Ground Zero Mosque developer....

From what i have been able to glean, less than 1/10th of the space would be used for religious worship. The rest is designed as community support centre, in an area which apparently needs these facilities, such as library, counselling and other "muslim" stuff.

i am very concerned that almost every debate conducted here in the U is centred around your religious credentials. Unfortunastely I am an atheist and therefore have no religious credentials and apparently my view, is therefore, worthless - so much for separation of church and state!!!

Not sure every debate is centered around religion. But, I am not surprised that a topic about a Mosque (read Muslim Church) would have some religious connotation. :lol:

Some here think it is OK to build a Mosque close to Ground Zero. Should be OK as freedom of religion is guaranteed by the 1st amendment."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Some do not believe government tax revenue should be used to build a religious organizations building including Mosque (read Muslim Church). This is known generally as separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is derived from multiple rulings of the US Supreme Court.
This "separation" is based on the 1st amendment also. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Meaning no support!

In dealing with Islam it is necessary to realize that the Muslim religion incorporates a government which recognizes no other. So how should Islam be dealt with? As a religion or as a government unto its own.

If it is considered to be a State(government) by the US government, and is invading to supplant the existing government then it could be repelled using any force necessary by the original State(government).

If the US addresses it as a religion the 1st amendment forces the government to leave it alone, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Simple, isn't it?:???:
 
"Nor prohibiting free exercise there of" Didn't stop the Fed. Govt from telling the Mormons how to practise thiers.
 
"Nor prohibiting free exercise there of" Didn't stop the Fed. Govt from telling the Mormons how to practise thiers.
Does not apply.
Mormons in Utah wanted Utah to become a state. To be accepted into the United States that had to agree to conditions of United States government. Until they became part of the United States the Constitution did not apply.

Which does bring up one point. If Muslims wanted to form a Islamic state and join the United States, they would have to agree to accept the United States system of government. That would mean they could use Shari Law, but only as far as it did not conflict with the United States Constitution and US law. Rules out cutting peoples hands off for theft, stoning women for adultery, or denying women equal rights. ;)

PS Or allowing people to have different religions. See 1ST amendment; "Nor prohibiting free exercise there of" :smile:

This really means that there can never be a be compromise between true believers of Islam and any other culture or form of government. (Partisan, Muslims would also eliminate agnostics and and atheists).
 
Back
Top