Freedom of religion. Constitution.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

And actually it does tell us what to do. It tells us to make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So what law can be used to stop the mosque from being built that isn't going to be prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

It says Congress shall make no law. You and I are not lawmakers.

My son sings in NYC @ Lincoln Center. My daughter does track meets there. I have The Port authority as a customer of my company. Having said that, There are thousands of laws but they don't come from congress. The Port has zoning laws and authority. I know what is going on there. I can't peicture why people live there. How many Mosques are in the area?
Can't you show any example of a law that keeps a Muslim from doing his ritual in NYC? It is over reaching to try to convince me that a Mosque can be built anywhere.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

It says Congress shall make no law. You and I are not lawmakers.

My son sings in NYC @ Lincoln Center. My daughter does track meets there. I have The Port authority as a customer of my company. Having said that, There are thousands of laws but they don't come from congress. The Port has zoning laws and authority. I know what is going on there. I can't peicture why people live there. How many Mosques are in the area?
Can't you show any example of a law that keeps a Muslim from doing his ritual in NYC? It is over reaching to try to convince me that a Mosque can be built anywhere.

The 1st ammendment also applies to the states and even local governments. Therefore, what I said applies for any level of government.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

It says Congress shall make no law. You and I are not lawmakers.

My son sings in NYC @ Lincoln Center. My daughter does track meets there. I have The Port authority as a customer of my company. Having said that, There are thousands of laws but they don't come from congress. The Port has zoning laws and authority. I know what is going on there. I can't peicture why people live there. How many Mosques are in the area?
Can't you show any example of a law that keeps a Muslim from doing his ritual in NYC? It is over reaching to try to convince me that a Mosque can be built anywhere.

Could a UPCI Worship Center and community center be built there if they had the funds? If not, why not?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You are not required to provide a place for any religion to meet or worship. However, neither can the right of a religion to build a place of worship be infringed without infringing on the first ammendment. So, the right of a religion to establish worship centers is intrinsic to the first ammendment.

Now that being said there are some reasons that any worship facility can be barred from being established in certain locations. However, in such a polarizing situation the proposed reason to bar the facility from being built had better be extremely legit and not just a cover for not wanting that mosque built because I guarantee that any non-legit reason will be taken to court and overturned.

You know nothing about zoning authority. Building authorities have a decision on what gets built where. You seemingly can't grasp that you have been unable to show the Muslims have their worship/religion restricted.
30 Mosques in NYC.

"please cite an "extremely legit" statute.
Like I repeat myself, the constitution doesn't define religion. a "religion" that does beheadings in it's courtyard sound like a military camp.
Can you name other religions that have onsite beheadins on Friday?
I studied far to much business law to buy your claim

[canam]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Could a UPCI Worship Center and community center be built there if they had the funds? If not, why not?

If some radical upci zealots bombed the wtc no.Since they didnt yes.Its pretty simple,if your muslim and you love this country and respect her feelings,you wouldnt want to do this .

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Could a UPCI Worship Center and community center be built there if they had the funds? If not, why not?

You have no common sense.

UPC is Christians.
We are not stupid.
The construction cost per square foot net buildout space is outrageous. Foreign missions needs money for soul winning.
All these people don't know the land under the building is not for sale. The Muslims don't own the dirt. There are subway lines and utilities under the elevation and even the tallest sky scrapers have both long and renewable clauses in their lease.
My office leases in a high rise bank building is close to 300 pages. Just one location. The codes alone in NYC are thousands of pages if you include extensive laws. A relative of mine was mayor of NYC a long time ago. Even a leader, has red tape.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by canam

If some radical upci zealots bombed the wtc no.Since they didnt yes.Its pretty simple,if your muslim and you love this country and respect her feelings,you wouldnt want to do this .

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.
El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel.

The leftie posts all seem to be under the impression the Mosque owns the land. It is just some business interests.

Jfrog was trying to leave the false impression that the Congress calls the shots. No the Con Ed owns half and the Port Authority under that. I doubt it can be for sale. There is no law that can force Con Ed to do a lease of land and allow a building of a specific type on the land. The bank may not think they can get casualty insurance.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

The leftie posts all seem to be under the impression the Mosque owns the land. It is just some business interests.

Jfrog was trying to leave the false impression that the Congress calls the shots. No the Con Ed owns half and the Port Authority under that. I doubt it can be for sale. There is no law that can force Con Ed to do a lease of land and allow a building of a specific type on the land. The bank may not think they can get casualty insurance.

Where did I do that coadie? No where. I made it clear that there were reasons buildings could be legally stopped from being built. I would love to see that mosque not built so if any of those legal reasons can be found then great. But as far as who builds where isn't that a governmental decision? And if its a governmental decision then the first ammendment applies.

It doesn't matter that there are 30 mosques already in that area. The problem is having legal basis on not allowing the mosque to be built. If there is one then great. If not then it has a right to be built.

Your reasons that they might not be allowed to build are good unlike most other posters on the subject. They simply post that the government shouldn't let them build because of supposed ties to terrorists and while I dislike the thought that they might have such ties, to my knowledge there is no legal action that can be taken to stop a building from being built because of the origin of the funds to build it. If there is then inform us of it.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Where did I do that coadie? No where. I made it clear that there were reasons buildings could be legally stopped from being built. I would love to see that mosque not built so if any of those legal reasons can be found then great. But as far as who builds where isn't that a governmental decision? And if its a governmental decision then the first ammendment applies.

It doesn't matter that there are 30 mosques already in that area. The problem is having legal basis on not allowing the mosque to be built. If there is one then great. If not then it has a right to be built.

Your reasons that they might not be allowed to build are good unlike most other posters on the subject. They simply post that the government shouldn't let them build because of supposed ties to terrorists and while I dislike the thought that they might have such ties, to my knowledge there is no legal action that can be taken to stop a building from being built because of the origin of the funds to build it. If there is then inform us of it.

I could make this complicated but i will only give a sketch.
The words ties with terrorists is very broad. Under the Patriot act, may have been caught by reason of traces on electronic transfers of money and messages. If they violate reporting , violate lack of identification, lie about where money comes from and many other issues, there is trouble.

A very small portion of laws amended after the Patriot act.


USC §2325, 18 USC §2331, 18 USC §2332e, 18 USC §2339A, 18 USC §2339B, 18 USC §2340A, 18 USC §2510, 18 USC §2511, 18 USC §2516, 18 USC §2517, 18 USC §2520, 18 USC §2702, 18 USC §2703, 18 USC §2707, 18 USC §2709, 18 USC §2711, 18 USC §3056, 18 USC §3077, 18 USC §3103, 18 USC §3121, 18 USC §3123, 18 USC §3124, 18 USC §3127, 18 USC §3286, 18 USC §3583, 20 USC §1232g, 20 USC §9007, 31 USC §310 (redesignated), 31 USC §5311, 31 USC §5312, 31 USC §5317, 31 USC §5318, 31 USC §5319, 31 USC §5321, 31 USC §5322, 31 USC §5324, 31 USC §5330, 31 USC §5331, 31 USC §5332, 31 USC §5341, 42 USC §2284, 42 USC §2284, 42 USC §3796, 42 USC §3796h, 42 USC §10601, 42 USC §10602, 42 USC §10603, 42 USC §10603b, 42 USC §14601, 42 USC §14135A

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

Good question.

Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix has installed a cleanup station to help Muslim taxi and limo drivers meet their religious needs.
Two faucets located two feet above the ground enable the drivers to conduct ritual cleansing, including washing of the feet, before they pray....

The facility was funded through airport user fees, she said, not taxpayer dollars.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/ph...m-cabbies.html



Place plumbing for washing, prayer rooms and time off the work schedule.

Make the government pay for this. Does the gubment have the right to demand fees and taxes to pay for this?
Against my wishes?

How does that answer my question?