tell me legalities, which happen to only be one of five commonly accepted interpretations of the Constitution... you are obviously in favor of a very literal interpretation, but I am telling you that decency laws are as flexible as Shawn Johnson and many people interpret the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' to have the hidden clause of 'for the most people possible'. Obviously unless I say, hell yes let me volunteer to help build this Islamic center you will try to cast me as a hatemonger... fact of the matter is... here in reality we can't make everything the fairy tale perfect way... we have to serve the GREATEST good as defined by number of people not someone's ideals.

RESPONSE TO PALI PARAGRAPH

There is no minimum distance that I can establish, I am sure there is already proximity laws in NYC to restrict offensive material, businesses, buildings, and people. Yes, I can compare zoning based on activity here... if this were a bakery no one would be offended, yet people are offended by the ACTIVITIES within the building. You can scream religion religion... but that isn't a blanket ok. I can't have a religion that demands I sacrifice a live baby every Tuesday. Religion isn't a cureall Constitutionally. Offensive, legally, is and always will be anything considered offensive by the majority of the community with a logical basis. Hence why a referendum would secure a truer cross-section of the community than any of the zero methods of determining the General Will you have suggested. In no way is the majority trying to suppress the Islamic center people's RIGHT to practice... beyond that there is no guaranteed right in contention. Once again, ideally politicians would always behave above board... reality tells us they don't. They want to keep their cushy office and paycheck, so they do what the MOST voters want if they have a single functioning brain cell in their head. So... defusing a potential terrorist attack on American soil... since again, their RIGHT to practice is not being suppressed and no other RIGHT is at issue here, is now the wrong thing? Damn... we need to disband the CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, the entire military, not to mention finding a necromancer to bring back Saddam... Fire your rhetoric cannons all you want, I know decency law better than the starting line up of my favorite sports teams (which I find marginally depressing) and there is a VERY good case for this building to be found OFFENSIVE due to its proximity. It's like having a lumber mill in the middle of a National Forest. It's completely counter-intuitive to the GENERAL perception of the National Forest's purpose. Whether we care to admit it, Ground Zero's real purpose now is to remind us that we are not and never will be completely safe anywhere or from anyone. Having a crescent moon next door to the single greatest terror attack on American soil which just happened to be perpetrated by MUSLIMS seems a little counter-intuitive to me...

[Croyvern]

While I do enjoy Pali's Push Peoples Buttons Posts of the Week, maybe this one needs locked? Not that I think its too soon, or to risque. But its a subject that can only enrage and irritate, since no one here is a NYC official, and if they were and getting advice here, then nothing can be settled. This post was in my estimation created to push buttons, it has, chalk it up as a point to Pali, and let us talk about FL.

[Pali]

*sigh* Why is attempting to have discussions of adult topics the same thing as trying to push people's buttons?

KRins, I think you are missing my basic point, and in the interest of redirecting you to it I will ask once again: how close is too close? How far away does it have to be to be okay? What's the rationale for that kind of a judgment? If it's purely within the bounds of "people who are offended by it", then it's arguable that the entire country should be off-limits to mosques... after all, if 99% of the United States public said they don't want mosques around, would you be okay with the banning of mosques across the country?

[KRins]

It isn't my place to determine how far is far enough... my point is, if you made my points in a court of law... they hold water. After that, it is on the man with the gavel. I personally couldn't care less if a mosque is there or not since I've not been to my ancestral home in years. It basically comes down to which the judge likes better, all inclusive freedom of religion or a very broad interpretation of offensive material. They both have gaps in them and both have strong points.

If I had to guess as at what a judge would decide completely in a vacuum from public opinion he would side with you, but such a vacuum does not exist. If a person wanted to challenge this on an offensive level, they would first have to make a logical argument as to why. In my mind the counter-intuitive argument would be easiest to make. Afterwords the Islamic center would simply have to discredit the counter-intuitive argument. The burden would be with the person crying offensive. I just happen to find, it is too close to ground zero more compelling than that mosque is too close to my wheat field. It is an incredibly unique legal situation with some real tangles to it... but it isn't as cut and dried as "Religion... I win!".

As I think about it, a ruling one way or the other is going to open up one hell of a can of worms. If the judge says that they can practice regardless of the community's opinion then people will be having Easter Mass in the middle of the street if they felt like it. If the judge says it is offensive on proximity, then a million cases will be raised by people who don't like any given religious building in their area.

[Pali]

I'm not asking what you think a judge might say about it. I'm asking your personal views on it. What level of "too close to ground zero" would you find acceptable reasoning?

[KRins]

To me, I don't know... maybe... 3 blocks or something? Enough that a person can pay respects at the site and not be close enough to chuck a brick through the window the Islamic center. I'm not sure if you've been to Ground Zero, but I found it to be the single most emotion stirring fairly empty lot I've ever seen. First time I saw Ground Zero, I openly cried and I was 16 years old. No one I know died there that day. I was moved to tears and I couldn't name a single person who died there. Imagine how someone who lost a husband or wife would feel standing in the same place I stood... I was sad, they would be sad to some exponent I can't even imagine and ANGRY... maybe to the point of irrationality. I don't know... I'm trying very hard to balance respect for the dead/grieving and a proper respect for one of the pillars this country was built on.

EDIT: I'm not saying 3 blocks from anything vaguely 9/11 in nature. I mean strictly the former WTC complex ONLY.

[Pali]

I've been to Ground Zero twice since the towers fell (last time was 2 and a half months ago) - and no, you cannot chuck a brick from there to Park 51. You cannot even see Park 51 from Ground Zero. EDIT: 3 blocks though? One more block and you'd be okay with it, even if people were still saying it offended them?

You do, however, see plenty of stores capitalizing on people's pain by selling 9/11 mementos... personally, I find those much more offensive than the idea of a mosque anywhere in the neighborhood.

[KRins]

Oh, I don't disagree at all with how screwed up it is to sell 9/11 mementos... there's a special place in hell for the people who profit from that and any other tragedy... beyond like... morticians. I picked 3 blocks... assuming about 6 to 10 minutes of having to walk somewhere with ill intent would be enough to defuse the logical from doing something stupid and violent. The stupid, the hateful, and the potentially insane might not be put off by that though. I don't think you have to physically see something to hate it though. I mean... I hate getting sick and germs, but I can't see them. I just know they are there and its all it takes.

[Pali]

You don't see how arbitrary that kind of a judgment is? Are you basing that 6-10 minute judgment on psychological studies, or entirely on what you feel is likely to be enough time for people to cool down? And again, you're comfortable with the idea of deciding where we allow innocent people to build things based on hypothetical other people who might act violently against it?

[KRins]

I am being arbitrary, but you asked me to make a ruling on something I don't have all facts on.. I am trying to address my primary concern. I don't care if people piss and moan about it, but when voices get raised... fists aren't too terribly far behind. I'm just saying... enough people have died in that area, we don't need anymore. I think we should certainly consider a retaliation as a possibility and factor that into the decision here. Why create a firestorm when you don't have to, you know what I mean? I mean, there is having trouble and there is actively looking for it... this seems a little to close to the latter in my mind anyway.

[Croyvern]

I think it would be nice if we could take the leaders of both sides of this debate send them to "deep feces" and let Malch show them the darkness in all their hearts.

We can all see there is limited space on this planet, yet if someone steps up and kills a couple of billion in order to maintain enough space for all those left, we call him a ruthless evil person. In his heart his actions are justifiable, yet in reality, he is a mass murderer. I believe the leaders of this debate suffer from the same ideological blindness. Seriously, its NOT the guys who hijacked the planes who wish to build the Mosque. Blinded by grief and anger those who live and work near ground zero ignorantly blame an entire religion. Some will say they are ruthless muslam killers, others will claim thousands of muslam women and children died at the hands of christians. In the end, its all about the all mighty green back. When enough hands have been greased the mosque will be built. My biggest curiosity stems from the fact that NYC approved the mosque which is a new center to the area, yet they denied the Jewish community from rebuilding their destroyed Temple across the street?

[KRins]

I was under the impression that the Jewish center was not rebuilt since they believe it being there would hinder the ability to build the Freedom Tower (is that thing still somewhere in planning?) where the WTC used to be.