JPINFV Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Has the church tried obtaining a building to convert two blocks away and not on Port Authority land? Based on the article, it sounds like it was going to be built on Port Authority land over an underground screening area, hence, unlike owning the actual property, they are under constraints of the land lord, even if the land lord was willing to extend a long term cheap/free lease. It might suck, but if the land isn't yours or there's a line differentiating laws and rules between one side of the street and another, then additional politics come into play. I've seen nothing to indicate that the mosque is on land owned or controlled by the Port Authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Has the church tried obtaining a building to convert two blocks away and not on Port Authority land? Based on the article, it sounds like it was going to be built on Port Authority land over an underground screening area, hence, unlike owning the actual property, they are under constraints of the land lord, even if the land lord was willing to extend a long term cheap/free lease. It might suck, but if the land isn't yours or there's a line differentiating laws and rules between one side of the street and another, then additional politics come into play. I've seen nothing to indicate that the mosque is on land owned or controlled by the Port Authority. Didn't the church in question already have it's own parcel of land (where the original church stood)? Just because the Port Authority offered them land over top of a vehicle screening area, is the church actually REQUIRED to move to it? It appears that the negotiations fell apart when the Port Authority refused the church the opportunity to review plans for the screening area. This could have been for security/safety concerns of the church. Additionally, there are no restrictions on the mosque as far as size and height, but yet the church was limited and was being forced to 'downsize' it's plans. It appears that the Christian church is encountering all sorts of red tape and road blocks, but yet the board that approved the mosque (even though they have NO SAY in religious matters) is bending over backwards to 'green light' everything this mosque wants to do. Why are 'the powers that be' so accomodating to the mosque project, and taking such a hard line on a Christian church? If anything, it appears that the Christian church has grounds to claim 'discrimination' here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPINFV Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Didn't the church in question already have it's own parcel of land (where the original church stood)? Just because the Port Authority offered them land over top of a vehicle screening area, is the church actually REQUIRED to move to it? It appears that the negotiations fell apart when the Port Authority refused the church the opportunity to review plans for the screening area. This could have been for security/safety concerns of the church. Additionally, there are no restrictions on the mosque as far as size and height, but yet the church was limited and was being forced to 'downsize' it's plans. It appears that the Christian church is encountering all sorts of red tape and road blocks, but yet the board that approved the mosque (even though they have NO SAY in religious matters) is bending over backwards to 'green light' everything this mosque wants to do. Why are 'the powers that be' so accomodating to the mosque project, and taking such a hard line on a Christian church? 2 different boards. The board that "approved" the mosque was a historical building board that basically gave permission to destroy the current building. The Greek Orthodox church is fighting the Port Authority. Unless I'm missing where the Port Authority gave their blessing for construction of the mosque. Different boards have different jurisdictions and may make different rulings. Otherwise it's like a police officer complaining that the military police don't follow the same rules. If anything, it appears that the Christian church has grounds to claim 'discrimination' here.... I do agree that it might be time for the Greek Orthodox church to get a few constitutional lawyers. Edited August 17, 2010 by JPINFV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Maybe Richard can shed some light on this Mosque moves forward, yet church in Limbo I really don't have anything to contribute, especially about the church, which this string has only just brought to my attention. Perhaps the mosque should be built, but due to strong feelings against it, not for at least 20 years. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd will probably tie the effort up in lawsuits, so it might actually be longer. A Chinese/American man named Sam Wong, walking down the street, was attacked by a man named Ginsburg, claiming the assault was for the Pearl Harbor attack. Mr. Wong said, "but I'm Chinese, not Japanese" "So? Same difference", said Ginsburg. A couple of months later, Ginsburg was attacked by Mr. Wong. Wong yelled, "That was for the Titanic!" "The Titanic? That was sunk by an iceberg!," Ginsburg exclaimed. "Iceberg, Ginsburg, same difference!" stated Wong. With that in mind, and allowing for my jocularity, if I could really determine of which nature the Mosque builders are, religious practitioners appalled by the actions of their Fundamentalist "Brothers", or supporting those Fundamentalist "Brothers", I could actually make a more decisive opinion; lacking the information, I cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPINFV Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) News outlets split in describing mosque There is no mosque being built on the site of Ground Zero. It's a simple fact, but one that news consumers can be forgiven for missing. In covering the growing controversy over the proposed Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, the national media, led by the big cable networks, have by default shaped the increasingly heated debate by repeatedly referring to the project as the "Ground Zero mosque." An MSNBC spokesman said that describing the project is a "show-by-show decision," while a CNN spokesperson said the network guides anchors in written copy to refer to the project as "an Islamic center that includes a mosque that is near Ground Zero, or is two blocks from Ground Zero." Of course, political pundits may stray from the network's phrasing and inaccurately describe the location of the planned building at the center of the furor. ... The "Park51" project, as it's officially dubbed, is in fact planned for a site two blocks from where the World Trade Center towers fell, amid other lower Manhattan establishments whose names have never featured the words "Ground Zero." If built, the 13-story community center and mosque project will be one of hundreds of buildings located within blocks of Ground Zero — a densely populated area that already includes a couple of mosques, along with less "hallowed" institutions, like strip clubs, bars and Off Track Betting operations. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100816/pl_yblog_upshot/news-outlets-split-in-describing-mosque Emphasis added. Edited August 17, 2010 by JPINFV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtvfd753 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Here's the deal. No, all Muslims do not believe the extreme lunacy of radical Islam, just as all Christians do not agree with white supremacist's bastardization of Christianity. Does that mean we should allow the KKK to set up a few burning crosses in the middle of an area of a city that is predominantly black? I'm sick and tired of all this PC bull. Sorry folks, but all over the planet, terrorists are predominantly Muslim in nature. Shall we list all the recent attacks perpetrated by radical Muslims? They want to build a new mosque? Fine, but NYC is a big area- pick another spot. WHY does it need to be in such close proximity to the WTC site? It's a slap in the face to those who died and the families they left behind. Every single one of those 9/11 hijackers were Muslim, what they did was because of their "religion". Fact. I don't give a crap if those who want to build that mosque are the best people on the planet. It's wrong and completely insensitive, and if these Muslims cannot understand that, then maybe they aren't the best examples of people who follow Islam. COMPLETELY AGREED 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I really don't have anything to contribute, especially about the church, which this string has only just brought to my attention. Perhaps the mosque should be built, but due to strong feelings against it, not for at least 20 years. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd will probably tie the effort up in lawsuits, so it might actually be longer. A Chinese/American man named Sam Wong, walking down the street, was attacked by a man named Ginsburg, claiming the assault was for the Pearl Harbor attack. Mr. Wong said, "but I'm Chinese, not Japanese" "So? Same difference", said Ginsburg. A couple of months later, Ginsburg was attacked by Mr. Wong. Wong yelled, "That was for the Titanic!" "The Titanic? That was sunk by an iceberg!," Ginsburg exclaimed. "Iceberg, Ginsburg, same difference!" stated Wong. With that in mind, and allowing for my jocularity, if I could really determine of which nature the Mosque builders are, religious practitioners appalled by the actions of their Fundamentalist "Brothers", or supporting those Fundamentalist "Brothers", I could actually make a more decisive opinion; lacking the information, I cannot. I just found out about that Greek Church. I thought it was bigger news in NYC so I assumed you may have more information, because the story has been essentially ignored by the media. To me, it's utterly amazing that a church that was destroyed in the attack has yet to be rebuilt, yet a mosque, headed by an Iman who's opinions sound anything but tolerant, is being fast tracked. It's just plain wrong- on so many levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPINFV Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 "In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office. Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms." It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture. " Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/685071 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 "In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office. Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms." It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture. " Read more: http://news.yahoo.co...huffpost/685071 Do some digging and you will find that this Iman has made contradictory statements to Arabic media sources, in Arabic. Bottom line is that I read this organization only has about $20,000 in assets, which explains why the Iman is taking a taxpayer funded trip home to raise money. Sorry, but this whole thing stinks. We are NOT getting the whole story folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPINFV Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) We are NOT getting the whole story folks. If the argument is "can" then we have enough. If the argument is "should" then we don't. The discussion about "can" and the discussion about "should" are two different discussions. The only discussion that should involve the government is the discussion about "can." Edited August 19, 2010 by JPINFV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts