They won't build it! Hardhats vow not to work on controversial mosque

[mcswan]

deleted by poster

 

[Belk]

Who is going to decide what is needed and not needed?

At a guess the people who own the property in conjunction with the local authorities via zoning laws, review process, community input and the like.

Are you going to make that decision? Exactly what other public processes do want to decide are not needed, and then demonize anyone who feels he should comment?

I must have missed where asking a question became demonizing.

Every site plan approval process that takes place at our local level is held in meeting open to the public where anyone who feels he has an interest is welcome to comment. His concerns may not be the deciding concerns, but he's welcome to express them. And, without being demonized as an ignorant bigot.

Really? So if someone came in and started ranting and raving about how the aliens are controlling the government and that is the only reason the perfidious Jews are allowed to build a synagogue in amongst decent folk everyone would just sit there and listen to them respectfully?

 

[Drekkan85]

It's not wild accusations, it's a valid logical conclusion.

Two groups, A & B. They're completely and utterly different. Group B believes in violence, supremacy, and attempts to gain dominance. Group A believes in peaceful existence, cooperation, togetherness, and rather hippish philosophies. The only thing they share is they both take completely opposite views of a common religion.

Group B commits a horrific act. Group A has denounced the actions of Group B.

You oppose Group A purely because they share a superficial relationship in their religion. You can either be one of two things:

A) Ignorant of the differences between group A and group B
B) Not CARE about the differences and still oppose group A because of the actions of group B.

Option A is ignorance. Option B is bigotry. Which are you?

 

[mcswan]

deleted by poster

 

[Skaloop]

I'm sorry. I thought I was answering your question "Why do we need a national discussion for a local matter?"

Well, you explained how it can be a national discussion, in that anyone is free to attend the zoning meetings and express their concerns. But that doesn't address why it needs a national discussion.

Besides, those zoning meetings have been held, citizens were able to express their concerns or support, and then the building was approved. So why does it need to continue being a national discussion for a local matter, when the local matter has already been decided?

 

[mcswan]

deleted by poster

 

[mala]

there is nothing wrong with discussing something nationally
discussion is free
but the final decision is a local municipal matter.

 

[Skaloop]

It's not up to either you or me as to why it needs to be a national discussion. We live in a free society where folks get to voice their opinions whether you think they need to or not. It's not up to you.

I don't disagree that citizens can voice their opinion. And you're right, it's not up to me. But why are people with no direct connection to Manhattan getting involved in a municipal matter that has been settled? I'm not saying they shouldn't say anything, or that they should necessarily stop saying anything. But some guy from, say, Texas, who has never been to New York; why would someone like that get so involved?

It will go on as long as there are folks who want to talk about it. Move on dude, get on with your life and stop being obsessed with what other people are doing. It's important to them, they have a right to object to what's going on, so what?. So, it bothers you! Too bad.

I'm getting along just fine; outside of these forums, I don't invest any of my time on it. Although I could also suggest that the protesters get on with their life and stop being obsessed about what other people are doing. The community center is important to them, they have a right to build it, so what? So, it bothers people? Too bad.

 

[mcswan]

deleted by poster

 

[Belk]

I'm sorry. I thought I was answering your question "Why do we need a national discussion for a local matter?"

Really? Cause it seemed more like you where whining about feeling demonized and like people where calling you a bigot.

 

[mcswan]

deleted by poster

 

[Gishin]

I can respect your right to an opinion without respecting your opinion.

 

[mcswan]

deleted by poster

 

[TheDag]

Yeh, I guess you're right. I just don't think there are a lot of completely out of the loop people obsessed with this. It seems to be centered in NY and involves people in the area. I know some folks are very emotional about that. I live just two hours away, and went to ground zero the first day they would let us close to see the rescue and recovery effort. I didn't go for myself out of voyeuristic reasons. My mother in law grew up there, lived most of her life within a few blocks of there, and wanted to see it.

I don't know if you've had a chance to go there, but it is a very emotional thing. You can't even imagine the scale of the scene, it's huge. I can easily see how folks very close to that, folks who lost family, folks who cleaned up body parts, can be obsessed with this. I'm inclined to cut these folks some slack for their emotions.

I wish the developers of this property - who very well may have the best of intentions - would just slow down, put the project on hold, stop being in your face about it, and say 'You know what, we're going to hold off on development until we can have community talks and convince people we mean no harm. We want to be part of this community and we know there may be some hard feelings still.'

from what I'm reading it is being suggested that they have had the community talks. It was there that people could voice their objections if they wanted to affect the decision. however the decision has been made and people can still object but shouldn't expect the decision to be changed. If things were done that way nothing would ever be done because there are always objectors to things so the objections would never stop and nothing would ever get done. Where does that leave us?

 

[Billnew]

there is nothing wrong with discussing something nationally
discussion is free
but the final decision is a local municipal matter.

Unless the Federal Goverment sees the need to get involved.(and figure out how to work the laws so that they would have some legal ground to stand on) I do not think anyone is wanting that. Even though some in Washington weighed in on the matter.

And still you do not get that simple majorities cannot be used to remove others rights. It is that simple. They own the land, they have the zoning permissions and they have the right to build there a community centre which btw is why there will be no call to prayer, it is simply put not a masjid.

We have heard of the abuse of eminent domain, so the goverment is not without power to take land from the rightful owners. Again, I don't think many if any want this either.
No call to prayer is good, That takes one aspect out of my concerns.
No one at ground zero should see or here the Mosque.(and reversely no one in the mosque on any floor should be able to see any part of ground zero.) So no one can look over ground zero and celebrate the destruction. The builders cannot guarantee that supporters of the 911 will not come as a pilgramage, to dance and praise god for the great destruction done in his name.

And the ones supporting the building of this community center are being called insensitive and supporting terrorism. Pot calling the kettle black.

I support the accusation of being insensitive. Until there is proof of funding terror organizations(including the positive side of terror groups, ie:helping the poor, displaced. Hamas is Hamas etc), then I do not support the second accusation.

 

[Belk]

I'm really not in the middle of this. I'm just disturbed by how folks have so little respect for each others' opinions.

Why on earth should I respect your opinion? Now don't get me wrong, I am fully willing to extend you the respect you are due as a fellow human being, but that is to you. I, to be quite honest, find your opinion on this subject somewhat contradictory and confusing so I see no reason to respect it.

 

[mcswan]

deleted by poster

 

[Billnew]

Speaking directly to this OP.

The people that want to have the mosque built have a right to build it, as long as they follow proper procedure, and can find trained people to do the work.
They have the same rights as every other citizen has.
They have the right to refuse to work in an area that goes against their beiefs, do they not?
So, every citizen in these United States has the right to refuse to work
in areas that goes against their beliefs. Thus the construction workers are within their rights, unless you believe that Muslim goals and ideals are more important than anyone elses.

This Muslim group has the right to build.
The workers of New York have the right to refuse to build it.
And if built, the people of New York have the right to protest in front of the building, just as others protest in front of buildings they don't agree with.
The people of New York has the right to not utillize the building, and not do buisness with the building.(except for utilities, I think they are exempt from being able to refuse service, as they are the monopoly.)

Anyone can boycott anything for any reason.

No indivduals beliefs or ideals are more important then any others. So all people can decide not to provide services/products to anyone they choose. Be sure, someone will provide these items, there are people that will do anything for a buck, even buying from one of the objectors and marking it up, and selling to the boycotted.

Lets keep this real. Neither side is overstepping their rights.

Freedom of speech/freedom of religion apply to all citizens. How someone spends their time, money and energy is for them to decide. Ones religious goals does not trump that.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Speaking directly to this OP.

The people that want to have the mosque built have a right to build it, as long as they follow proper procedure, and can find trained people to do the work.
They have the same rights as every other citizen has.

I don't see anybody arguing against any of this.

They have the right to refuse to work in an area that goes against their beiefs, do they not?
So, every citizen in these United States has the right to refuse to work
in areas that goes against their beliefs. Thus the construction workers are within their rights, unless you believe that Muslim goals and ideals are more important than anyone elses.

Again, you're preaching to the choir... I'm not sure why you're apparantly arguing against a point that nobody is making.

This Muslim group has the right to build.
The workers of New York have the right to refuse to build it.
And if built, the people of New York have the right to protest in front of the building, just as others protest in front of buildings they don't agree with.
The people of New York has the right to not utillize the building, and not do buisness with the building.(except for utilities, I think they are exempt from being able to refuse service, as they are the monopoly.)

The issue is not, at least not for me, about people exercising their own rights, but rather attempting to force their beliefs on others... just as construction workers have the right not to work on this building, they also have the right to accept the contract, build it, and get paid for it.

What concerns me is what's going to happen when those workers who choose to take the job encounter those who feel the job should not be taken... I doubt it will be pretty.

Similarly, what will happen when those people who feel the mosque should not exist are faced with the concrete (no pun intended) reality that it does, in fact, exist.

I pray protesting is all that happens.

Anyone can boycott anything for any reason.

So long as they stay within the bounds of the law.

No indivduals beliefs or ideals are more important then any others. So all people can decide not to provide services/products to anyone they choose. Be sure, someone will provide these items, there are people that will do anything for a buck, even buying from one of the objectors and marking it up, and selling to the boycotted.

Lets keep this real. Neither side is overstepping their rights.

Agreed.

Freedom of speech/freedom of religion apply to all citizens. How someone spends their time, money and energy is for them to decide. Ones religious goals does not trump that.

Regardless of whether that religious goal is Muslim or Christian... well said.

 

[Supreme]

So no one can look over ground zero and celebrate the destruction. The builders cannot guarantee that supporters of the 911 will not come as a pilgramage, to dance and praise god for the great destruction done in his name.

I'm no expert, but I'm not entirely sure who would be brazen enough to even attempt to show any support for 9/11 in America- especially near Ground Zero. From what I've heard, showing support for 9/11 near Americans is asking for a lynching, and that includes Muslim Americans.