Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dianahsieh

NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The construction of this large mosque on this location is continuation of the terroristic threats and acts against the World Trade Center Towers themselves

Really? I would expect this kind of comment on the Rush Limbaugh forums, but not here.

There is no such thing as a right to threaten.

Please point to evidence that there is overt and active threatening going on here.

When the damned thing starts blasting the call to prayer over an external loudspeaker system 5 times a day the threat will no longer be avoidable by simply turning away or choosing not to go in or near it.

Is that being done right now? If so please provide a citation. Also, people most certainly can avoid it, are you familiar with laws regarding things like loudspeakers, no less in New York?

I give up on responding to this until the positers deal with the critical point of the debate that they continue to, as Snerd stated "argue past the point". It is just a waste of time to bother posting otherwise. It doesn't matter what rationalized justification you come up with if you do not address this point as it is the essential that is the focus of the discussion.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My essential is more essential than your essential nyah nyah nyah nyah Rush Limbaugh nyah nyah nyah!

Keep up the great work, you do your side of the debate great service!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CapitalistSwine, on 29 June 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

My essential is more essential than your essential nyah nyah nyah nyah Rush Limbaugh nyah nyah nyah!

Keep up the great work, you do your side of the debate great service!

Thanks for proving my point.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's do it this way. Let's start with a principle on which we can agree:

Proposition: someone plotting against our safety may not legitimately demand property rights from us.

"anyone helping construct a muslim mosque within a few feet from 'ground-zero' cannot legitimately claim property rights"

I'll go with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mosque hasn't been built yet, there isn't any criminal or terrorist activity yet and it should stay that way. We can gain some insight into what to look forward to if the mosque gets built by examining what happened the last few years at the new large Islamic cultural center built in Boston.

(7:05 minutes)

What's this got to do with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative? He follows a certain pattern.

According to the indiviual profile at Discoverthenetworks.org he keeps unsavory company:

Rauf is a permanent trustee of an Islamic Cultural Center (ICC) which his father founded in New York City. Until September 28, 2001 -- seventeen days after 9/11 -- the ICC employed Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who later said that “only the Jews” could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks; that if Americans only knew about this Jewish culpability, “they would have done to Jews what Hitler did”; and that Jews “disseminate corruption in the land” and spread “heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs.” Gemeaha’s successor at the ICC, Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, said there was no “conclusive evidence” proving that Muslims were responsible for 9/11.
(This is not just guilt by association, this is guilt by sanction as he is a trustee and responsible for the ICC output.)

The Cordoba Initiative website lists as a partner American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). ASMA was founded in 1997 by this same guy. Where does the money come from? According to Discoverthenetworks.org ASMA gets major funding by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Other than the United Nations, OIC is the largest international organization of any kind; its ultimate goal is outlawing, everywhere in the world, any and all criticism of Islamic people, practices, legal codes, and governments; it considers any and all negative portrayals (whether real, perceived or alleged) of Islam as "Islamophobia".

Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe in Religious Dialogue’

But that was two months ago. More recently — in fact on May 26, one day after his Daily News column – Abdul Rauf appeared on the popular Islamic website Hadiyul-Islam with even more disturbing opinions. That’s the same website where, ironically enough, a fatwa was simultaneously being issued forbidding a Muslim to sell land to a Christian, because the Christian wanted to build a church on it.

In his interview on Hadiyul-Islam by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud, Abdul Rauf was asked his views on Sharia (Islamic religious law) and the Islamic state. He responded:

"Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed." [emphasis added]

When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued: “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added:

"New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia." [emphasis in translation]

In yet plainer English, forget the separation of church and state. Abdul Rauf’s goal is the imposition of Shariah law — in every country, even democratic ones like the U.S.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/06/20/will-the-mother-of-all-gaffes-sink-the-911-mosque/

On KABC’s Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, Imam Rauf wouldn’t condemn Hamas as a terrorist group, despite their status as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that has carried out countless attacks on Israeli civilians. He just crossed the red line, and once word of this gets out, his project is dead in the water.

“I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy,” he said.

He refused to even condemn Hamas, just saying that terrorism is a “complex question.” I have trouble believing that New York City is going to allow a mosque to be built near Ground Zero, dominating the skyline once held captive by the World Trade Center, owned by a guy who lacks the moral clarity to go against a group that has long been listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey more on Rauf from Andrew C. McCarthy.

Since the controversy started, we’ve learned that the principal figure behind the mosque, this imam called Faisal Rauf, is a member of the “Perdana Global Peace Organization,” which was one of the Islamist-Leftist groups behind the flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas — and Rauf’s father was a Banna contemporary who studied and taught at al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islam where many Islamist clerics (e.g., the Blind Sheikh) were educated and where, for example, the faculty rallied behind Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi (the Brotherhood’s spiritual guide) when he called for the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Related to a different mosque Rauf is associated with, I stumbled on this little tidbit about how zoning works in NY. Permitting a mosque there will entail revoking all liquor licenses within 200 feet of the mosque.

Bill Warner Private Detective

Sex, Crime, Cheaters & Terrorism.

Friday, May 07, 2010

West Broadway Bars Facing License Ban due to Sufi Masjid al-Farah 245 West Broadway, Muslims “toss the bar”; Michael Angerosi’s bid for a liquor license was opposed by several White Street residents at a State Liquor Authority (SLA) hearing last year, and turned down by the agency in December. Now, as he prepares an appeal and suffers what he says is a loss of $13,000 each month that his doors are shut, his troubles are spreading to other bar owners on the street.

Recently, the SLA notified three businesses on West Broadway that it is moving to revoke their liquor licenses. All four establishments (Bars) are in the vicinity of Masjid al-Farah a Sufi mosque in a nondescript two-story building at 245 West Broadway. According to the state’s Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) law, liquor licenses are prohibited for establishments that are on the same street and within 200 feet of a building “occupied exclusively as a school, church, synagogue or other place of worship…” The SLA learned of the mosque—and began an investigation of bars in the area—after Angerosi’s neighborhood opponents brought it to the agency’s attention at a hearing last May.

edit: Let's not forget this strategic document from the Muslim Brotherhood. Excerpt:

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The

Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and

destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their

hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious

over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and

have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work

wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that

destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be

equal.

17- Understanding the role and the nature of work of "The Islamic Center" in every city

with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement:

The center we seek is the one which constitutes the "axis" of our Movement, the "perimeter" of

the circle of our work, our "balance center", the "base" for our rise and our "Dar al-Arqam" to

educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the "niche" of our prayers.

This is in order for the Islamic center to turn - in action not in words - into a seed "for a small

Islamic society" which is a reflection and a mirror to our central organizations. The center ought

to turn into a "beehive" which produces sweet honey. Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a

place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women

gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political

resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and

visual tapes.

In brief we say: we would like for the Islamic center to become "The House of Dawa"' and "the

general center" in deeds first before name. As much as we own and direct these centers at the

continent level, we can say we are marching successfully towards the settlement of Dawa' in this

country.

Meaning that the "center's" role should be the same as the "mosque's" role during the time of

God's prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, when he marched to "settle" the Dawa' in

its first generation in Madina. from the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the

world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew.

This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into "operations rooms"

for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role

model to be followed.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Example, from softwareNerd post)..."anyone helping construct a muslim mosque within a few feet from 'ground-zero' cannot legitimately claim property rights"...
I'll go with this.
In your subsequent posts, you are presenting a case to show that the particular folk behind this mosque are part of a global muslim plan to bring down western civilization. If this is true they're obviously evil and probably dangerous and possibly criminal. Yet, your "I'll go with this" to my "anyone" suggests that the background of these people is simply extra evidence, not the core. In other words, if some muslim wanted to build a mosque there just because the building was going cheap, you would still be against it. Or, if a more reformist element within Islam, with representatives who come on TV and condemn the imposition of hijab in Saudi Arabia, wanted to build a mosque near ground zero as an attempt to show that their version of Islam is the real Islam and because they see a mosque close to the site as a (perhaps misguided) form of asserting their version of "true Islam" as a religion of peace, you would still be against it. True? If so, is it accurate to say that it is not about security nor about intent, but about incorrect ideology and bad taste? If not, how would you characterize it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for those who believe that the government should prevent the construction of this mosque. As is well known from Kelo and innumerable other cases, the government has the power to improperly limit property rights and individual liberty. One example of such an improper restriction on property rights is zoning ordinances. Furthermore, Objectivism clearly opposes improper uses of government force. Objectivism also holds that the use of force must be under the objective protection of law: listen to Rand's lecture "Objective Law" for an introduction to the concept of objectivity in the law. I think it is very important to actually listen to that lecture, where Rand makes it clear that objectivity resides in any man knowing what he is prohibited from doing and what the consequences of performing the act will be.

As it stands, there is no proper law whereby the government may prohibit the building of this mosque. There may be any number of improper methods, such as a politician telling the property owners that if they proceed, they will be subject to perpetual legal harassment, deportation procedures, tax audits, violations of the Foreign Funds Act, use of a subjectivist judge to render a fiat decision, etc, but there is no proper law by which the property owners' rights can be curtailed. But the law can be changed; and if there is an error in the legal system, whereby we mistakenly allow other people to violate our rights without us having proper legal recourse, then the law should be changed. That is what would have to be done here.

So, to the advocates of using government power to prevent the building of the mosque, what new objective law would you propose? I agree with the premise that religion is a substantial threat to our existence, but to recognize that fact in legal form (so that a law outlawing the construction of mosques could be enacted), the First Amendment would have to be substantially rewritten, since at present the government does not have the power to outlaw any religion. What is your proposal for new, objective law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David: I believe opponents to the construction would simply say that the government should declare war. I believe both sides in the debate are for that action, and both sides claim that if the government declared war, it would then be justified in prohibiting the construction of the mosque.

Amy Peikoff has made a post on the topic, where she discusses the potential for pursuing any legal route available to stop the construction, while still being opposed to those legal routes under a proper government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David: I believe opponents to the construction would simply say that the government should declare war. I believe both sides in the debate are for that action, and both sides claim that if the government declared war, it would then be justified in prohibiting the construction of the mosque.
Let's assume that there is a legal declaration of war (wild assumption, I know). My question still remains. It is not about the reason for wanting to outlaw mosques, it is about the objective legal method of doing so. In the US, rights and the rule of law still exist during a war. Assuming that there hasn't been a declaration of martial law -- perhaps that is the proposal. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US, rights and the rule of law still exist during a war.

In theory that would be so. It is certainly so according to our founding documents.

But as our nation stands now I don't know that we can actually say that.

The thrust of our government over the course of time (and notably accelerated by the FDR admin on down to today) has been about our nation's people put in the position of the proverbial frog brought slowly to boil.

I don't mean to get off topic but if we are talking about what the government should or must properly doin regards to the respecting of property rights and freedom of speech it merits discussion- how much of our "rights" are now nothing more than a memory anyway?

It bears on this matter in a very real way. We live in a world of people who are not philosophers, people who do not lead examined lives.

Is it so suprising that a law abiding peaceful US citizen who has been told they cannot construct a building in location A because of zoning or cannot open a bar in location B because MADD has successfully lobbied to limit licensure in that area (and so on and so forth) would not say of what seems to them a tacky affront to common sensibilities in light of a nation's tragedy.. "so.. wait... if I can't do this I'm sure as Hell gonna make sure THEY can't do THAT"?

(sorry for the terrible run-on sentence.. I'll be getting some coffee soon)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post has me considering where the crime of criminal solicitation would fall in Objectivist philosophy.

If an Islamic person is promoting Sharia Law and much of what would result from Sharia Law would be against the Federal, State and Local laws of this country could it not be said that this is a conspriracy to commit criminal solicitation?

For those unfamiliar:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-solicitation/

If Sharia Law promotes actions that would be criminal here (it does)

If the religious leader intends to preach Sharia Law (it seems evident he does)

How is that not criminal solicitation?

On that basis the facility could be legally blocked one would think.

The problem is.... should criminal solicitation rationally be a crime?

I am thinking out loud here at the moment, I've not come to a conclusion yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If an Islamic person is promoting Sharia Law and much of what would result from Sharia Law would be against the Federal, State and Local laws of this country could it not be said that this is a conspriracy to commit criminal solicitation?
This is also true of Christianity (murdering doctors and bombing abortion clinics is a felony in every jurisdiction). But furthermore, advocating not paying taxes and advocating smoking marijuana could be covered by that law. It depends on how strictly you read the law. The crucial thing is that what criminal solicitation laws prohibit is encouraging someone to engage in specific conduct which would constitute a crime. There is no law in the US against observing Sharia Law, whereas there is a law against tax evasion and a law against marijuana smoking. So advocating resistance to improper laws is clearly a violation of a criminal solicitation law, whereas advocating a change in the legal system is not against the law. (And obviously we cannot make it a crime to advocate changing a law -- that would be North Korea style dictatorship). In other words, criminal solicitation does not include "advocating a legal action that, if realized, would make legal some actions that are not presently legal".The act that you're advocating itself has to be a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would advocating something that is unconstitutional be covered under criminal solicitation laws? For example, advocating the legalization of open slaughter of innocents, which would violate constitutional rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would advocating something that is unconstitutional be covered under criminal solicitation laws?

Would be wonderful if it was.. we could get rid of almost every politician today right quick!

But alas, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would advocating something that is unconstitutional be covered under criminal solicitation laws? For example, advocating the legalization of open slaughter of innocents, which would violate constitutional rights.
No, because there is no constitutional right covering the advocacy of any legislation. To be guilty of criminal solicitation, you must say to another person "I want you to commit this crime". But changing a law through the legislative process is not a crime. Now, to cut you a bit of slack, you might have asked whether it would be criminal solicitation to request a person to engage in the wholesale slaughter of innocents. And actually, if you dial back the rhetoric a bit, that is exactly what criminal solicitation laws are about. They are designed to make it a crime to attempt to get someone else to commit murder. Of course, we have to be talking about a constitutional right which is paired with a criminal prohibition, thus murdering a man because he is black would violate federal law. Solicitation law refers specifically to criminal acts

Oh, and because of legislative immunity, the only people who would not be liable to prosecution under a new law criminalizing advocacy of rights violations would, indeed, be the legislators who would pass the evil laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your subsequent posts, you are presenting a case to show that the particular folk behind this mosque are part of a global muslim plan to bring down western civilization. If this is true they're obviously evil and probably dangerous and possibly criminal. Yet, your "I'll go with this" to my "anyone" suggests that the background of these people is simply extra evidence, not the core. In other words, if some muslim wanted to build a mosque there just because the building was going cheap, you would still be against it. Or, if a more reformist element within Islam, with representatives who come on TV and condemn the imposition of hijab in Saudi Arabia, wanted to build a mosque near ground zero as an attempt to show that their version of Islam is the real Islam and because they see a mosque close to the site as a (perhaps misguided) form of asserting their version of "true Islam" as a religion of peace, you would still be against it. True? If so, is it accurate to say that it is not about security nor about intent, but about incorrect ideology and bad taste? If not, how would you characterize it?

The background of the people involved tends to a remarkable uniformity for the reason that they all study the same text and come to at least similar conclusions. The evidence against particular individuals is not 'extra' in the sense of 'extraneous' but common in the sense of 'common denominator', we can omit the measurements of individual variation and form the generalization that any muslim will be at most ambivalent about the destruction of the WTC and can endorse the act as virtuous and advantageous to him. That mere fact that this is offensive is still not enough by itself to justify any laws or find any rights violated. But the juxtaposition of that ideology at that place in the form of a mosque, where one type of building goes down while another type of building goes up, is the clearest possible demonstration of who owns the future in this country. That objective physical act of terrorism and the ideology that caused it brought together in that way constitutes an objective threat and vow to do it again and again until Islam dominates the skyline, the country and the world. Nothing and no one is safe from the power of Islam to compel submission, not even the greatest building in the greatest city.

Every religion is implicitly authoritarian in its politics, and Islam is so clear on its prescriptions for the relation between the state and religion no reformist or moderate element within it can be taken seriously. There is such a thing as an essence of Islam, it can be identified, the construction of mosques or "Islamic Cultural Centers" should be banned within a mile of ground zero. An objective law for this purpose can be justified and crafted.

An objective law for this purpose will not be justified and crafted given the current cultural state of New York City, so I cheer on the side which is morally in the right when they use whatever means are available to them to fight this mosque. The mosque builders have the means to act and the clock is ticking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to the advocates of using government power to prevent the building of the mosque, what new objective law would you propose? I agree with the premise that religion is a substantial threat to our existence, but to recognize that fact in legal form (so that a law outlawing the construction of mosques could be enacted), the First Amendment would have to be substantially rewritten, since at present the government does not have the power to outlaw any religion. What is your proposal for new, objective law?

Outlawing a religion is not necessary, outlawing a form of new building within a delimited area is. In order to be fair (egalitarian) it may be necessary to ban the construction of any new churches, synagogues or mosques within the same area. I'm fine with that!

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

The land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws (for information on RLUIPA's institutionalized persons provisions, please refer to the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section ).

In passing this law, Congress found that the right to assemble for worship is at the very core of the free exercise of religion. Religious assemblies cannot function without a physical space adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements. The right to build, buy, or rent such a space is an indispensable adjunct of the core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes. Religious assemblies, especially, new, small, or unfamiliar ones, may be illegally discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and also in the highly individualized and discretionary processes of land use regulation. Zoning codes and landmarking laws may illegally exclude religious assemblies in places where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. Or the zoning codes or landmarking laws may permit religious assemblies only with individualized permission from the zoning board or landmarking commission, and zoning boards or landmarking commission may use that authority in illegally discriminatory ways.

9th Circuit Rejects RLUIPA Zoning Challenge In Brief Opinion

In an unpublished opinion which sets out none of the relevant facts, the 9th Circuit last Friday in Lowry v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, (9th Cir., Jan. 22, 2010), rejected a pro se appeal in a case in which plaintiffs claimed that a zoning decision violated their free exercise rights. The court concluded that summary judgment was properly granted under RLUIPA and Arizona law because no substantial burden on the exercise of religion was shown. No 1st Amendment violation was shown because the zoning laws are neutral and generally applicable. Plaintiffs' equal protection claim failed because they did not identify others who were treated differently under the zoning ordinances.

From the opinion cited :

Summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs’ First Amendment

claims because the challenged zoning laws are neutral and generally applicable.

See San Jose Christian Coll., 360 F.3d at 1030-32 (granting summary judgment

where the zoning law was neutral and generally applicable).

Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims fail because plaintiffs have failed to

identify others who were treated differently under the ordinances. See Christian

LS/Research 3

Gospel Church, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 896 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th

Cir. 1990) (“[Any] equal protection argument requires the existence of at least two

classifications of persons which are treated differently under the law.” (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I'd like to see a full environmental impact study based on a completed design before any building permit is issued.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outlawing a religion is not necessary, outlawing a form of new building within a delimited area is. In order to be fair (egalitarian) it may be necessary to ban the construction of any new churches, synagogues or mosques within the same area. I'm fine with that!
So you have a start. You would need to ban any new buildings... but where, exactly would you ban new construction? Surely not "in the US" -- that's what the environmentalists are after.
Also, I'd like to see a full environmental impact study based on a completed design before any building permit is issued.
As I mentioned, there are all sorts of improper legal methods of abrogating property rights, such as eminent domain, zoning laws, or as you just pointed out environmental impact scrutiny. Surely you are not proposing that it is proper to demand an environmental impact statement before allowing any new construction, or are you?

Now, as I mentioned, I'm interested in the total set of legal changes. If you intend to limit this to just the construction of new buildings for religious purposes, you will need to repeal the First Amendment, but of course a simple repeal would be plainly wrong since it covers all forms of free speech as well. What change to the constitution are you proposing that would make banning new church buildings possible (i.e. something less that a total ban on all new construction for all purposes)? Apart from First Amendment problems, you'd run afoul of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc since as I understand it, you propose to specifically ban building religious buildings, which would not be neutral (and that was the crux of the 9th Circuit Court ruling). I suppose you would just repeal that piece of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have a start. You would need to ban any new buildings... but where, exactly would you ban new construction? Surely not "in the US" -- that's what the environmentalists are after.

The reason the former Burlington Coat Factory Outlet at 45 Park Place is available for purchase and mosque building is because a piece of an airplane fell on it on 9/11, penetrating the roof. The building was evacuated then and has never been reoccupied, although the roof has been patched. The "ground zero area" is exactly where I would ban such construction, defining that precisely is up for negotiation but this address must be included within the area under any reasonable definition because of the airplane part that came through the roof.

As I mentioned, there are all sorts of improper legal methods of abrogating property rights, such as eminent domain, zoning laws, or as you just pointed out environmental impact scrutiny. Surely you are not proposing that it is proper to demand an environmental impact statement before allowing any new construction, or are you?
I am proposing that all is fair in love and war. If I were an attorney working on blocking this thing I would avail myself of all the weapons of the law. This is a professional obligation of attorneys advocating on behalf of their clients.

Now, as I mentioned, I'm interested in the total set of legal changes. If you intend to limit this to just the construction of new buildings for religious purposes, you will need to repeal the First Amendment, but of course a simple repeal would be plainly wrong since it covers all forms of free speech as well. What change to the constitution are you proposing that would make banning new church buildings possible (i.e. something less that a total ban on all new construction for all purposes)? Apart from First Amendment problems, you'd run afoul of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc since as I understand it, you propose to specifically ban building religious buildings, which would not be neutral (and that was the crux of the 9th Circuit Court ruling). I suppose you would just repeal that piece of the law.

A small zoning restriction on special purpose religious buildings is not a prohibition on the exercise of religion. Even without a mosque muslims are permitted to pull out their prayer mats five times a day every day right next to the yawning empty spaces where the twin towers were. A federal judge has put forward this opinion.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Court Rejects RLUIPA and Other Challenges To Refusal To Rezone

In Elijah Group v. City of Leon Valley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92249 (WD TX, Oct. 2, 2009), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing challenges under various provisions of RLUIPA, the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act to a zoning ordinance of the City of Leon Valley, Texas. A church building that had been operating under a special use permit was foreclosed on by a bank and the building was leased by the bank to a different church which originally had wanted to buy the property. The sale was not finalized because the city had changed its zoning law to totally preclude church assemblies as a permitted use in areas zoned for "retail" use, and had refused the bank's request to rezone the area. The magistrate concluded that nothing requires the city to change its zoning Master Plan and rezone property just because the applicant is a church. He said: "Nothing in the RLUIPA or case law suggests a church is unreasonably limited just because it is excluded from a zoning district it prefers." Otherwise a zoning law would be required to permit churches everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the issue the way I see it:

Peikoff and his side is wrong for advocating that the power of the state be used in any inappropriate way.

The problem is the fact that any Muslims could live in this country in the first place. They should have a right to citizenship and a right to all there rights to be respected by our gov.

Heres the problem: If American people really owned their property they could run these people out of the country if everybody had the right convictions then this would not be a problem. People would just not do business with any Muslim- they would not sell them anything and they would be sent packing back to the shithole "nations" from which they came because they would starve. If the majority of Americans and Westerners knew what was best for them they simply would not do business with them. They could not live here because every business would reject their patronage. They couldnt get a job-nobody would hire them. they coudn't build a mosque nobody would sell them the building materials. They couldn't live on the dole-there would be no dole to live on. They couldn't buy groceies-nobody would sell them groceries.

We need good old fashioned discrimination without the excesses of good old fashion discrimination (such as lynchings, etc.) What we need is a new nation with a proper constitution where the majority is rational people and these people would own everything and refuse to give any traction to any immorality whatsoever. if we could form new nation with only die hard objectivists as the founders and only objectivists as the first generation of that nation then no other element could really do anything because they would starve (for lack of a job, lack of business, lack of groceries but NOT A LACK OF LIBERTY) then the argument would be over for at least that nation. Who has the courage to join me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherring... I so want to believe you aren't serious.

There are many Muslims that are just a unassuming and moderate as moderate Christians.

There is a viciousness in your post that is truly disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...