Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

I am not sure of your hometown, but this similar situation does not support what you are indicating.

2. Church lands include lands "connected with places of worship"

Under paragraph 3(1)3, land owned or leased11 by a church or religious organization that is a "place of worship and the land used in connection with it," is exempt from property tax. One of the challenges posed in trying to qualify under this category is determining the meaning of "lands connected with places of worship" and the scope of this exempt category. In this regard, the prevailing principle the courts have applied in determining whether a location is a place of worship is the "predominant use" or "primary purpose" test. In order to qualify for tax exempt status under this category, there must be some connection between the use of the connected location and the spiritual nature and purposes of the church. An example of this includes an apartment in the church's basement where the caretaker resided.12

It is also important to note that a church may claim an exemption under this category for church buildings even if they remain vacant and unoccupied.13 It is not necessary that the owner occupy the land to qualify for this exemption. A church may also claim an exemption under this category for church property that is used and assessed as a business, as long as the property is predominantly used to educate students.14

The continuing application of the primary purpose test was recently confirmed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's decision in Holy Theotokos Convent v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town),15 in which the court held that for public policy reasons, the exemption from property taxation afforded under section 3(1) of the Act for "places of worship" should be strictly construed. In its decision, the court refused to exempt a convent from payment of property taxes, holding that the "places of worship" exemption does not apply to worship activities solely confined to the devotional life of members of a religious order, whether that includes group or individual worship or prayers for the convent members. Rather, the court held that the exemption will apply to places of worship inside the convent grounds open to members of the public for some formal worship services, thus focusing on "public worship" as the criteria for exemption.

The convent, home to five sisters of a cloistered order, attempted to establish the primary use of the entire property as a place of worship pursuant to the Act, submitting evidence that the Sisters share a communal existence with an emphasis on a contemplative prayer life. For example, one prayer is repeated 6,000 times during the day in virtually every corner of the property. Although the MPAC conceded the two chapels and the baptistery fell within the exemption, the ultimate question was whether the remainder of the property was also entitled to be exempt from property taxes. In affirming the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Soeurs de la Visitation d'Ottawa v. City of Ottawa,16 the court held that "the distinction between the worship activities of the cloistered members of the religious order as a part of their devotional life and worship by members of the public has been decided by the court and should in my view be maintained." In the Soeurs de la Visitation d'Ottawa decision, the court determined that "public worship" required "laity or congregation as well as a minister or preacher."

From today's NY Time:

eptember 2, 2010
New York Poll Finds Wariness About Muslim Center
By MICHAEL BARBARO and MARJORIE CONNELLY
Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site farther away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan, including many who describe themselves as supporters of the project, according to a New York Times poll.

The poll indicates that support for the 13-story complex, which organizers said would promote moderate Islam and interfaith dialogue, is tepid in its hometown.

Nearly nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks ignited a wave of anxiety about Muslims, many in the country’s biggest and arguably most cosmopolitan city still have an uneasy relationship with Islam. One-fifth of New Yorkers acknowledged animosity toward Muslims. Thirty-three percent said that compared with other American citizens, Muslims were more sympathetic to terrorists. And nearly 60 percent said people they know had negative feelings toward Muslims because of 9/11.

Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose building the project two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it.

Opposition is more intense in the boroughs outside Manhattan — for example, 54 percent in the Bronx — but it is even strong in Manhattan, considered a bastion of religious tolerance, where 41 percent are against it.

The poll was conducted Aug. 27 to 31 with 892 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

It suggested that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the center’s most ardent and public defender, has not unified public opinion around the issue. Asked if they approved or disapproved of how he had handled the subject, city residents were evenly split.

While a majority said politicians in New York should take a stand on the issue, most disapprove of those outside the city weighing in: Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among others, have tried to rally opposition to the center.

The debate over the religious center has captivated much of the city: 66 percent said they had heard or read a lot about it, and follow-up interviews with respondents showed that the topic was leading to emotional and searching conversations in living rooms and workplaces throughout the city.

“My granddaughter and I were having this conversation and she said stopping them from building is going against the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution,” said Marilyn Fisher, 71, who lives in the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn. “I absolutely agree with her except in this case. I think everything in this world is not black and white; there is always a gray area and the gray area right now is sensitivity to those affected by 9/11, the survivors of the people lost.”

Sentiments about the center appear to be heavily shaped by personal background and experiences. Those who have visited mosques or have close Muslim friends are more likely to support the center than those who have few interactions with Islam.

More than half — 53 percent — of city residents with incomes over $100,000 back the center; only 31 percent of those with incomes under $50,000 agree. Protestants are evenly divided, while most Catholic and Jewish New Yorkers oppose the center.

Age also plays a role. Those under 45 are evenly divided (42 percent for, 43 percent against); among those over 45, nearly 60 percent are opposed.

The center’s developers, and its defenders, have sought to portray opponents as a small but vocal group.

The poll, however, reveals a more complicated portrait of the opposition in New York: 67 percent said that while Muslims had a right to construct the center near ground zero, they should find a different site.

Most strikingly, 38 percent of those who expressed support for the plan to build it in Lower Manhattan said later in a follow-up question that they would prefer it be moved farther away, suggesting that even those who defend the plan question the wisdom of the location.

Richard Merton, 56, a real estate broker who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, exemplifies those mixed and seemingly contradictory feelings.

“Freedom of religion is one of the guarantees we give in this country, so they are free to worship where they chose,” Mr. Merton said. “I just think it’s very bad manners on their part to be so insensitive as to put a mosque in that area.”

Opponents offered differing opinions on how far the complex should be built from ground zero. One-fifth said at least 20 blocks, while almost the same number said at least 10 blocks. Seven percent said at least five blocks.

“Personally I would prefer it not be built at all, but if it is going to be built it should be at least 20 blocks away,” said Maria Misetzis, 30, of the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn.

As the fight over the center escalated from a zoning dispute into a battle in the culture wars, it has splintered New Yorkers along political lines. Seventy-four percent of Republicans are opposed; Democrats are split, with 43 percent for and 44 percent against.

Even though President Obama is highly popular in New York City, residents are divided over his handling of the issue (he defended the center, then seemed to backtrack slightly). Thirty-two percent approve of his approach, while 27 percent disapprove.

It is not clear, however, that any politician is successfully harnessing the strong feelings around the issue. Even though both Republican candidates for New York governor, Rick A. Lazio and Carl P. Paladino, have sought to make the Islamic center an issue in the race, two-thirds of those polled said it would have no influence on how they made their choice for governor. The poll showed that the economy and jobs remained the most pressing concerns.

Yet those who said the issue would affect their vote were four times as likely to support a candidate who is against the center than one who backs it.

The intensity of feeling is greater among opponents. Nearly three-quarters of respondents who disapprove of the project say they feel strongly; only half of those who back it do so.

“Give them an inch, they’ll take a yard,” Ms. Misetzis said. “They want to build a mosque wherever they can. And once they start praying there, it is considered hallowed ground and can’t be taken away. Ever. That’s why we’re having this tug of war between New Yorkers and the Islamic people.”

John Dewey, 65, of the Rego Park section of Queens, expressed his view in more practical terms.

“We can’t say all Muslims are terrorists,” Mr. Dewey said. “There is a huge population of Muslims throughout the world, and we will have to deal constantly with them in the future. If we make enemies constantly, then we will constantly have war.”

Marina Stefan, Dalia Sussman and Megan Thee-Brenan contributed reporting.

That the public can be swayed to support bigotry is still wrong; even when 100% of New Yorkers says so.

That's encouraging.

They are being swayed to be part of a bigoted controversy; that's still wrong.

They say they can build, but should move to a more noncontroversial site. That's hogwash! They can't have it both ways; nobody gets only part non-bigoted.

I just have a hard time calling New Yorkers bigots, C.I. If they'd opposed the hundreds of other mosques in New York, or the thousands across the country, maybe I'd have an easier time of it. But, the majority agree that the Muslims have a constitutional right to build it and as the poll suggests, the issue is complicated. Plus, I don't think name-calling is healthy to the discussion. Just my opinion.

You can say that they are acting in a bigoted manner, without necessarily calling them bigots.

We all know that it's HARD to stand up for people's rights, when you don't agree with those people. None of the reaction I have seen is surprising. But Bloomberg was right earlier, when he stated that these are the times when we have to stick to our open society and prove that we mean it - not shy away from it out of fear.

Cycloptichorn

Could the Ground Zero Mosque be a red-herring for the reality that many non-Muslims do not want Muslims to be an additional group in the U.S.? Perhaps so, since with a billion fellow Muslims in the world, there might be little incentive for Muslims to assimilate into the current cultural mainstream in the U.S.?

And, if that is true (that the Ground Zero Mosque is just a red-herring for deeper anti-Muslim sentiment), calling people a bigot may be a non-sequitor, since we do as private citizens have the right to be discriminating as to who we like ("pursuing happiness"). We must just show it as a private citizen, in a peaceful way. No organizing, or group protesting. But, we can snub Muslims in social situations, or for that matter not give them "the time of day," if they ask.

In effect, the Ground Zero Mosque might get built, but the real feelings may not go away so easily, and are feelings that private citizens are allowed to have. In other words, the Constitution protects the Muslim's right to build mosques, but it does not protect Muslims from being disliked. So, at this point using the word "bigot" appears to me as wanting Muslims to not only have their Constitutional right to build mosques, but also to be liked by others.

Now, with all the antipathy that other groups have endured in this country over the last few centuries, why do Muslims not have to endure the antipathy of the masses, as other groups did? Are they too sensitive? Is the Muslim "ego" too fragile?

When they make conflicting statements such as "they can build," but "they shouldn't build," they are being swayed by popular sentiment that is based on bigotry. There is no other explanation for it; they don't want Muslims to build there. No other religious organization will have the same controversy.

Majority sentiment doesn't make them right on the issue. It's about the US Constitution, dummy!

ha! given where I grew up, I have expressed the same opinion about Catholics.

What is the difference between a bigot referring to someone who does not agree with you a dummy?

I don't know; you tell me.

What I wrote was

What I meant to say was....
What is the difference between a begot and someone referring to someone who does not agree with them as a dummy?

They are both lumping a group together in a derogatory manner.

I hate bigots

<guffaw>

Give them an inch and they'll make off with it.

weird, I felt I needed to explain that was a joke.

Those who read my statement should know by inference who it refers to without my need to explain it in more detail. Those who are in that group that says they should move the location should study our Constitution, and really learn about what it says.

Any majority that would deny equal rights to any other group that is legal should not require this kind of debate.

All of this yakking about the Constitution is a red herring, very few people say that this project can be Constitutionally banned, there is no disagreement about the Constitution, nor is there any call to void the Constitution on this issue.

What the people have said is that this project should not be done, that those who wish to do it should move it. This is a very reasonable position. All of this caterwauling against the will of the people by the minority comes from a group who firmly believes that they are morally superior to the rest of us, and furthermore believes that their superiority gives them the right to lecture us on what scum we are, in an obvious attempt to get their way through laying down a guilt trip.

I get more than a little tired of self righteous assholes telling me that I am scum because I don't agree with them. This approach is supposed to change my mind?? Really??

Your whole post is a contradiction. We either enforce the Constitution or we don't.

I'm not a self-righteous asshole, but you come very close to being one. Majority sentiment should not be a justification for overturning our Constitution to deny equal rights to all.