If you like private property you should be for the NY Mosque

reply to post by adifferentbreed


The "government" did legislate it. They are well within local zoning ordinances.

Originally posted by Sestias

The idea of a mosque at Ground Zero makes me uncomfortable

Agreed.

but I can think of no legal or moral or ethical reason why they can't build there.

And the very fact that they can build there is a testament to the principles our nation was founded on. We should be proud that, despite the rabid efforts of a minority of extremists, the best part of us perseveres.

If we lose our freedoms, then extremists - of all persuasions- win.




[edit on 15/8/2010 by kosmicjack]

the dude that owns th property was a waiter 2 yrs ago.

paid about 4 mil for it.

maybe he won the lotto?

he has an arabic name.

no YOU check it out.

Originally posted by fooks
the dude that owns th property was a waiter 2 yrs ago.

paid about 4 mil for it.

maybe he won the lotto?

he has an arabic name.

no YOU check it out.

Do you think that this is uncommon? Where do you think all the upstarts out there get money from? Typically it's not from banks, but from investors or donations from the wealthy.

reply to post by Skyfloating


That is a very good point, Sky. Nail it down. However, personally I still don't like it being build over there. It's for security purposes, it's a personal judgment call from me, hence I can't really argue much about it.

Geez..eminent domain used to get people nice and riled up. Now it barely causes a ripple? Weird.

*Ugh at my spelling this morning.

[edit on 8/15/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Excellent point, now if you can get the courts to overturn eminent domain laws that someone will file. You should be able to do with your property whatever you want, as long as local laws and codes are followed.

No one can tell you, you have to like or even respect the damn muslims with their pedophile founder or their false god.

There are two similar threads going on this at the moment so I'll briefly reiterate what I just posted HERE.

I respect the rights of private property and religion. So the center will be built with or without my approval because they are protected by the constitution.

Likewise, I also respect the rights of free speech and protest. Therefore, those opposed are within their rights.

Let freedom ring for everyone.

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by fooks
the dude that owns th property was a waiter 2 yrs ago.

paid about 4 mil for it.

maybe he won the lotto?

he has an arabic name.

no YOU check it out.

Do you think that this is uncommon? Where do you think all the upstarts out there get money from? Typically it's not from banks, but from investors or donations from the wealthy.

ya, where?


his father-in-law? you bin stupid?

lol, u listen to yourself?

it's all been dodgy since day 1.


st. nichols was crushed in the attack and has trouble getting rebuilt.

this bs gets jammed through like obamacare.


besides the crap getting stirred up and wtf? those chumps want to be martyred?


either way they win, we let them do it or blow it up.


cept we don't let them do it in the first place!

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
No, I don't oppose private property rights.......however using that as an example here isn't that good of an arguement. The government in some instances does legislate what can be built where already. Why should this be no different?

Im not a fan of the Government legislating what I can build on my property because that goes in the direction of me not owning property - and that reminds me of Communism.

Telling me that muslims shouldnt be able to build churches at that place but only Christians, that reminds me of fascism.

What I like about this is that arabs wont be able to say "Jews control all the property in that area" anymore

Originally posted by fooks
the dude that owns th property was a waiter 2 yrs ago.

paid about 4 mil for it.

maybe he won the lotto?

he has an arabic name.

So an Arab who is living the American dream.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Sure, from a private property rights issue, they have every right to build the mosque there. The people who live in NY also have the right to protest the construction in a civil manner and the union workers have every right not to work on the job.

The property rights issue is confronted all of the time. Its called zoning.
The way categories of facilities are placed into different categories via zoning laws is subjective at best, as are the categories as well.

Can I buy the house next to yours and put up a liquor store? No. Does that violate my property rights? Yes.

Can I put up a strip club next to the local elementary school? No. Does that violate my property rights? Yes.

Can I tear down my house and put an apartment building in its place? No.

There are many ways our property rights are violated every day.

Let them build the mosque. Let folks get standing permits to hold public demonstrations where they have women in bikinis cooking up pork sandwiches and bars serving 2/1 drafts and a band playing "onward Christian Soldiers" non-stop. They have the right to do that.

When you take your "rights" and jam them down the throats of others, sooner or later they will do the same thing to you. When that thing continues to happen civil unrest occurs and the government quickly ensures that we have less rights to play around with.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Simply put, lack of power on the part of muslim-haters.

That is exactly what this is about. The anti-muslim New Yorkers lack money and power and they are pissed off about it.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
Let them build the mosque. Let folks get standing permits to hold public demonstrations where they have women in bikinis cooking up pork sandwiches and bars serving 2/1 drafts and a band playing "onward Christian Soldiers" non-stop. They have the right to do that.

If they are who critics think they are (fanatics) there will come a day when they will want the Bikini-ad removed and wont get their way.

Thats how stuff works in America, thats how Freedom works.

reply to post by fooks


The issue with St Nick's is complicated beyond what is being implied here. They have been in arbitration and negotiations with the Port Authority for years about a land swap deal, for money. The Port Authority wanted the land St. Nick's stood on for a security center for JP Morgan Chase and other buildings also in negotiation for ground zero. And there's probably more to that story than even that. www.observer.com...

But brilliant PR on someone's side to link this to the Islamic center, which had no such land swap or financial issues to deal with, is not dealing with the Port Authority or other financial issues, and is not even remotely the same situation.

The Mosque and Islamic Center would only start violating my rights if Minarets start blaring their preachings out of loudspeakers.

it shouldn't be the business of the entire nation???

if I am correct that this site is in the historical district, well, there are certain rules that are to be followed, set by the local government I believe, as to what can and cannot be built there. I believe I am in a historical district possibly also, which means, if I even go to change the fixtures on the cabinets, I have to make sure that they are appropriate for the historical aspect of the house!
so much for personal property! I imagine it is in the law for the local gov't to waive the requirements in this one instance if they were to chose to...but it would be nice if the local gov't listened to the local population and took their desires in consideration...

that being said, like I said, it's not really my business...

Originally posted by dawnstar
it shouldn't be the business of the entire nation???

No its not. Its private. But nowdays the entire populace believes they are entitled to snoop into the Business of others.

Wait till it happens to Christians, Jews or any other group for that matter and you`ll see just how bad it is.