House Of Evil / Seed Of Peace

[nathan1977]

This really doesn't have to be an issue about freedom of religion, or a referendum on the Constitution.

I'm of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of the government telling religions where they can build or not build. It's a slippery slope that will only raise more problems than it solves. On the other hand, there is some legal precedent for depriving private property owners of building where they want because of the common good. You can't build a bar next to a school, for example, or a strip club near a church.

I'm also kind of amazed that Interference was talking about this at the end of May, but it's only become a political topic now. Nice one.

 

[BVS]

How is it not a freedom of religion issue? Not building a bar next to a school is a standard and it stands for all bars.

No one is saying you can't build a bar that serves green beer next to this school because their school colors are blue and it might offend them.

 

[Diemen]

On the other hand, there is some legal precedent for depriving private property owners of building where they want because of the common good. You can't build a bar next to a school, for example, or a strip club near a church.

I don't see "the common good" clause fitting this scenario. And I see it as being a slippery slope when the common good moves from bars and strip clubs to places of worship and community.

 

[nathan1977]

How is it not a freedom of religion issue? Not building a bar next to a school is a standard and it stands for all bars.

My point is that buildings are denied permits out of consideration for the common good all the time, and it's not unconstitutional to do so.

 

[nathan1977]

I don't see "the common good" clause fitting this scenario.

Pearl apparently disagrees with you. I'm not going to tell her she's wrong.

And I see it as being a slippery slope when the common good moves from bars and strip clubs to places of worship and community.

Again, I don't disagree. As a Christian who has spent time in the Middle East, I think it could be a remarkable statement to have a mosque at Ground Zero. At the same time, given the historical nature of Islamic buildings being erected at sites of conquest, I can see the other side of this.

Again, a bit of rationality could go a long way here.

 

[Diemen]

Pearl apparently disagrees with you.

And I with Pearl. Ultimately I do believe it comes down to religious freedom. And I can see no "common good" reason that would prevent the building of an Islamic community center and mosque.

If we're going to talk about common good, we'd have to apply it equally to every building near ground zero. And quite frankly, there are a lot more potentially "insensitive" buildings and businesses down there than a place of worship:

Mosque gets all the press, but area near Ground Zero full of bars, porn, liquor stores, salons

At the same time, given the historical nature of Islamic buildings being erected at sites of conquest, I can see the other side of this.

Again, a bit of rationality could go a long way here.

These 2 sentences seem to contradict each other.

 

[BVS]

My point is that buildings are denied permits out of consideration for the common good all the time, and it's not unconstitutional to do so.

But common good applies to all facilities of that type. All bars, all strip clubs, all liquor stores.

Are we going to apply denomination standards to how we discriminate against churches. No Catholic churches within a 100 foot radius of Elementary schools where boys attend? No Mormon churches within a 100 foot radius where young girls attend?

I mean there's a small section of Mormon's that prey on little girls and want them for their wives, so shouldn't we label and punish all Mormon churches?

It's for the common good.

 

[nathan1977]

And I with Pearl. Ultimately I do believe it comes down to religious freedom. And I can see no "common good" reason that would prevent the building of an Islamic community center and mosque.

And a lot of other people can. Shrug.

If we're going to talk about common good, we'd have to apply it equally to every building near ground zero. And quite frankly, there are a lot more potentially "insensitive" buildings and businesses down there than a place of worship:

Mosque gets all the press, but area near Ground Zero full of bars, porn, liquor stores, salons

And when Ronald McDonald and the Hamburgler start flying into buildings, I'll agree.

Given the surroundings, I personally think referring to the area as "hallowed" misses the mark. At the same time, we can't ignore that Ground Zero is a site of tremendous personal, national, and historical significance, and I appreciate that people are trying to figure out the best way to recognize and honor what took place there.

These 2 sentences seem to contradict each other.

Which is kind of part of the problem, isn't it?

 

[nathan1977]

But common good applies to all facilities of that type. All bars, all strip clubs, all liquor stores.

But even within that there are sub-divisions -- for example, colleges, though educational institutions with a populace that is under-age, are held to a different standard than elementary schools. So there are different distinctions all the time. Can you not see how Ground Zero might be held to a different level of scrutiny?

 

[Irvine511]

i can't believe this is an issue. it's embarrassing.

as ever, the Republicans are using hatred, fear, bigotry, and racism and opening their arms to the hateful, the fearful, the bigots, and the racists amongst us.

they want a clash of civilizations, they really, really do.

compared to Gingrich, Palin, et al, W Bush looks positively complex and nuanced.

 

[Irvine511]

Can you not see how Ground Zero might be held to a different level of scrutiny?

should we remove the strip clubs in lower Manhattan as well?

 

[nathan1977]

should we remove the strip clubs in lower Manhattan as well?

I'm trying to remember if strippers flew into the buildings.

 

[Diemen]

And a lot of other people can. Shrug.

Yet none have actually articulated why.

Which is kind of part of the problem, isn't it?

Yes, when you're equating conquerors with peaceful American Muslims who have lived in this country for most of their lives, it most definitely is part of the problem.

 

[nathan1977]

as ever, the Republicans are using hatred, fear, bigotry, and racism and opening their arms to the hateful, the fearful, the bigots, and the racists amongst us.

70% of Americans are hateful, fearful, racist bigots?

 

[Diemen]

I'm trying to remember if strippers flew into the buildings.

Good Lord, Nathan. You're usually up to far better arguments than that.

 

[nathan1977]

when you're equating conquerors with peaceful American Muslims who have lived in this country for most of their lives, it most definitely is part of the problem.

Again, there is a certain historical precedent that we're dealing with, that carries certain (understandable) emotional triggers.

 

[nathan1977]

Good Lord, Nathan. You're usually up to far better arguments than that.

I know, but usually the protests are better.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm trying to remember if strippers flew into the buildings.

it is a sacred space and all.

 

[Irvine511]

70% of Americans are hateful, fearful, racist bigots?

when it comes to Muslins, yes.

believe me -- i know well what it's like to be part of a hated minority.

 

[deep]

My point is that buildings are denied permits out of consideration for the common good all the time, and it's not unconstitutional to do so.

This really is not correct at all. You should look into land use law.

Properties have certain land use destinations. If a project meets those destinations a planning commission, can not deny that use based on bias.

They do not pick winners and losers. If land use allows an auto dealership, they can not say for the "common good" we will permit an American auto maker, but we will not permit a foreign auto maker.

There is some discretion when considering a 'variance' to the permitted use.
But if the discussion leads to choosing winners and losers, a that would be illegal and open to (successful) lawsuits.

 

[nathan1977]

when it comes to Muslins, yes.

Really?

 

[Irvine511]

Really?

yessir.

you don't think there'd be a Guantanamo Bay if there were Christians in there, do you?

 

[BVS]

But even within that there are sub-divisions -- for example, colleges, though educational institutions with a populace that is under-age, are held to a different standard than elementary schools. So there are different distinctions all the time.

You keep talking around the subject. All elementary schools are held to the same standard.

Can you not see how Ground Zero might be held to a different level of scrutiny?

No, especially due to the fact that technically it's not even at Ground Zero but two blocks away and it's not even a Mosque.

 

[nathan1977]

This really is not correct at all. You should look into land use law.

Actually, in Newport RI (where I'm from) you're not allowed to build on the Colonial wharf unless you're going to build in a Colonial style. That, in addition to the rules prohibiting bars and strip clubs from being built near schools and churches, means that land use laws have their limits.

 

[BVS]

Again, there is a certain historical precedent that we're dealing with, that carries certain (understandable) emotional triggers.

What historical precedent?

Where is the precedent based on emotional triggers?

I'm sorry but you're definately on the wrong side of history with this one, and time will prove me correct. Like Irvine said, it's downright embarassing... and sad.

 

[BVS]

Actually, in Newport RI (where I'm from) you're not allowed to build on the Colonial wharf unless you're going to build in a Colonial style.

You're bombing left and right with this one...

These standards were set up before hand, not after the fact. We have zoning restrictions, i.e. heights, styles, uses, etc...

None of this applies to your line of logic.

 

[Irvine511]

and it's less that 70% of the American public are raving bigots and more that they're poorly informed, especially on the specifics of the issue as well as the circumstance surrounding 9-11.

polls are good for gut emotional reactions, but this issue hasn't been well explained at all by the press, who are hungry for some electoral red meat.

Obama actually came out and explained it perfectly, but all anyone's interested is whether or not it will help or hurt Democrats in November.

 

[nathan1977]

technically it's not even at Ground Zero but two blocks away and it's not even a Mosque.

If it weren't a Mosque, I doubt we'd be having a debate about this.
Ground Zero Mosque Debate Becomes a Campaign Issue - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

However, it's irrelevant to me whether it's a Mosque or not -- the federal government should not have the right to tell a religion or religious group where or what to build or where they can gather.

At the same time, it behooves all of us to understand the various historical and emotional factors that come into play with all of this. I don't like tarring people with the "ignorant bigot" brush. It's lazy.

And as Irvine pointed out, all of this carries a political weight that may overwhelm everything else. And I do wish that the President had just left it to NY to decide -- unfortunately, now it becomes a federal "issue" that the press will use to play football with throughout the fall, and will ultimately be a huge distraction.

 

[deep]

Did you read what I wrote?

Properties have certain land use destinations.

Where I live, Newport Beach CA, I have just spent 3 years on a commitee updating our municipal zoning code, land uses, entitlements and general plan.

Lots of land use attorneys, urban planners, civil engineers.
I was asked to sit-in as a non-voting member of the public because I formed a private property rights group that was sussessful in modifing the general plan in 2006.

That is all very boring, except that it did educate me on how these things work.

 

[BVS]

If it weren't a Mosque, I doubt we'd be having a debate about this.

Really? You don't think the fact that Muslim is attached to it in anyway would be enough? Looking at your arguments, I think you've proved otherwise.

It's actually a community center with a place to pray, it is not a Mosque.