AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

"Making restrictions" like the ones you propose is based on bigotry and ignorance of our Constitution. Everything that follows doesn't matter much.

What are those tremendous religious ramifications, Okie? And why should those matter to the Law at all?

Cycloptichorn

So the constitution should make all zoning restrictions illegal? That seems like an odd opinion out of you. Do you want a super Walmart built next to your home? Would that be a constitutional right of Walmart?

okie, Are you really that dense? We're talking about national historical sites such as Gettysburg. The the federal government has declared such sites as off limits to buildings and/or other structures to retain the environment "as is." This applies to everybody.

You try to imply something that is only the figment of your imagination; your attempts to equate any building close to ground zero and other historical sites is a stupid idea. They have no relationship.

It is not in the slightest way unreasonable, in fact it is entirely and highly reasonable and even very predictable in my opinion that Ground Zero will at some point be designated and congressionally approved as a national historical site or monument. I have seen other park or monument sites designated or created with equal or less historical significance. An example is the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site in Colorado where a General Chivington massacred maybe about 160 peaceful Indians in 1864. That national monument has been created and it will probably eventually encompass several thousand acres with basically not much out there to see, which is going to be much more land than the actual site of the massacre along the creek. And it is in fact considered a highly religious and sacred site by many indians, especially those that are descendants of the tribe that was the target that fateful day over 100 years ago. That is precisely why I believe it is sensible and even our responsibility to attempt to preserve the area as well as we can, which includes careful and sensible zoning decisions and regulations for the area, and that includes a reasonable perimeter around Ground Zero.

Ground Zero compared to Sand Creek, Sand Creek had national significance in regard to indian wars and the Western United States, but Ground Zero has not only national significance, but much significance in regard to the entire world and its politics and events, which provides all the more reason for its preservation in anticipation of a national monumen or site, and perhaps even a world site.

You provide only guesses about ground zero. Your overall argument goes beyond ground zero.

Your statements have no credibility; only "it's my guess."

In my comparison of Ground Zero to Sand Creek, that is perhaps a pretty instructive comparison or parallel. Just as Sand Creek is remembered and symbolizes the evils that man is capable of, so does Ground Zero stand for and symbolize how evil man can be to other men, which not only has national but world significance. By preserving the sites as monuments or historic sites, I think the purpose would not be to honor what happened there, but remember them for the evil that occurred there, so that hopefully people can learn from history so that similar evils can be avoided in the future.

Would it be reasonable for a Veterans group representing the Cavalry of which Chivington was a part of , would it be reasonable for them to propose building a museum or very large monument maybe several stories tall near Sand Creek to honor something called "Manifest Destiny" for example? I doubt if that idea would get very far. I think that would be a pretty reasonable parallel to what the Islamic community is proposing with their mosque very near Ground Zero.

This is not at all a reasonable parallel, because the Mosque has nothing to do with 9/11 at all. It isn't a monument to anything that happened at the WTC.

Cycloptichorn

Sorry, but I think it has much to do with 9/11. It is in fact commonly known, perhaps you have yet to hear, that the terrorists believed they would go to some paradise after life due to their ultra Islamic jihad beliefs, which has everything to do with the Islamic religion fanatics, and mosques. It is commonly known, cyclops, perhaps you have not heard, that support for terrorist acts have been linked to Islamic leaders or imams with links to various mosques around the country.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=194617

"The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a "cultural center" for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.

Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.

Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks."

You are incorrect; it doesn't, at all. Your smears and character assassinations don't prove that it does, either; all they prove is that you are somewhat bigoted, in that you lump every Muslim together into the 'terrorist or terrorist supporter' column.

Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous on this topic. Face it; you're blown. There's no good legal or moral reason for opposing it, and certainly no reason for YOU to oppose it, because it has exactly zero to do with your life at all, and has been approved by the people in question. The only ones who are against it are Republicans looking to use hate and xenophobia as a campaign issue this Fall.

By the way, linking to 'World Net Daily' is probably the worst thing you could ever do to support a position. They are probably the least respected out of all of the purveyors of right-wing fake news.

Cycloptichorn

I have a question for you.
Since you seem to think that the mosque is being built to close to ground zero, and you seem to be saying that no church should be built that close, would you have a problem with the Greek Orthodox Church that was next to ground zero, and that was destroyed when the towers fell on it, being rebuilt at its same site, or would you want it moved also?

You deny that the Falls Church mosque has been tied to terror acts, cyclops? I think more than World Net Daily, which is a decent source by the way, has reported that fact. I think you need to quit relying upon liberal news outlets and quit acting as if you are an ostrich, get your head out into reality.

Instead of characterizing World Net Daily as a useless news source, I challenge you provide proof that their report is wrong, with opposing evidence. I don't expect you to meet the challenge because you seldom do, and I doubt you have any information to challenge with.

They haven't been charged with anything, so they are safely presumed to be innocent. If they had been successfully tied to terrorism by the government, they would have been shut down - in the way that several of these mosques have been.

I'm not interested in rumors from right-wing websites. They aren't proof of anything, certainly not enough to stop anything from going forward. Besides, when did your argument change?

No, it's not. By any stretch of the imagination. They make things up and lie constantly. They exist entirely to give guys like you the news that you want to hear.



WND didn't present any evidence. All they did, like you do, is present rumors and smears. As if that's enough to deny people's legal rights to build whatever they like.

Cycloptichorn

I have already said I would probably favor a grandfathering of what was already there, so I would not object to restoring what was there. If there had been a mosque there, I would also allow the rebuilding of it in a form similar to what was there, which would likely not be more than a smaller mosque, not a so called "cultural center" that will promote shariah or Islamic law in America, similar to the one in Falls Church, Virginia which has been linked to many terrorist acts, including 9/11. We know don't we that there was no Islamic cultural center there before 9/11 that resembled what they plan to put there now? If there had been, I doubt they would have flown the planes into that area.

This is all opinion from what I know about it a few thousand miles away, so just take it as an opinion, thats all. If I was responsible for this as an official of New York City, I would obviously need to get into this with more detail and I think talk with other agencies, officials, and representatives of the families that lost members there, analyze every building in the area before and after, review the whole thing in detail from every aspect, before trying to come up with the best zoning solution.

mm, you may want to read the following link: I know cyclops and other liberals demean World Net Daily, but I think they are a pretty credible source most of the time.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=194617

Cyclops, I don't think the WND story is inconsistent with what would be likely and probable, so I would tend to believe it, unless there is compelling evidence that counters it. In other words, if we learned that somebody had found that Timothy McVeigh had plans to blow up other buildings, I would tend to believe it, because it is consistent with the idealogy involved here. We are dealing with radical Islamic idealogy, which is not an isolated handful of people that died in the plane attacks.

The story is designed to produce that effect with you, Okie. Don't you realize that? They are a news service which excels at preaching to the choir.

Besides, they use the exact same tactics that you do: smears and associations in lieu of actual proof of wrongdoing.



Of course you do, because it's telling you what you want to hear - and you don't care that they didn't produce any evidence in the first place.



It has nothing to do with the Mosque in NY which is being built at all, any more than 'Radical Chritianists' represent all Christians.

Cycloptichorn

The Left seeks more government control over people's lives.
The Right seeks more individual control over their own lives.

The Left seeks more equal distribution of wealth.
The Right seeks more merit distribution of wealth.

The Left seeks more dependence by the needy on government charity and less dependence on private charity.
The Right seeks less dependence by the needy on government charity and more dependence on private charity.

The Left rarely specifies what the Left thinks and regularly specifies what the Right thinks.
The Right regularly specifies what the Left thinks and regularly specifies what the Right thinks.

When I wrote the above, I was unaware that the designation of Ground Zero to a national historic site or monument had already been recommended. I think it is not only logical, but perhaps eventually inevitable, which proves that I am right, that we should consider the proposed mosque from the standpoint that this area is very likely going to be a park, monument, or national historic site at some point, and they should do the proper planning now in anticipation of that probability. The man making that proposal is only a candidate for Senate now, but I predict that congressmen will at some point officially propose legislation similar to what he is proposing now.

http://www.prlog.org/10873709-wargotz-calls-for-ground-zero-to-be-national-historic-site.html

"Annapolis - Today, Eric Wargotz M.D., a candidate for the United States Senate, called on Congress and the President to immediately make "Ground Zero" a National Historic Site. This new proposal from Commissioner Wargotz comes on the heels of President Obama's remarks supporting a mosque being built at "Ground Zero" in New York City.

"Ground Zero is a sacred site. For a mosque to be created at "Ground Zero" is a travesty and must be stopped. The families of those killed on September 11th should not be forced to endure the hardship a mosque at that location would create." Wargotz said.

The President and Congress can turn "Ground Zero" insto a National Historic Site or a National Park. Just like Gettysburg, the National Mall in DC, and the USS Arizona site in Pearl Harbor, Ground Zero could become a National Historic Site. Under Wargotz's plan, the National Park Service would oversee all actions at "Ground Zero." The National Park Service would be instructed to ban the creation of any new religious buildings inside the National Historic Site.

"While not all Muslims are responsible for what occurred on September 11th, those who were would view the creation of a mosque at "Ground Zero" as a victory. This mosque would be used by Islamic radicals as a recruitment tool. This must be stopped." Wargotz added.
"

okie, Nobody is talking about building anything on ground zero. Don't you understand simple English? Anybody can build anything they wish that's not ground zero; any religious group, any business, or government buildings/monuments.

The term "Ground Zero" I think is used to denote not only the exact point of impact or collapse of the buildings, but an area that has a reasonable perimeter around it. What size perimeter that is would be a topic of debate and discussion, but I do not think for example that Mt. Rushmore denotes only the stone mountain itself, but it implies an area encompassing Mt. Rushmore. Any eventual park or national historic site there in Manhattan is very likely going to encompass more than the exact and only Ground Zero as strictly defined, but also an area or perimeter around it. That is simple common sense.