|
0 members (),
4
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,543
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523 |
I just wonder what all these anti-mosque/muslim people will do once the new office building is built on the Trade Center site. Are they going to investigate all the companies looking for space to make sure there are no muslim investors? Are they going to insist on strict no muslim corporation rules? Are they going to try to force all the companies renting space to not hire any Muslims? You know, because if a devout muslim is working there he(or she) might want to use a break period to engage in prayer? Cause, let's face it, if a muslim community center two blocks away is so horrid, muslims approaching the actual site must be worse(/sarcasm). Once again the lawyers are trying to rule the day through a heavy dose of legalsleze, when in fact it should be the people of NY who have the final say. Let's suppose somebody wanted to establish a temple to Talula - The Goddess of Exotic Dancing in the vacant lot next door to your house? This temple would be potentially less dangerous than a mosque could be and the client base would probably be better dressed. By your argument the constitutional rights of a very small group of people trump the constitutional rights of the vast majority. And the solution you offer is to cater to the vast minority in the name of political correctness. So, let me know where I can build my gentleman's club in your neighborhood. What utter rubbish. I stated above that the "temple to Talula" would be subject to zoning and other reasonable laws so why bring that into this? Do you not know why we have a Constitution containing a Bill of Rights? It is to limit the actions of the people through government. I am amazed at this whole "will of the people" argument -- it is clear many Americans, some right here, do not understand civil rights at all. BTW, there was once a restaraunt chain that was refused permits in a political fight. So they got themselves declared a religion and built the Temple of Backus. For a nominal donation you were fed like a royal and treated like a king. The Temple of Talula would be no different than this Mosque. America is a wonderful place, religion is cherrished and you can be a religion of one and be recognized as a real honest to goodness religion. Maybe I should become Pastor Tim, Proctor and Protector of all that is Good and Wholesome in the World (PPGWW), LLC, 501C3. What a scam, why have I never thought of it before?
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180 |
Should the mosques that already exist in the neighborhood be destroyed?
It appears that a new church is planned because the others are overcrowded. If the people of New York are OK with the existing churches why would they have a problem with the consolidation of them. And is it really "The People Of New York"
who are up in arms about this or has the conservative media simply latched onto this as another political game to obscure facts and constitutional realities.
Assuming you get your wish and Democrats are voted out of office and Muslims voted out of New York, how long will it be before Blacks are voted out of Georgia and Conservatives are voted out of Massachusetts?
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
Maybe the constitution is just a sheet of paper?
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643 |
Question
Could Al Capone have constructed a building called "The Divine Church of the Anti-Prohibitionists" next door to the Federal Building that officed Elliot Ness?
The sole purpose of the church was to be strictly used to pray for the repeal of the prohibition amendment.
Would the property on which the church was to be constructed be exempt from any standing laws as they related to private ownership, zoning, tax liabilities...etc?
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" 
Yours Truly - Gregg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,723
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,723 |
I'm seeing a familiar thread in Tim's argument. Back when I joined Reader Rant, an early battle over gay marriage was ongoing. Tim was highly incensed that a court (and maybe a governor) had thrown out the will of the MA people (as shown in the passage of an anti-gay marriage vote) and declared gay marriages to be legal. Tim argued well, at least I thought so until the phrase "rights of the minority" flashed through my mind. He's arguing the same issue here. A neighborhood, a city, doesn't want a mosque in their front yard. Majority rules. I think that frequently Tim doesn't want "rights of the minority" to be upheld. But, like it or not, both elements are part of our starting and governing papers. What he's arguing is only a step away from southern states not allowing blacks to be part of society. Which brings me to Rand Paul's restaurant policy but that is truly  , so I'll stop.
Currently reading: Best American Mystery Stories edited by Lee Child and Otto Penzler. AARGH!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523 |
I'm seeing a familiar thread in Tim's argument. Back when I joined Reader Rant, an early battle over gay marriage was ongoing. Tim was highly incensed that a court (and maybe a governor) had thrown out the will of the MA people (as shown in the passage of an anti-gay marriage vote) and declared gay marriages to be legal. Tim argued well, at least I thought so until the phrase "rights of the minority" flashed through my mind. He's arguing the same issue here. A neighborhood, a city, doesn't want a mosque in their front yard. Majority rules. I think that frequently Tim doesn't want "rights of the minority" to be upheld. But, like it or not, both elements are part of our starting and governing papers. What he's arguing is only a step away from southern states not allowing blacks to be part of society. Which brings me to Rand Paul's restaurant policy but that is truly , so I'll stop. You are incorrect. Yes the courts imposed gay marriage on Massachusetts, but the people voted on a referendum to put it up for popular vote. I was pissed that the legislature refused to vote the measure onto the ballot, or vote the measure off of the ballot, as the Ma Constitution says is their responsibility. I have never been against gay marriage, as a matter of fact I don't care who sleeps with whom. Life is way too short to worry about a detail as subtle and inconsequential, in my opinion, as the legal definition of marriage versus civil unions. Being a straight white male it doesn't enter into my thought process. If somebody wants to get married who the hell am I to tell them that they can't?
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523 |
Question
Could Al Capone have constructed a building called "The Divine Church of the Anti-Prohibitionists" next door to the Federal Building that officed Elliot Ness?
The sole purpose of the church was to be strictly used to pray for the repeal of the prohibition amendment.
Would the property on which the church was to be constructed be exempt from any standing laws as they related to private ownership, zoning, tax liabilities...etc? During the 1920's, when common sense overrode the ACLU, no he could not have built such a church. In today's environment he would get his hearing, pay his permitting fees, go to all of the zoning hearings, pay for his environmental evaluations, payoff the correct politicians and then get the permit to build his church. The ACLU will usually do whatever it can to undermine religion, but imagine the ruckus it would make by helping create a new one!
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723 |
You are incorrect. Yes the courts imposed gay marriage on Massachusetts, but the people voted on a referendum to put it up for popular vote. [/quote[ My guess is that the court did not "impose" gay marriage on Massachusetts. I think what happened is that the court imposed either the US Constitution or the MA Constitution (or both) on the people of MA. In a constitutional republic such as ours, the people don't get to vote on who has rights and who doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
To those who appear to be Constitutionally deficient, I offer Marbury v. Madison - 1803
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523 |
You are incorrect. Yes the courts imposed gay marriage on Massachusetts, but the people voted on a referendum to put it up for popular vote. [/quote[ My guess is that the court did not "impose" gay marriage on Massachusetts. I think what happened is that the court imposed either the US Constitution or the MA Constitution (or both) on the people of MA. In a constitutional republic such as ours, the people don't get to vote on who has rights and who doesn't. Incorrect again! The SJC ordered a lower court to rule that Gay Marriage was legal. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/18/sjc_gay_marriage_legal_in_mass/ The ruling won't take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Legislature "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion," the court ruled in its 50-page decision. Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, however, the Legislature cannot overturn today's decision -- nor would the US Supreme Court agree to interpret a state's constitution.
Opponents could fight for a constitutional amendment, but the soonest that could be placed on the ballot is 2006. The Legislature has already been considering several bills, including one that would allow gay marriage, that would grant benefits to same-sex couples.
The SJC ruling held that the Massachusetts constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The state Attorney General's office, which argued to the court that state law doesn't allow gay couples to marry, "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marraige to same-sex couples," Marshall wrote.
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
