What Says the President About Ground Zero Church

If they want to build the church, they are free to do so:

The problem is that the church is wanting the government to give them grants (i.e., our tax dollars) to help build their church. I don't want my tax dollars going to that church....do you?

 

But that is the central issue. If they were not trying to secure funds from the government, but used their own private funding, they could have proceeding with building at any time.

To compare this with the islamic center is not apples to apples. The islamic center has their own money.

 

In the other case he has remained silent, because there isn't some political issue to comment on. In the case of the mosque, it has turned into a huge political mess. The President, whose job it is to defend the Constitution, rightly spoke up (and it hurts me to say that, I can't think of another thing I've agreed with him on) and said that they were within their rights to build on private property.

There isn't the same political storm over this church. If there was, and he didn't speak out the in the same fashion, I'd be the first to call his hypocrisy.

 

I wonder how he explains this double standard.

It's easy. He doesn't bother. Neither does he support the "right" of Saint Nicholas Church to rebuild.

I wonder what the difference really is...

 

What about it? I don't think that any dinner at the White House should be funded by tax payer money, especially not one dealing with ramadan. If the President wants to eat dinner, let him pay for it out of the salary we pay him.

 

Look...we really aren't getting anywhere with this debate. I belive in personal property rights. I believe that a property owner has the right to build whatever they like on that property.

You don't believe in those personal property rights. You believe that government should dictate what can and can't be built on property.

Our discussion is over.

 

I think agree with you Matt, but I would qualify that by saying that I am not opposed to local zoning requirements, building codes, etc.

 

Care to explain this double standard before you go? Shouldn't the Constitution be applied fairly and equally? It's look like PC favoritism to me and many others.

 

I don't know the specifics to be honest, but yes it should be applied fairly and consistently. Both private property owners should be allowed to build however they see fit, as long as it doesn't encroach on the rights of others.

I can only speculate, since I don't know the reason for the height restriction on one and not the other, but it may have something to do with distance from the memorial. The mosque is going to be located 2 blocks away. A 13 story building won't be seen from 2 blocks away at the memorial. I've walked that particular part of Manhattan, and there's no way you will be able to see the mosque from ground zero. The church, on the other hand, is directly across the street from ground zero (hence the reason it was destroyed).

Again, I think either site should be able to build however they please. The above was just speculation on the motives of the local politicians.

 

You have , at least, explained why you think there is a difference, but in fact, under the constitution , there is none.

This appears is purely politically motivated appeasement of radical muslims.

Some North American muslims are not confused at all about what's going on , nor are they weighed down by phony PC considerations...


http://www.frumforum.com/ground-zero-mosque-splits-muslims

Ground Zero Mosque Splits Muslims

Unlike U.S. President Barack Obama who insists putting a mosque near the site of 9/11 is “legal” and not his concern, a leading Canadian Muslim has publicly attacked the proposal as inappropriate, insensitive and wrong.
Farzana Hassan lives in Toronto and is an astonishingly brave woman who has written three books since 9/11, putting Islam into perspective. She, along with Tarek Fatah, founder of the Canadian Muslim Congress (MCC), are among the few Muslims who speak out loudly and clearly against extremism.

Both have had death threats, both soldier on fearlessly and honestly.
They are proof that not all Muslims go along with what’s happening in the world today, although relatively few have spoken up about jihadist extremism which is what the war on terrorism is all about.

Considering the sort of reprisals extremists have taken against dissenters, one can hardly fault “moderate” Islamists for shutting up. The proposed $100 million, 13-storey Islamic Centre in the immediate area of New York’s Ground Zero is a case in point.

To most, it is an inappropriate site for a mosque, and if built will send the wrong message to the world. Not a message of tolerance and reconciliation, but one of Islamic triumph for extremists.

SNIP

She calls the proposed Islamic center “a Trojan Horse” in the heart of America that would constitute a cover for “formidable and hostile forces to gain credibility, respectability and influence.”

She argues: “Goodwill, compassion and empathy demand that (Imam Rauf) withdraw his plans to construct an Islamic centre near Ground Zero.” It would too easily — perhaps inevitably — become a public platform for radical Islamists. “These goons will use the venue to propagate their hate-filled agenda,” she says.

 

Again, what's the point here? Either we are for private property rights or we are not.

If I had my own personal way, I would deny the building of any catholic churches, mormon churches, CoC buildings, hindu buildings, episcopalian, methodist, many "baptist" churches, and the list goes on. If I had my own personal way, I would make sure that the only churches that were built were churches that held to sound Biblical doctrine and were totally committed to serving The Lord.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to get my way though. So, in order to protect that building of good churches, I must protect the rights of all property owners to build whatever they choose. Unfortunately that means that there will be many "places of worship" built that I adamantly disagree with, this mosque being one of them. BTW, this church would also be one that I wouldn't want built. It's as much a house of satan as is the mosque. Infant baptism? That's a lie straight from satan himself to delude people into believing they are saved.

 

That's a huge oversimplification, so maybe you should just bow out of the discussion, since your position appears to be intractable.

 

It's not oversimplification. It's what I believe. I believe that private property owners should be able to build what they want on their property. I agree that it is a simple concept.

I totally understand and agree with not wanting a mosque to be built there (or anywhere else), but my stand for private property rights overrides that.

 

I don't support religious freedom to merely ensure my own freedom, but rather because it is the only right thing to do.

BTW, why all the vitriol towards Methodists, Matt? I love the United Methodist Church so much that I visit United Methodist churches when I travel because I used to be United Methodist. Even as a Southern Baptist, I hold John Wesley as one of my favorite people in history. I have a quote from him in my signature.