Just not there

[sirs]

Is there a reason it wouldn't be?

[BT]

Is there a reason it wouldn't be?

I would think New York doesn't have the best track record in getting top value for the tax payers dollar.

I would also think that in their eagerness to make the controversy go away they might be willing to make concessions they wouldn't otherwise make.

And i would think if i were the guy in charge of negotiating this for the muslims i would leverage the situation to my advantage.

[sirs]

Is there a reason it wouldn't be?

I would think New York doesn't have the best track record in getting top value for the tax payers dollar.
I would also think that in their eagerness to make the controversy go away they might be willing to make concessions they wouldn't otherwise make.

Yea.....and?

And i would think if i were the guy in charge of negotiating this for the muslims i would leverage the situation to my advantage.

Absolutely.  We are talking NY though, and last time I checked, pretty pricey.  Should be an interesting negotiation, but one that should be made, as it move the location, which again was the main issue, of the mosque away from ground zero.  6+ blocks works for me, in a compromise, bringing down my idea of 8+

[BT]

Should be an interesting negotiation, but one that should be made, as it move the location, which again was the main issue, of the mosque away from ground zero.  6+ blocks works for me, in a compromise, bringing down my idea of 8+

I'm sure the ACLU and the separation people will be watching the deal closely as well.

[sirs]

That's a given

[sirs]

[BT]

That's a very silly nonsensical cartoon.

[sirs]

Not at all.  Freedom of Religion means freedom to practice and build *almost* anywhere.  If The Government were to sell some property to an Imam, on the WH grounds, they absolutely could.  The point being it wouldn't be very appropriate for such a location, under such a scenario.  Pretty much the same as the current Mosque location site

[BT]

It's not just a First Amendment issue. The 14th applies as well.

[sirs]

Actually it's not a Constitutional issue at all.  But we've already gone over that

[Xavier_Onassis]

But we've already gone over that

==================
Three miles down the Yellow Brick Road in the Bizarro World of sirs.

[sirs]

Yea, about those personal attacks that have squat to do with what's being discussed.  And folks wonder why so many have left the saloon

[BT]

Actually it's not a Constitutional issue at all.  But we've already gone over that

Only if the constitution is not applicable to local government procedures, in this case building applications and approvals.

The first gives you the right to express your displeasure about the choice of locations for this Mosque without fearing government repercussions for that expression. And the first gives the Muslims the right to practice their religion without fear of government intrusions. And the fourteenth says you can not treat muslim property rights differently than you would treat christian property rights. Now in a living breathing constitutional interpretation, you "might" have grounds to treat these muslims differently, but that depends on who the judge (Kagan might give you a favorable verdict), who hears the case.

In a strict constructionist viewpoint, which i believe you have said you are in favor of, you really don't have those grounds. And that's the dilemma.

So if the discussion is banned from looking at the issue from a legal, constitutional, moral or ethical viewpoint then really all we are doing is flapping our gums because we have agreed to disagree days ago.

 

[sirs]

My grounds are emotional here, empathy towards those thousands who lost loved ones, on perhaps the worst day on American soil, and how overtly insensitive, if not downright disrespectful, to their feelings.  My grounds are how completely inappropriate this location is.  Not how illegal or unconstitutional, nor intolerant one of us critical folks are to the religion of Islam. 

It's merely the wrong place to build such a structure, especially when the supposed notion of building it was one in bringing toghether folks, in the name of diversity & tolerance.  It can't get much more opposite in effect. 

Especially when you consider the significant likelihood of the probable violent repercussions, upon its theoretical completion.  I have no doubt there are zealots in this country that would love to pull a "pay back", with some asanine attempt at "bringing down" the Mosque, analogus to radicals bringing down the WTC

And we won't even go into what might happen if any Islamic terrorist(s) is tracked back to that theoretical Mosque

Negotiate with the Muslims, to move it back about 6 more blocks, and 98% of the outrage will have been silenced

[BT]

This Mosque debate parallels the immigration debate in many ways.