NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights

[ZSorenson]

I would respond to this mosque incident by public protests in front of the mosque that's next to ground zero that ridicule and insult the Muslim faith.

Here's my reasoning: We are, in fact, in a war against Islam. Islamic authorities understand that the survival of their religion requires the use of political force. For instance: it's entirely reasonable that a large portion of a given generation of muslims could decide to reject Islam during its youth. Faith and ideology do have epistemological causes, but the particular details are socialized - not epistemological. That means that specific laws of Islam - to include WHICH faith authority (faith requires an authority to stand in reason's place, either a code, a pastor, a book, or army)should be obeyed - can be rejected by a believer overnight without altering his epistemological worldview. Observe conversion to Christianity or secular humanism. Ideology, therefore, can be very very fluid. In a society such as Islam, epistemologically, faith authorities are the source of social, political, and economic distribution. Imagine the chaos that might result from this society's unaffiliated, inexperienced youth shifting their allegiances en masse.

The point is: once enough people prove that it's 'okay' to convert to another faith-worldview, the power of the faith-authority is severly diminished. I.e.: the Imam, once 20% of his flock convert, is no longer absolutely correct, he's correct only for those who choose to follow him - which creates an open 'choice' of belief in the first place.

Politically, the goal of many Islamic societies is to maintain the absolute supremecy of the faith in order to maintain authority. This is why you can't say 'Mohammad' on tv. The goal is to deny any possibility of choice in the matter (again, we are ignoring the epistemological issue). It is not permitted to deny Islam, or else.

In the Middle East, this policy is manifest by capital punishment for conversion, AS A MATTER OF LAW. In the West, the tactics are intimidation backed by the threat of violence, coupled with an ideologically unrelenting debate tactic. In a debate, alternate ideas will not be entertained, if violence is not to be used. More liberal islamic societies such as Malaysia and Turkey deal with de facto if not de jure (trending towards it though) understandings about the supremecy of Islam. To include violence. Where other points of view are legally tolerated, public dissent is not socially tolerated.

This is the spirit behind the ground zero mosque. My paraphrase of the idea: "If we can't impose sharia due to your free culture, then we will impose it to the limits of the free culture. We will not allow the dead to be mourned, we will not forgive nor ask forgiveness. If we can't bomb you, we will not allow you to forget when you were bombed, we will not allow you to think that these infidels had a right to their lives." This is as much for their society to know as it is for ours.

Part of what makes christianity popular is that it reserves to the believer some small amount of ownership of both belief and salvation, de facto when not de, uh, doctrine. Modern political islam denies that.

I think there could be an 'Islam' that functions liberally. Basically you'd have to say that sharia is mostly metaphorical, that Mohammad was mostly a guide to help individuals to know God individually, and you'd have to abandon the idea that the Koran is God's literal sacred word (i.e.: as in arabic), even if it is considered as deliberately inspired by him. In short, a whole shake up of the religion, where the labels might be the same, but the practice and 'essence' (it's appropriate to say essence when discussion something silly like faith) of the religion would be totally changed.

Martin Luther's reformation resulted in the Roman church's 'counter-reformation'. Never forget the importance of that. The medieval church couldn't stay the same and compete with Luther. It tried, for about 30-years, I uh, think there was a war associated with it.

That's why there are terrorists, because they are fighting for their religion as it is. And our war, against real enemies who wish for our destruction, to include both our values, natures, but specifically even our physical bodies, is against these people of this version of Islam. I think they know the history of the christian church, and realize exactly what's at stake for them. Liberal values are an existential threat to them, period. So the war is against 'islam', and there's no way around the truth of that. It won't end until the Ummah accepts modern liberal values, or chooses to be totally isolated from the rest of the world, or destroys the rest of the world.

The nice part for us is that we don't have to fight 'against' Islam, only 'for' individual rights.

Which is why a particularly good response to this mosque is to picket out front with obscene pictures of Mohammad (not too obscene, just offensive), signs that read "Islam kills", "Islam hurts women", but I particularly favor signs that say things like, "Islam is backwards, offensive, barbaric, and ugly", "Mohammad lied and cheated". Things that offend.

Fire with fire sort of deal. Because of course they have a right to build the mosque there if they paid for it legitimately.

Of course, I would want to see some actual evidence that this is a purposeful gesture. If a bunch of muslims work at Wall Street, and this mosque is like 4 blocks away and its all a coincidence, I wouldn't like to purposefully disrupt someone's day with offense. And I suspect that this is enought the case that I don't plan on going to picket there.

But if this is a deliberate offense that someone thinks is some sort of victory: let them learn to deal with Western culture. The point isn't to say that Islam is offensive, per se, but rather that it must be able to exist in an environment where other people are allowed to feel and say that if it is to be a legitimate part of the modern world.

[DavidOdden]

Property that is only available for sale and conversion to a mosque because of the damage caused by the mosque based ideology behind the terrorist attack is a transaction initiated by force. Property that is a desirable location for a mosque because a holy relic fell on it is a transaction with an implicit threat behind it.

I was hoping that somewhere in this discussion there would be a suggestion that general principles could be applied, rather than ad hoc evaluations. This isn't quite such a principle, but it's close enough to warrant discussion. The problem with this proposal is still that it's entirely ad hoc -- it refers only to mosques and this specific terrorist attack. Do you believe that there is underlying general principle, i.e. a moral concept (meaning that it is open-ended) about acts caused by a particular ideology and proponents of that ideology profiting from those acts? Or is this just about mosques in the area known as Ground Zero?

[Grames]

I was hoping that somewhere in this discussion there would be a suggestion that general principles could be applied, rather than ad hoc evaluations. This isn't quite such a principle, but it's close enough to warrant discussion. The problem with this proposal is still that it's entirely ad hoc -- it refers only to mosques and this specific terrorist attack. Do you believe that there is underlying general principle, i.e. a moral concept (meaning that it is open-ended) about acts caused by a particular ideology and proponents of that ideology profiting from those acts? Or is this just about mosques in the area known as Ground Zero?

What's wrong with ad hoc? I can't think of a situation in history similar to 9/11. Where is the necessity to form a concept? A principle that we already have that applies is "crime should not pay, or else we'll get more of it".

Analyzed in terms of "party X does the crime, party Y profits" there are similar incidents in history. Pogroms against the jews have been like this where the people doing the killing are not always the people doing the looting and taking over of the land left behind but all were united in their paranoid anti-semitism. In colonial imperialism such as the Spanish conquest of the New World the soldiers did the fighting for God and King but the home country got the profits. All examples I could think of have the common element of war or war-like circumstances. As a crime associated with war that would make it a type of war crime. Pillage seems to be the word that fits that crime. The problem with applying pillage to the situation in New York City is that the city is not in enemy hands, it is not enemy armed forces doing the pillaging but enemy sympathizers.

[SimonJ]

Pardon me Capitalist Swine, but verbose hyperbole and LONG windedness does not

prove your intelectual superiority. Just what do you know about the Muslims?

Have you been to any Muslim countries? Talked to any of the Muslims in the ME?

Do you know people that have actually been there and interacted with Muslims?

If I an make a point with a short sentence, its better then the way you add lots

of empty words to lengthen your post and make it virtualy unreadable.

I have more things to do with my time then spend hours here trying to refute

someone elses ideas. Like work to maintain my farm.

Have a nice day.

[DavidOdden]

What's wrong with ad hoc?

Didn't your mother tell you not to answer a question with a question that contains a false presupposition? If you don't have a principled solution, then you don't. I gave you a shot at articulating a principle, and you implicitly rejected the principle, which puzzles me, but the world is full of puzzles.

There are numerous instances that are similar to 9-11, for example the Pensacola abortion clinic bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombings, numerous bombings by Ted Kaczynski, many attacks by the Animal Liberation Front, a dozen attacks by the JDL, many arsons by ELF, vast numbers of bombings during the Viet Nam War era.

[CapitalistSwine]

Pardon me Capitalist Swine, but verbose hyperbole and LONG windedness does not

prove your intelectual superiority. Just what do you know about the Muslims?

Have you been to any Muslim countries? Talked to any of the Muslims in the ME?

Do you know people that have actually been there and interacted with Muslims?

If I an make a point with a short sentence, its better then the way you add lots

of empty words to lengthen your post and make it virtualy unreadable.

I have more things to do with my time then spend hours here trying to refute

someone elses ideas. Like work to maintain my farm.

Have a nice day.

Except you have not made any point whatsoever. I am not attempting to prove my "intellectual superiority". Frankly, most of the people in this forum could probably spin circles around me as I have a good bit to learn and I have never suggested I don't. And I can answer yes to all of those, not as if it really matters one iota, my personal experiences do not change objective facts. I don't ask you to spend your time refuting someone else's ideas, I ask you to not add useless little posts in here that add nothing to the conversation, as fragmented and messy as it might be. As for your comment, it is not my problem if you cannot read, everyone else seems to manage fine. Your grammar needs some work by the way, judger of readability.

Edited July 2, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[CapitalistSwine]

They are not the Saudi Wahabis who will be funding the construction and operations of this mosque.

As far as I can tell you did not fit such comments specifically into that context, so I interpreted them differently. A miscommunication. I am sure I am probably at fault for a decent portion of the miscommunication.

I've already answered those questions. You simply don't like the answers, and instead of responding just insist on the same views you started with as if I have written nothing.

My views do not necessarily conflict with your own, I don't think you are understanding what I am saying, and I do not think I am understanding what you are saying.

The proposed mosque is not merely "in the vicinity" of Ground Zero, it is on it. It is the reason why the location is desired for a mosque. The mosque is purposefully provocative, celebrates terrorism and whole corrupt transaction is only possible because of damage caused by the terrorism. Peaceful muslims are useful idiots that cooperate with and provide cover for the serious muslims.

I stated in my earlier post both in the vicinity as well as on the property. Don't act like I only said one of those things.

I agree with:

"It is the reason why the location is desired for a mosque." ->This is probably true, but I am unsure how that forfeits legitimate property rights?

" It is the reason why the location is desired for a mosque."->I do not doubt this or disagree with this.

"celebrates terrorism"->So far, via the evidence you have given this seems to be the case, I will research it more personally and post what I find, as I want to look into this a little bit deeper first because some of that information seems to be in conflict with what I posted about the Imam earlier, and I wish to get a better understanding of the disparity.

"whole corrupt transaction is only possible because of damage caused by the terrorism"->This I am confused about, maybe I missed something in one of your earlier posts? You don't need to retype it but I would appreciate it if you pointed me towards what comments support this statement.

"Peaceful muslims are useful idiots that cooperate with and provide cover for the serious muslims."-->I agree that the peaceful muslims need to speak up more, the unfortunate thing about this situation is there are a number of unique negative side effects about speaking out that could lead these people into a number of situations they wish not to get into, but I do not feel that, for instance, like is the case with most American Muslims (the majority peaceful and moderate and fairly well blended in with modern day laws as opposed to horrible, strict, sharia law) that this is not an entirely valid excuse.

--------------------------

I have no problem using the entire might of the United States in all, by Objectivist standard, ethical means to eliminate the threat of totalitarian Islam (islamism). For instance, if the circumstances called for it, I would be fine with completely taking out Iran and Saudi Arabia. My main fear in that respect is that our government is currently incompetent and would assuredly make a huge mess out of it, which is not something we can really afford, we don't need to be stuck in some horrible mire as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All my previous points, which have obviously been confused a great deal by some people, which is probably partially my fault, is that evidence is required to determine who is one of the peaceful Muslims and who is the totalitarian Muslims within the religion. While it is obviously true that all Muslims necessarily must follow some part of the philosophy, overall, the moderates (i.e. peaceful) Muslims are not an active and overt threat that we need to deal with at this time, just as is the case with moderate Christians, even though religion and those philosophies in general are dangerous and will need to be dealt with eventually in some form or another, be it a culture war/idea war etc. My worry is that people tend to forget in some of these discussions that religion works as a spectrum of degrees of belief, and in what that specific individual believes. Naturally if he is affiliated in some way to an extremist group it is obvious where his views lie and there is no further need for investigation.

I am of course perfectly fine with legitimate actions that need to be taken against, for instance, against the threateners of the South Park creators, those who try to seep shariah law into our country, and those who attack cartoonists etc. we have as a country been much too soft on these people.

However we are at war with the violent and actively rights-deteriorating portion of Islam, the Islamists, and my concern is only that we do not accidentally push the peaceful ones into this same group. This is a legitimate concern on my part due to various comments I have seen from people around the net that identify as Objectivists (such as on facebook). This is the only point I am trying to make, nothing more, and nothing extending from that is to be implied. If there is a specific concern someone has with my views they can ask it directly and I will do my best to answer them as long as it is asked courteously.

Edited July 2, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Grames]

Didn't your mother tell you not to answer a question with a question that contains a false presupposition? If you don't have a principled solution, then you don't. I gave you a shot at articulating a principle, and you implicitly rejected the principle, which puzzles me, but the world is full of puzzles.

There are numerous instances that are similar to 9-11, for example the Pensacola abortion clinic bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombings, numerous bombings by Ted Kaczynski, many attacks by the Animal Liberation Front, a dozen attacks by the JDL, many arsons by ELF, vast numbers of bombings during the Viet Nam War era.

You are blanking out the essence of what is different about this context. None of those examples of explosions have the context of a subsequent buyout of the bombed property by the bomber's sympathizers. That is the essence of the current controversy. Mere explosions are common, the follow up is not. Existing examples having the follow up are not based on a terrorist attack. This is a unique situation to my knowledge. Nevertheless, I provided an analysis to find the nearest applicable concept, pillaging as a consequence of war.

Perhaps you were thinking of "transactions initiated by force are illegitimate"? But that is old hat and uncontroversial, I thought you were looking for something new.

And what is the false presupposition? You said being ad hoc was a problem, I ask why it was a problem. Two reasons it might be a problem are that we need two or more instances to start abstracting, and Rand's Razor says not to form concepts or principles beyond what is needed.

[DavidOdden]

You are blanking out the essence of what is different about this context.

Blanking out, my ass. You claimed that there were no similar cases. You understand what "similar" means, right. If you mean "exactly identical", then you should say "exactly identical". You've simply misidentified the essence of the controversy, by focusing too much on the concretes of this one specific case.

Perhaps you were thinking of "transactions initiated by force are illegitimate"? But that is old hat and uncontroversial, I thought you were looking for something new.

No, I was looking at what I thought was an attempt to generalize the doctrine that a person may not profit from his crimes, applying this to ideologies and proponents of ideologies.

And what is the false presupposition?

That I have a problem with a failure to identify a principle. I don't require omniscience and epistemological infallibility.

[Grames]

Blanking out, my ass. You claimed that there were no similar cases. You understand what "similar" means, right. If you mean "exactly identical", then you should say "exactly identical". You've simply misidentified the essence of the controversy, by focusing too much on the concretes of this one specific case.

I think you should calm down. Similar is ambiguous in the sense that cats both are and are not similar to dogs. I'm coming up empty in trying to find something even sufficiently similar to fulfill the role of a legal precedent. The examples I came up with are insufficiently similar to apply directly. There are similar elements, but no cases are similar.

No, I was looking at what I thought was an attempt to generalize the doctrine that a person may not profit from his crimes, applying this to ideologies and proponents of ideologies.

That is certainly applicable. If you wanted me think about that more you should written so instead of trying to draw it out of me indirectly (Socratically?).

That I have a problem with a failure to identify a principle. I don't require omniscience and epistemological infallibility.

I have no idea which words of mine you have in mind here that even implied that.

[Grames]

I stated in my earlier post both in the vicinity as well as on the property. Don't act like I only said one of those things.

The emphasis is mine. I find this graphic to be helpful in giving a sense of the distances involved. It is technically possible to build the mosque as close or possible closer to the former WTC site without being on what I want to designate as "Ground Zero". The landing gear debris location on the upper left side of the diagram might not even end up contiguous with the rest of Ground Zero if it is defined as the damaged buildings plus one block radius. It would be a separate island of Ground Zero.

High resolution version: Wikimedia Debris impact areas

"It is the reason why the location is desired for a mosque." ->This is probably true, but I am unsure how that forfeits legitimate property rights?

Because they are not legitimate on two counts. The arsonist who burns down your house should not profit by being able to buy your now available property, and at a discount. In the case of Ground Zero property the purchaser and the terrorists are different individuals but the commonality of goals via common ideology establishes all the coordination that is needed for an act of war, if not a criminal conspiracy. The second reason based on the peacekeeping role of government. Building this mosque at that location is going to be perceived as a triumphalist gesture with some justification. Just as public nudity can be permitted in some places and banned in others (French Riviera vs. downtown Paris), a mosque can be permitted in most places but not at that place in order to prevent offense. This is the sense in which the "coming to the nuisance" doctrine applies, the offensiveness of the propect of a mosque at the location predates the mosque. I am well aware this swings both ways. When majority muslim communities begin to emerge in America the local laws will change (some localities will blast the call to prayer rather than restrict it on a noise basis). I'm fine with that as long as there are no rights violations. I am not optimistic that is possible so long as the wahabis are influential.

"whole corrupt transaction is only possible because of damage caused by the terrorism"->This I am confused about, maybe I missed something in one of your earlier posts? You don't need to retype it but I would appreciate it if you pointed me towards what comments support this statement.

From this NY Times article

Built in 1923, the building at 45 Park Place was bought by Sy Syms, the discount retailer, and a partner, Irving Pomerantz, in 1968, and became one of the early Syms stores. The store closed in 1990, the partners parted ways, and the Pomerantz family then leased the building to the Burlington Coat Factory.

On Sept. 11, the store, with 80 employees, was one of 250 Burlington outlets nationwide owned by the Milstein family. That morning, recalled Stephen Milstein, the company’s former general manager and vice president, the staff was in the basement when a piece of a plane plunged through the roof, either from American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the north tower at 8:46 a.m., or United Airlines Flight 175 crashing into the south tower at 9:03.

Kukiko Mitani, whose husband, Stephen Pomerantz, owned the building at the time, tried to sell it for years, at one time asking $18 million. But when the recession hit, she sold it in July to a real estate investment firm, Soho Properties, for $4.85 million in cash, records show. One of the investors was the Cordoba Initiative, an interfaith group founded by Imam Feisal.

The existing business was part of a chain and presumably would have continued in business if not for 9/11. With the towers being gone and other buildings damaged there is a lot less foot traffic in the area, which explains the difficulty in finding a new lessee.

"Peaceful muslims are useful idiots that cooperate with and provide cover for the serious muslims."-->I agree that the peaceful muslims need to speak up more, the unfortunate thing about this situation is there are a number of unique negative side effects about speaking out that could lead these people into a number of situations they wish not to get into, but I do not feel that, for instance, like is the case with most American Muslims (the majority peaceful and moderate and fairly well blended in with modern day laws as opposed to horrible, strict, sharia law) that this is not an entirely valid excuse.

"unique negative side effects about speaking out" by which you mean death threats and bullying from other members of the famed 'religion of peace'. Since such threats are so prevalent that the moderate peaceful elements are fully cowed into silence, those more assertive elements of the religion are highly significant and even dominant thus can hardly be dismissed as negligible or fringe.

--------------------------

All my previous points, which have obviously been confused a great deal by some people, which is probably partially my fault, is that evidence is required to determine who is one of the peaceful Muslims and who is the totalitarian Muslims within the religion.

This is not a criminal case. No muslims should be rounded up in interment camps simply for being muslim. This is a civil case involving a property rights dispute. It has never been true that property rights are absolute grants to do whatever one wants with property regardless of the impacts on your neighbors. The party building a mosque on Ground Zero is the party that must give way in this conflict in order to observe property rights objectively. It is nonobjective to premise the outcome of the case on an inquiry and judgement into whether or not the builder is a "good" or "bad" muslim.

[CapitalistSwine]

Ok I think I finally understand what you were saying now, and unless I am making a false interpretation of what you are saying somewhere (entirely my own fault in that case) then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[2046]

Okay, Grames, just so I can understand too, is your point in as close to a principle as possible, something like this:

A violently attacks B. B's property is destroyed. D comes along and attempts to purchase voluntarily B's destroyed land for the explicit purpose of propagating the same ideology that A used in his initiation of violence onto B. This, in your view, is a transaction initiated by force, and contains an implicit threat behind it, therefore the government invalidating D's offer is defensive force.

[Grames]

Okay, Grames, just so I can understand too, is your point in as close to a principle as possible, something like this:

A violently attacks B. B's property is destroyed. D comes along and attempts to purchase voluntarily B's destroyed land for the explicit purpose of propagating the same ideology that A used in his initiation of violence onto B. This, in your view, is a transaction initiated by force, and contains an implicit threat behind it, therefore the government invalidating D's offer is defensive force.

Yes this is good. But there is no crime committed by D, so the only remedies available are what is possible through civil law. D could buy a first location and get sued by the city, then buy a second location and get sued by the city again, and then try again in an absurd series of litigations or the city could just pass an ordinance defining in advance where D may not build a mosque without being contested by the city.

edit: Just wanted to emphasize that the government cannot prevent the purchase of the location by D, just the specific use of it. It does not even matter if D is Donald Trump who thinks a mosque would be a nice friendly gesture, D's ulterior motives are not provable and therefore not relevant to the case.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Grames

[CapitalistSwine]

Just thought I would post this update in case anyone had not seen this, I just saw it now:

GROUND ZERO IMAM RAUF'S "CHARITY" FUNDED GENOCIDE MISSION -- STATE DEPARTMENT MULLS TERROR DESIGNATION FOR GROUP

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/grond-zero-imam-rauf-tied-to-charity-state-department-mulls-terror-designation.html

[Erik Christensen]

Islam is evil. Has anyone heard this news story yet?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ecline/2010/07/13/appeasement-doesnt-work-fatwa-issued-against-draw-mohammed-day-cartoonist/

The USA needs to drop MOPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator) on the major threat muslim cities and send in our Marine Corps snipers to dispose of any muslim who issues a fatwa or death threat against any American. This tyrannical cult will not be tolerated.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Erik Christensen

[SimonJ]

Islam is evil. Has anyone heard this news story yet?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ecline/2010/07/13/appeasement-doesnt-work-fatwa-issued-against-draw-mohammed-day-cartoonist/

The USA needs to drop MOPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator) on the major threat muslim cities and send in our Marine Corps snipers to dispose of any muslim who issues a fatwa or death threat against any American. This tyrannical cult will not be tolerated.

Thank you Erik. I concur. However, the Army has some real good snipers as well.

[CapitalistSwine]

You need to define "major muslim cities" better. What cities? What country(ies)? What you are suggesting could very easily encourage much more Islamic resistance. We don't need another Afghanistan.

Edited July 15, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Chris.S]

Yes this is good. But there is no crime committed by D, so the only remedies available are what is possible through civil law. D could buy a first location and get sued by the city, then buy a second location and get sued by the city again, and then try again in an absurd series of litigations or the city could just pass an ordinance defining in advance where D may not build a mosque without being contested by the city.

edit: Just wanted to emphasize that the government cannot prevent the purchase of the location by D, just the specific use of it. It does not even matter if D is Donald Trump who thinks a mosque would be a nice friendly gesture, D's ulterior motives are not provable and therefore not relevant to the case.

I still don't think this is proper.

Say a "violent environmental extremist" group blows up an oil pipeline in Alberta, B.C. or Alaska (this has happened already). David Suzuki, who in this instance has no relation to the violent environmentalists, comes along and buys that exact property area or even a piece 500m away from the destroyed pipeline. On it he decides to build an environmentally-friendly, LEED Gold Seal certified treehouse for the purpose of extolling the virtues of environmentalism and marijuana use. Do the principles used to block construction in the NYC mosque situation also apply to this situation? Both ideologies are anti-man. Both have violent sects or groups bent on exerting their ideas by force. Both have people that at least on the surface, want to live in harmony with other people and bought that destroyed property with the same intent. Unless it can be shown that Suzuki helped fund the bombers or offered advice on how or where to blow the pipeline, or even said, "that pipeline should be blown to bits", I don't think governments should step in and stop the construction, even with zoning laws.

The fact that building such a treehouse will give environmentalists a boner and yet is an insult to the oil company and productive oil-lovers everywhere shouldn't have any bearing on the decision to use force by the government to stop a voluntary and legitimate use of property.

[CapitalistSwine]

"Do the principles used to block construction in the NYC mosque situation also apply to this situation?"

You aren't applying this properly. In the case of the Mosque there is evidence that the people who own this property ARE part of one of the violent sects and have funded people that have committed genocide and have also likely harmed Americans.

Unless it can be shown that Suzuki helped fund the bombers or offered advice on how or where to blow the pipeline, or even said, "that pipeline should be blown to bits", I don't think governments should step in and stop the construction, even with zoning laws.

This has already been done in regards to the 9/11 Mosque people.

Edited July 15, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Grames]

The fact that building such a treehouse will give environmentalists a boner and yet is an insult to the oil company and productive oil-lovers everywhere shouldn't have any bearing on the decision to use force by the government to stop a voluntary and legitimate use of property.

If the gold-plated tree house is out in the middle of nowhere then no one has standing to complain. The justification for intervening ultimately lies in the property rights of those who already live there. If there are no residents and no property then there is no justification.

[Chris.S]

You aren't applying this properly. In the case of the Mosque there is evidence that the people who own this property ARE part of one of the violent sects and have funded people that have committed genocide and have also likely harmed Americans.

This has already been done in regards to the 9/11 Mosque people.

I know it's been shown already, I've seen everything on Breitbart and PJTV. The idea is that it had to be shown that they were involved in evil doings, not just because they were Muslim or because violent Muslims see it as a victory, which I think is lost on too many people campaigning against the mosque (not necessarily you or Grames or anyone here).

Grames: if the treehouse is built in a city, how does that change the situation? What right does an adjacent property owner have to justify preventing a treehouse being built next to them? If it is of sound construction and no danger of tipping over, etc.

[Grames]

Grames: if the treehouse is built in a city, how does that change the situation? What right does an adjacent property owner have to justify preventing a treehouse being built next to them? If it is of sound construction and no danger of tipping over, etc.

If the adjacent property owner is a gas station or oil refinery or laboratory that does animal experimentation then the treehouse is a vow (threat) that the environmentalists are coming after them next.

[CapitalistSwine]

I think what Grames is trying to say is this:

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/456/mg0200.jpg

[softwareNerd]

http://img696.images.../456/mg0200.jpg

Should it be illegal to build a memorial to Hitler near Auschwitz?

As for the second sign, Saudi Arabia does not allow non-muslim symbols in their country; does that imply the U.S. should ban certain religious symbols as well?

If the organizers behind the mosque are linked to terrorists, surely the whole debate about the location of the mosque is a red herring. If they are guilty of a crime, they should be arrested or thrown out of the country.