It is you that is confused. The council had the power to deny a permit for that land. Freedom of religion isn't carte blanche.

It's not a question of legality..it's a question of what's right.
If someone killed your mother but was released on a legal technicality...it still wouldn't be right. If the law states that a misspelled name on a report declares the evidence invalid, it doesn't make it right.

I'm not talking about the law....I'm talking about doing the right thing.

Your comment about being sued also indicates that is is you, my friend, that is unaware of the law. They had the opportunity to declare the site an historical land, therefore preventing anyone from building on it but they chose otherwise.

Should the US be allowed to erect a statue of "Fat Man" in Nagasaki Japan? Do you think they might find that a bit offensive? Perhaps it should be unveiled on August 9, 2045 to commemorate the 100 year anniversary.

Joey, I'm going to be sorely disappointed if you're not trolling.

So you really are confusing the radical Muslims that attacked the US and the unrelated Muslims in this country?

Have I ever disappointed you before?

Not at all...I'm responding to the posts claiming that law checkmates what's right.

There was some question about whether or not the the building currently on their land would be designated a "landmark historical building." This obviously has nothing to do with the future intentions of the land's owner. If the committee appointed by Bloomberg had decided that it was a landmark historical building, then it would have to do so without reference to Islam. It (correctly as far as I can tell) decided that it was not, in which case there is no legal grounds on which to prevent the owners from building an Islamic cultural center.

So, no, I am not confused. What you are proposing is that the city of New York should act illegally to prevent freedom of religion by abusing the city planning laws.

And the right thing to do is to have laws that protect people's freedom to practice religion as they see fit. I'm not going to argue about whether or not this is offensive. Obviously you think it is. I don't. The point is that the law is meant to protect religious activities that other people find offensive.

If the city of New York had done so, then it could still be sued and would lose if the plaintiffs could show that the reason it had declared the building a landmark building (note that this has nothing to do with 9/11) was to prevent them from building an Islamic cultural center.

Well, that is not analogous as dropping the bomb doesn't have anything to do with religion. However, yes, I also think that if someone wanted to build such a statue they should be allowed to even though it is incredibly offensive.

If the local government is okay with it than so am I.

Seriously? Am I being leveled on my level?

You seriously think it would be OK for the US to erect a "Little Boy" statue in downtown Hiroshima? And i don't mean the type of little boy that Howard likes... I'm talking about the bomb that killed around 150,000 people.

You think that should be OK?

Oh... and next time you are law class, ask the professor to discuss laws protecting historical landmarks. Then please return here with the stats on how many cases were won against those laws.



Damnit! I got leveled...didn't I?

Yes, I know. But how are you claiming that building this mosque isn't right? Doesn't my post quoted below respond to that directly?

If the Hiroshima mayor and city council granted the permit, why would it not be ok?

so why dont you stop trolling and just tell us why you think its "not right". Is your only reason because its offensive?

I don't think that the two statements I bolded say the same thing.

Quick, without cheating and looking it up, what building is this that you want saved? Why is it an historical landmark?

Here's the answer from FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/03...e-ground-zero/

100% right, its a spiritual battle and the stupid liberalists of this country are so blinded by their emotions that they allow all kinds of evil things to happen.

They do not want to hurt someones feelings. Come on, only a blind person cannot see whats going on, and it looks like there are lots of blind people.

This country is full of people who have their head in the sand and have no common sense what soever, they have no regard for freedom in this country nor any idea of how we have obtained freedom nor how to maintain freedom.

Freedom begins in the minds of the people, in their belief systems and then extends outward by the decisions that they make which effects everything around them.....

And a person can only be truly free in their mind, if they have the truth and stick to it.....

Not everything that is legal, is moral, or respectful.

If the local NY council says it's legal, you can have different opinions on morality and respectfulness, I think families of the people that died 9/11 do not really think this is respectful, and I think it is just not reasonable to say that they are bigots and racists etc. etc. because they do not want a giant mosque near Ground Zero.

The White House

Yes it is reasonable. They aren't building the Osama bin Laden Center for Islamic Youth. Unless one thinks all Muslims cheered on 9/11/01, there's no reason why this should bother anyone. Sharing the same religion with someone does not mean you share the same ideologies in other arenas.

Yes, let's preserve the very freedom that the first European settlers to this land came in search of by denying a minority group the right to build a religious building.

Then their problem is with the people who represent them. Those people also represent the rest of New York. Presumably they thought that granting the permit to build the Mosque was in the overall interest of city.

Why should I question that?

Bad reasoning, you shouldn't take the most extreme possible situation.
By the way, the Imam that is going to preach there seems to be a big person within the Cordoba Initiative.

Bad reasoning, again, there are other reasons why it should bother anyone. And actually, there were a lot of people cheering on 9/11/01, in the Netherlands (where I live) there have been many reports and stories about it. Of course that doesn't mean that ALL muslims cheered.

But my point is, they are subjecting themselves to Allah, and his holy book, the Qur'an. All Muslims thus have to agree 100% with the Qur'an since Allah is infallible and so the Qur'an is too.


Define these 'other arenas' for me, will ya? For me, all Muslims have to agree on the same ideologies that come directly from religious texts.

What if they were?

Would this be OK?

You should question that, because like I tried to tell you, the city council is not infallible in his decisions. And not all laws are moral. So try again, can decisions from political councils, be legal, yet immoral?

Also it is impossible to have a council that represents you perfectly/100%.

And wasn't it so that in a democracy, the majority rules? I heard about a poll where the majority in NY was not in favor of a mosque near ground zero.

So they're not infallible. It is their decision. If the mosque is intended by the builders to be some sort of victory symbol or such all we have done by criticizing the locals for their decision is made that symbol more potent.

Completely backwards. It is the conservative populists (and the ADL) that have argued that we shouldn't allow the Islamic cultural center because it would offend some people (i.e. hurt their feelings). It is liberals (and many conservatives--who really should support this because, as Stephanie Wells noted, it was approved by the local government) who have argued that the fact that some find it offensive doesn't justify interfering with people's right to practice their religion.
Again, completely backwards. You are claiming that we should limit the right of people to freely practice their religion. How is your claim consistent with maintaining freedom?
So how do you propose making Muslim Americans free? By not allowing them to freely practice their religion? Or, are they only able to be free if they convert to Christianity?

Exaggerate much?

Not about them having religious freedom. Back on topic.