The NYC Mosque debate.

[Dave Gray]

I see that this debate is sort of heating up, but I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Surely, I can see why some would feel that building a Mosque near the WTC site would be in bad taste.  I don't personally think that's a big deal, since "near the WTC site" encompasses a gigantic population group and having a mosque nearby makes sense for just that reason.

So, debate that -- fine.  ...whether or not they SHOULD build it.

But I don't think you can debate whether or not they CAN build it.

Religious freedoms are pretty important (and this is coming from a guy who thinks that all religions, including Islam...especially Islam, are ridiculous and harmful).  The government has no ground to disallow a religious institution from setting up shop at one location, where they would have no problem with it if it were another religious institution.  All of these need to have the same protection under the law.  ...so what's the debate?

[StL FinFan]

Part of me thinks it's a slap in the face to all the people who died there at the hands of Islamic extremists.  The other part of me thinks that maybe it will help gain acceptance for the rest of the Muslims who are just normal people.

Mr StL told me they were going to put a gay bar near it.  Kind of poetic, I think.

[Phishfan]

Part of me thinks it's a slap in the face to all the people who died there at the hands of Islamic extremists. 

I keep hearing this, but people seem to forget that there were most certainly Muslims that were working in the WTC that day that died as well.

Me personally, I don't like the decision, but there is very little that can be done to stop it. There is no debate to be had really.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Part of me thinks it's a slap in the face to all the people who died there at the hands of Islamic extremists. 

That is like saying that it is a slap in the face of every member of the military if Catholic builds a church near a cemetery that has service men in it, because of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.  Or Methodists building  a church next to a day care center is slap in the face because of the action of Catholic priest molesting children. 

[StL FinFan]

Last time I checked, Baptists and Methodists were not Catholic.  Besides, I said I was torn on the subject.  Did you read the rest of my post?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Last time I checked, Baptists and Methodists were not Catholic.  Besides, I said I was torn on the subject.  Did you read the rest of my post?

True, Baptists and Methodist are not Catholic, but all three are Christan.  Islam like Christianity has multiple sects.  Lumping all Muslims in with the Taliban is like lumping all Christians in with the Westboro Baptists.

BTW -- I am oppose to allowing Catholic Churches within a 500 yards of all schools, playgrounds, and day care centers because of their willing complicity and enabling of child abusers and pedophiles.    Let's debate that topic. 

[CF DolFan]

There are arguments to be made against the mosque. Just to name a few and excuse the copy and paste but I really didn't feel like writing all of this.

1) The ACLJ filed a petition on behalf of Tim Brown, a firefighter and first responder, who survived the 9-11 attacks but lost 100 friends that day.

The lawsuit charges that the city violated its own policies and procedures in rejecting landmark status and exhibited "an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion and contrary to decades of administrative precedent."What's clear is that this legal challenge points out the fact that the city did not follow its own rules and procedures in this case. The deliberative process was tainted and violated procedural safeguards that have been in place for years.
The denial of landmark status to the building was an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion and contrary to decades of administrative precedent," the petition argues.

The lawsuit also notes that the building has been under consideration for landmark status long before 9-11.  And, that the designation is even more appropriate now since part of a hijacked plane from the 9-11 attacks crashed through the roof of the building.

 

2)the developer of this project does not own, but rather leases from Con Edison, a public utility, one of the two parcels needed for the mosque project.  This creates a whole host of new legal questions and that will require the involvement of other public agencies, such as the Public Service Commission of New York State. ...

the developer may have been misleading the public by claiming that they have the right to develop the mosque right now.  In fact, the developer doesn't even own the entire site on which this mosque would be built.  It's time to get to the bottom of what's really going on with this project.  Now, this new development regarding ownership of the site raises very serious questions and further legal concerns.

3) Who is paying the 100 million? 

[Dave Gray]

^ If there are legitimate claims against a religious institution being built there, fine...because it's govt. property or whatever.

But, if you can honestly say to yourself that you'd still be against it even if it were a Christian church, then that makes sense to me.  I don't think you can discriminate against one and not the other, though.

[Phishfan]

I don't foresee anyone overturning the decision to not make the building a landmark. I see the fact that it was proposed so long ago and never accepted to this day as a hindrance to their argument. As for a piece of debris hitting the building, I bet a lot of buildings in that are were hit. You can't make the entire place a historic site.

As for the Con Edison building, the group already has a lease- option to buy on the building. Con Edison is a private company and I don't see how a sale can be stopped if they agree with the developers on price. I'm no expert, but I don't think the Public Utilities Commission has any jurisdiction on the selling of unused property by a utility.

I think the only way to stop them is to convince Con Edison to back out or to hope they cannot gather the funding needed for the project.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

1.  It is not a Mosque, its a cultural center. Let at least get the facts correct regarding what we are discussing.  If your response is "same thing".  Than the YMCA is a church and the JCC is a synagogue.  (Granted I would still support it if it was a Mosque.)  

2. The building is two blocks away from ground zero.

3. The building was most recently used as department store.

4. The opposition is NOT in a desire to preserve the building, but to allowing the Muslims in.  Had the plan been to tear the building down and replace it with another department store, Tim Brown would not have filed his lawsuit.

5. Con Edison is a corporation, while it is regulated, it is not a government entity.   If fact every business is regulated, utilities are just more heavily regulated than other business.  And there do exist utilities that are in fact government entities, but Con Edison is not one of them.

6. The fact that we are even discussing this shows how much we have abandoned our democratic values, to the point I dare say the terrorists won on 9/11.  They succeeded in destroying the nation we had on 9/10/01.  A nation that once  believed in religious tolerance.

[Dave Gray]

I'm not arguing the emotional argument here.  I'm simply asking, on what LEGAL grounds is the opposition asking for this not to be built.

[bsmooth]

I'm not arguing the emotional argument here.  I'm simply asking, on what LEGAL grounds is the opposition asking for this not to be built.

There has been no rational legal grounds yet offered forward by the opposition. There has been a lot of emotional, fear ladened rhetoric offreed up by the opposition.
Just as a reminder. When a explosion takes place involving a vehicle, pieces of the vehicle have been known to fly significant distances. Should Ground Zero's sanctity as hallowed ground be extended to the furthest reaches of the debris field? That would be a huge chunk of NYC.
The arguements against this building are the same type used by the proponents of bills such as Prop 8. Heavy in rhetoric but sorely lacking in rational and legal fact.
Personally I think it is a foolish decision by the investors, but they have the right to make a foolish decision like the rest of us.

[Dave Gray]

I just don't get the political fallout.  I'm seeing now that Obama is taking crap for this.  What is he supposed to do, forbid the building of the mosque?  He's not king...you can't just do whatever you want to private entities.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The net-net of the "legal" argument is the building ought be considered historic and the building preserved.  

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_EXECUTED-PETITION_20100804.pdf

However, even the ACLJ is not using that as there actual argument, the whole argument is the emotional, "don't let the muslims build a mosque so close to the WTC".

As paragraph #10 illustrates.  

10. Petitioner, Timothy Brown, was and is a hero of September 11, 2001. He
was a first responder fire fighter who risked his life to save others. He survived the
terrorist attack on America and has worked to organize and advocate on behalf of
survivors and family members of the deceased. He witnessed first-hand the most brutal
attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor and lost nearly 100 of his friends. He
observed the impact as well on the building, which suffered a direct hit when the landing
gear of one of the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center penetrated the roof of the
building. He has worked to achieve landmark status for buildings directly impacted by
September 11th.

[Dave Gray]

^^  There's no way this complaint is made if it's a church.  Everyone knows that.  That's kind of my point.

By the way, CNN is calling it a Mosque AND Cultural Center.