Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[Lunar]

This seems to me to be primarily a local zoning issue. I don't know the zoning laws in NYC, but in general local authorities have quite a bit of latitude as long as consistent procedures are applied. I would expect any decision to balance the property rights of the applicant with property rights of neighboring properties and needs of any public property impacted by the applicant. The nature of an enterprise definitely plays a part in valuing nearby properties, such as locating a pawn shop in an upscale strip mall, and values can be subjective. This would seem to apply to the mosque, as well.

1.  This already was unanimously approved by the local board

2.  The Constitution has a lot more to say about freedom of religion than pawn shops

[You kip if you want to...]

Good for him, he and Bloomberg clearly have the moral high ground here.

That said, I think it's a sad reflection on the state of American society that the President defending religious freedom is considered controversial.

Mind you, I'm not singling out the United States on the xenophobia thing - Europe's just as Islamophobic, and it's a problem all throughout the "west".

IMO, America's pretty liberal compared to Europe in regards to its attitude towards Islam.

[Oakvale]

Good for him, he and Bloomberg clearly have the moral high ground here.

That said, I think it's a sad reflection on the state of American society that the President defending religious freedom is considered controversial.

Mind you, I'm not singling out the United States on the xenophobia thing - Europe's just as Islamophobic, and it's a problem all throughout the "west".

IMO, America's pretty liberal compared to Europe in regards to its attitude towards Islam.

There's probably a grain of truth to that - the burqa ban wouldn't have gotten off the ground in the US, unless the Tea Party people get their way and decide the Constitution only protects Christians' freedom of religion.

[muon2]

This seems to me to be primarily a local zoning issue. I don't know the zoning laws in NYC, but in general local authorities have quite a bit of latitude as long as consistent procedures are applied. I would expect any decision to balance the property rights of the applicant with property rights of neighboring properties and needs of any public property impacted by the applicant. The nature of an enterprise definitely plays a part in valuing nearby properties, such as locating a pawn shop in an upscale strip mall, and values can be subjective. This would seem to apply to the mosque, as well.

1.  This already was unanimously approved by the local board

2.  The Constitution has a lot more to say about freedom of religion than pawn shops

1. If it's already passed all local levels, I would have thought it's a done deal. The only news I had only heard about was the denial of landmark status by the historical preservation board. Who are the protesters trying to influence, then? I had assumed it was other levels of local officials, but now I'm not sure - is it the landowner?

2. As long as zoning policies are uniformly applied there is not a constitutional question. A church seeking a major expansion near a popular historic site can potentially be denied based on traffic or other public safety concerns. That an example of the needs of public property I referenced.

[Lunar]

This seems to me to be primarily a local zoning issue. I don't know the zoning laws in NYC, but in general local authorities have quite a bit of latitude as long as consistent procedures are applied. I would expect any decision to balance the property rights of the applicant with property rights of neighboring properties and needs of any public property impacted by the applicant. The nature of an enterprise definitely plays a part in valuing nearby properties, such as locating a pawn shop in an upscale strip mall, and values can be subjective. This would seem to apply to the mosque, as well.

1.  This already was unanimously approved by the local board

2.  The Constitution has a lot more to say about freedom of religion than pawn shops

1. If it's already passed all local levels, I would have thought it's a done deal. The only news I had only heard about was the denial of landmark status by the historical preservation board. Who are the protesters trying to influence, then? I had assumed it was other levels of local officials, but now I'm not sure - is it the landowner?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it IS basically a done deal.  Still politically volatile as some politicians are calling for eminent domain to be used.

2. As long as zoning policies are uniformly applied there is not a constitutional question. A church seeking a major expansion near a popular historic site can potentially be denied based on traffic or other public safety concerns. That an example of the needs of public property I referenced.

But there is no way to uniformly apply that to this mosque & community center that I'm aware of.  It's an old Burlington Coast Factory, it's not in the most heavily trafficked parts of the area,    there's probably a need for more community centers for exercise in Lower Manhattan, and there are already religious buildings nearby with expansive architecture.

When it comes down to it, it's pretty easily provable that the objections to this center are 100% based on it being an Islamic house of worship, rather than any legitimate judgment on the building.   A local government up with a technicality to prohibit a religious building on private property solely based on what religion it is, is probably a violation of the Constitution imo....and what do you do if he tries it on another property?

[muon2]

1. If it's already passed all local levels, I would have thought it's a done deal. The only news I had only heard about was the denial of landmark status by the historical preservation board. Who are the protesters trying to influence, then? I had assumed it was other levels of local officials, but now I'm not sure - is it the landowner?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it IS basically a done deal.  Still politically volatile as some politicians are calling for eminent domain to be used.

I' not familiar with NY law, but the Keloe decision gives local officials a wide definition of public purposes from which to choose if they want to pursue eminent domain.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But there is no way to uniformly apply that to this mosque & community center that I'm aware of.  It's an old Burlington Coast Factory, it's not in the most heavily trafficked parts of the area,    there's probably a need for more community centers for exercise in Lower Manhattan, and there are already religious buildings nearby with expansive architecture.

When it comes down to it, it's pretty easily provable that the objections to this center are 100% based on it being an Islamic house of worship, rather than any legitimate judgment on the building.   A local government up with a technicality to prohibit a religious building on private property solely based on what religion it is, is probably a violation of the Constitution imo....and what do you do if he tries it on another property?
[/quote]

If it's a zoning case, local officials do well to point to another property near enough to suit the applicant that does not cause the difficulties of the particular property. They need to show that the property in question is uniquely disadvantaged for the proposed use. In that case there probably would not be a constitutional issue.
In zoning cases like this, local officials do well often point to an al

[J. J.]

The only real problem I have with Obama's comment is that this is a local issue, and he doesn't need to inject himself in it (and yes, many non local Republicans have as well).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only real problem I have with Obama's comment is that this is a local issue, and he doesn't need to inject himself in it (and yes, many non local Republicans have as well).

"All politics are local." -- Tip O'Neil

While it would have been best left as a local issue, this became nationalized long before Obama commented.

[Torie]

It seems to me that the particular brand of a religion should be an irrelevant factor in all of this, and indeed if it were not, raises 1st amendment questions. This whole fuss seems silly. Now, as I think has been previously noted, maybe a mega church/mosque/synagogue whatever, is not appropriate for that location for reasons having nothing to do with either 1) the brand of the religion, of 2) that it is a religious facility. But apparently the authorities have already decided otherwise on that one, so we are past all of that now.

So what is there to argue about? 

[Franzl]

Good for him, he and Bloomberg clearly have the moral high ground here.

That said, I think it's a sad reflection on the state of American society that the President defending religious freedom is considered controversial.

Mind you, I'm not singling out the United States on the xenophobia thing - Europe's just as Islamophobic, and it's a problem all throughout the "west".

I'm not really sure the US is any more liberal on Islam than most of Western Europe....it's just that the Constitution makes it extremely hard to actually act on prejudice. I wouldn't be surprised if the referendum in Switzerland had enough votes to pass in the U.S. too, theoretically....it's just that it could never happen (at least a binding referendum that would actulaly have that result).

Yeah you can legitimately complain about how hard it is to change the Constitution...and it can have its disadvantages....but this is a clear case where we can truly be grateful that it is this hard to change.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Obama_narrows_mosque_defense.html?showall

So which is it, Muslim symp?

[Oakvale]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Obama_narrows_mosque_defense.html?showall

So which is it, Muslim symp?

Isn't that pretty much the same thing he said yesterday? I don't think it was implied that he actively supports the project.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Obama_narrows_mosque_defense.html?showall

So which is it, Muslim symp?

Isn't that pretty much the same thing he said yesterday? I don't think it was implied that he actively supports the project.

Then one of the moderators around here should change the title as being incorrect.

[Lunar]

I'm not really into thread-title changing.

[Lunar]

Heh, Human Events is running this ad on RedState:



Not even hiding the anti-Islam nature of their argument anymore.

[J. J.]

The only real problem I have with Obama's comment is that this is a local issue, and he doesn't need to inject himself in it (and yes, many non local Republicans have as well).

"All politics are local." -- Tip O'Neil

While it would have been best left as a local issue, this became nationalized long before Obama commented.

he could have said, "It's up to the City," which approved it.

[Oakvale]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

=/=

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He hasn't actually changed his opinion on the mosque thing. I'm just sayin'

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Of course Obama backs it......what President doesn't pander

to Islamic voters?

He's a muslim, you see.  

And, do you remember the Clintons who made Ramadan en vogue?

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Due to the laws, they have the right to build a mosque.

And I do think it would be a good idea for this to happen - it will show that Americans are accepting people, that we don't bunch all Muslims with the few extremists - basically it highlights all the good aspects of the US.

However, there's no doubt that it's insensitive. I wasn't directly affected by 9/11, but many where that location is being built have been. Some democrats have called those who are against the Mosque racist. This is far from the truth. This is all wrapped up in human emotions. And emotions are not rational.

So while we can discuss rationally the benefits this has, those who have been affected from the attacks have a harder time doing so.

And while I'm for it, I can perfectly understand why people see it as insensitive and provocative. Why 2 blocks from ground zero? Why not any other possible location in NYC?

The discussion isn't about whether or not a mosque can be built there, because obviously it can and will be. Rather, the discussion is should the mosque be there. And I can understand why this is hotly debated.

This reminds me of the idiot who thought it was a good idea to fly a presidential jet low across the sky over NYC for a photo shoot a year or so ago. It was insensitive and clearly thoughtless.

Not even a decade has passed since 9/11, and we'll be engulfed in this war on terror (sorry, over seas contingency plans, (stupid name)) for the foreseeable future. A little more class and respect on these decisions, please.

[Lunar]

Drudge is hilarious right now

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Drudge is hilarious right now

Indeed.......funny/

[Хahar 🤔]

Context plz

[Brittain33]

I think many people in the U.S. are having a problem with Islam because of 9/11 and Islam's relationship with Christianity, but I think an advantage we have over Europe is that we've been a diverse country for centuries, we've done mass immigration and religious diversity before, so it's not new and we can see what the path forward is which leads to some kind of assimilation and many different flavors of Islam from merely cultural to fundamentalist. IF we allow it to happen and not put up roadblocks to moderate Islam, as some of my fellow Americans seem to want to do with Cordoba House. Muslims are just one of many minorities in the U.S.

Europe hasn't had mass immigration quite like this before--there are some examples, but nothing quite like this and across the continent--and in many places Muslims may be the only substantial religious community because Christian observance has fallen to a basic cultural level.

[Lunar]

It seems to me that the particular brand of a religion should be an irrelevant factor in all of this, and indeed if it were not, raises 1st amendment questions. This whole fuss seems silly. Now, as I think has been previously noted, maybe a mega church/mosque/synagogue whatever, is not appropriate for that location for reasons having nothing to do with either 1) the brand of the religion, of 2) that it is a religious facility. But apparently the authorities have already decided otherwise on that one, so we are past all of that now.

So what is there to argue about? 

To answer your question: Your generic xenophobic and Islamophobic stuff, whether this is outrageous or reasonable, whether Obama was right to speak out on the issue, and I guess populist hatemongering in general.  People aren't really interested in the legality of it.

[Zarn]

The only possible reason to go against this is seeded in bigotry.