For your consideration:
There are two relevant tales of Christian developments near Ground Zero. One involves a Greek Orthodox church, St. Nicholas’, which was crushed by the collapse of WTC Tower Two on 9/11. St. Nicholas’ Church was across the street from the World Trade Center. In 2008, a deal was announced with the New York Port Authority to rebuild the church two blocks from its original site. But civil authorities objected to the church’s plans for a larger structure, with a dome and spire in the Greek Orthodox tradition. Their express concern was that the church not be taller than the World Trade Center Memorial.
There is no apparent concern about the Park 51 Islamic center being taller than the WTC Memorial (it is). It will not be built as a wholly new structure, of course. But on the other hand, the commercial skyscraper planned by the Port Authority will be a new structure, and it will tower over the WTC Memorial. The principles at work appear to be as follows: new commercial structures may be taller than the Memorial. An Islamic group may occupy a building that is taller than the Memorial and devote it to a religious purpose. But a Christian structure may not be built taller than the Memorial.
We must note about St. Nicholas’ that the 2008 deal with the Port Authority entailed a contribution of $20 million from the Authority toward the new building. Certainly, public funding properly gives the Authority some leverage over the structure. St. Nicholas’ hasn’t been singled out for special public benefits, however; it was the only church that was destroyed by the 9/11 attack. Rebuilding it was simply proposed for public funding as part of the overall plan for the 9/11 site.
The Port Authority planned to build a platform and foundation for the church, because under the 2008 deal it was to sit on top of a garage and security screening area. In March 2009, Authority officials refused to allow the church to review the plans for the garage and screening area. At that point, talks regarding the church’s rebuilding ground to a halt.
The other Christian development is the ongoing question about the fate of the “Ground Zero cross.” This remnant of the WTC was found in the rubble after the 9/11 attack and stood at the site until it was moved to nearby St. Peter’s Church in October 2006, to clear the way for renovations. Atheist organizations, which began objecting to the display of the cross in 2002, oppose its planned incorporation in the WTC Memorial. Although the Port Authority reportedly intends to display the cross at the Memorial, the possibility of a lawsuit by opponents can’t be excluded.
Interestingly, there has been no attempt by the MSM or leading politicians to denigrate as bigots the atheists who object to the cross. Nor has the Port Authority’s dilatory approach to rebuilding St. Nicholas’ Church earned it any contumely from them for acting in questionable faith regarding a religious group.
If, as Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, and a host of other suddenly ardent Constitutionalists claim, the proposed mosque is become an emblem for religious tolerance and “freedom of religion,” one wonders why any religious organization wishing to build a place of worship should be required to adhere to any kind of civic ordinance or zoning regulation. Too, one wonders why zoning ordinances and secular civic bureaucracies — both of which constrain any number of building projects — haven’t been tagged, by either Mayor Bloomberg or the President, as inherently un-American and intolerant when it comes to placing any kind of restriction on religious buildings or religious worship.
Or perhaps I’m just overthinking this, and neither the President nor Bloomberg nor any of the other sudden originalists really care a whit about freedom of religion — and this whole dust-up is just a battle of wills between a haughty, leftist ruling class and those it believes it was born to rule over, whether the sad little bitterclingers like it or not.
it’s an emblem alright
whether they like it or not really sums up their whole approach to governing.
Most whip-crackers learn early on that backlash is a bitch. Some just never do.
Maybe they like that burning sensation on the backs of their heads?
The idea that this is about freedom of religion is laughable.
I wonder what the Soros-bots’ talking points will be for this one.
I looked at Obama’s iftard speech and nowhere was the term “republic” to be found. “Democracy” was there though. Then I looked at the Constitution and whaddaya know, it was precisely the reverse.
It will be at least a little interesting to discover the details, but the general outline is easy: B-b-buut that’s dif-fer-ent! Waaaah!
Regards,
Ric
The extended list of the things that normally bother them about the public exercise of religion would become a bit like that clever fellow with the chess board and the grains of rice.
Let me get this straight. My study of linguistics and hermeneutics and semiotics and all those other long, fancy words you guys use here is limited to what I can absorb between “research” visits to bigbuubedsquashplayers.com, so I’m not sure I’ve worked this out.
Leftists commonly preach that we must always be careful not to give offense because it’s really the Audience which imparts meaning to the Actor’s signals, to the extent that if someone is offended, then that signal is, by definition, offensive.
Unless it’s conservatives who are offended, then fuck ’em?
‘Zat about right?
#9 – yes.
That’s a keeper.
It is a cheap way to get that feeling of smug superiority that being Left demands. As an example look at Kim/Willy/whatever in the other thread. The only reason such as he would pick up the freedom of religion argument was to smack some of those low-lifes around and preen in his new suit of moral superiority.
Me, I think it is very telling about people like Willy/Kim/whatever that they have to do this, they have to preen and look for ways to boost their moral superiority. What kind of self-esteem does a person have that he has to do that, what level of real self-confidence is being exposed?
Consider the president’s injection of himself into this controversy in comparison when he injected himself into the Cambridge Police thing last year. And consider that these mosque developers aren’t going to be as gracious as officer Crowley was and let the president climb down. Why would he do something like this that is only going to cause him unnecesary trouble (he’s the president – trouble will find him, he doesn’t got to go looking for it)? Why does he have this need to lecture from a place of moral superiority when every ounce of political commonsense says ‘stay out’?
This just in, via Bill Kristol and MEMRI:
Oooh, another Reich-wing h8ter to unload on! How delicious!
Uh, well, no. Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, the left-leaning director of al-Arabiya TV and former editor of London’s Arab daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. Need another try? Or are you out of quarters?
Regards,
Ric
This is clearly racist and someone that hates the Constitution.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/243928/m-zuhdi-jasser-mosque-religious-freedom-kathryn-jean-lopez
Further to my earlier post: the original essay at al-Awsat. RTWT (as they do say) if only to assure yourselves that the ellipses don’t leave important aspects out.
Regards,
Ric
Yeah, that. The “sudden originalists” ploy is laughable, and only being effected because they don’t understand the Constitution. Point and laugh, I say.
Religious freedom my ass. It’s about a bunch of people–who, in this case, just happen to be muslims–acting like class-less assholes.
@#12-
I have honestly come to believe that Willy/Ram/Kim/whatever is just being contrary for its own sake. I mean, that is some weak shit.
Frontman, if we believe it, Willy has to take a contrary position, because we’re evil, and that means what we believe is evil.
Well, at the end of the day at least we can say we came by it honest :-}
And hence the pose of moral superiority is maintained – whether there actually is any thing there or not. And it is a sign of a really pathetic life that someone has to go out and do that just to reassure themselves that they are good.
If, as Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, and a host of other suddenly ardent Constitutionalists claim, the proposed mosque is become an emblem for religious tolerance and “freedom of religion,” one wonders why any religious organization wishing to build a place of worship should be required to adhere to any kind of civic ordinance or zoning regulation.
It is one thing to hold religious organizations to the zoning regulations that are in place. My understanding is that the GZM complies with current zoning regulations in the area and has local government approval. It is something else again to change the zoning regulations so as to prevent a particular religious building from being constructed.
I think it’s a little disingenuous of conservatives to invoke zoning rules in this instance. Clearly, you don’t want the Mosque canceled out of any concern about traffic or city organization–you want it canceled because it is a Muslim building in the neighborhood of Ground Zero. That’s understandable enough. But using government to prevent a religious building of which you disapprove definitely raises 1st Amendment concerns.
I agree it is rather wild to see Obama suddenly a Constitutionalist, but the hypocrisy runs both ways. What happened to conservatives’ belief that the Constitution should trump judges’ and politicians’ personal feelings? Would conservatives rise up in opposition–strike that, in defense of tight zoning regulations–if someone wanted to build a church there, instead of a Mosque?
Just as liberals have conveniently adopted constitutionalism for this argument, conservatives have conveniently abandoned it.
No one here that I know of has seriously suggested anything like “using government to prevent a religious building of which [we or anyone else] disapprove[s]” so you got that lie going for you Nathan. putz
Could you please point out anybody here saying the government should use force to prevent the building from being built?
Please stop projecting your own ideology on others. kthxbye.
You beat me to it, sdferr. What Jeff wrote zoomed right over his head.
Don’t mean to lie–sorry to put words in anyone’s mouth. I just don’t see the point of criticizing Obama for this if you agree with him.
Learn to read then get back to us.
Yeah. Seems to me the point eluded Nathan by quite a wide berth.
i would never question the master