Thursday, August 26, 2010

What about private property again?

Last week in the course of discussing the bomb making factory mosque in NYC a couple of people commented on how the land was private property.  The implication was that because it was owned by an individual, they could do whatever they wanted.  This is true in theory.  However, all building and construction must go through a planning stage and be approved. Being involved in the construction industry for the last 18 years, I know full well that even if you dot every "i" and cross every "t" city councils can still say "no".  One example here was when a locally owned grocery store wanted to build a new facility in the southern part of town.  A nice vacant lot on the corner of Third and Kagy.   It met zoning requirements and was a beautifully designed building.  That part of town had nothing in the way of a grocery store and it has lots of people.Though the building met every requirement and the owner was more than willing to work with the city to do whatever else they may require he was denied a permit.  "Not a good fit"  "Too much traffic"  "I didn't like the 'footprint".  Blah, blah, blah.

Instead they built several little shops with shitty overpriced food and no parking.  Brilliant.

The point with the suicide training center mosque is that while they have every right to build it, the city of New York didn't have to say yes.  You can be angry all you want at Faisal and Daisy KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN but the real guilty party are the spineless liberals who won't stand up to islam for fear of looking intolerant.  The permit could have been denied.  It's as easy as that.

With the issue of private property being so "near and dear" liberal hearts I wonder how they feel about the land grab being devised by the Bureau of Land Management at this very moment.  130 million acres of set asides.  That's 25% larger than the state of California.  This article at American Thinker is just a taste of things to come. 


Rhacodactylus said...

I'm personally very anti religion which definitely includes Islam, a magical book written in the 7th century isn't any better than a magical book canonized in in the 4th, so I have no problem "standing up to Islam."

I just draw a distinction between terrorists and people who are simply practicing nonsense, just as I draw a distinction between abortion clinic bombers and Christians who are practicing nonsense.

If the government starts getting involved in choosing which religions have the right to build and where, I'd pray to my dear and fuzzy lord that they don't start endorsing one I disagree with.

I don't protect the rights of Muslims for them, it's purely a selfish act, I like my freedom of religion, and I'd like to keep it.

Ralph said...

I do not question their "right" to build their mosque there. What I find interesting is that muslims will claim that they are being unfairly persecuted or singled out in this country in one breath and then do something like this in the next. This is a huge slap in the face to victims families of 9/11 and can only bring more hatred and discontent their way. If they truly wanted to make progress toward peaceful coexistence and reconcillation in this country this is not the way to do it. This will certainly stoke the fires of anti-muslim sentiment. I think the lasting effect will be exactly the opposite of what "peaceful" practicing muslims in this country will want. Again, I do not question their "right', but the fact that they "choose" to put it their makes my blood boil.

Milk River Madman said...

Rhackster, we all draw the distinction, the problem we are having is that "moderate" moslems never speak out. When an abortion clinic is bombed, Christians across the country condemn the act. Openly and without fear. Again, it's not about the freedom of religion.

Ralph, your point is well made. A true olive branch from islam would not be this. This is pissing on the graves of all the innocents. It's the cornerstone of islam.

Whether or not you believe in God, what Faisal and his Saudi supporters are doing here has NOTHING to do with attempting to help Americans understand islam.

Rhacodactylus said...

One thing I would say is that pretty much every WWII Memorial educates about the mistakes that lead up to it. There is information on the manipulation of the German government, the subversion of the German press, antisemitic sentiment throughout Europe, and financial issues that lead to WWII. (WOOT, I win the Godwin's Law Prize)

I would say, one of the finest testaments to American pride, and those killed in 9-11 would be to not give up on our values of inclusion and tolerance.

Education about Islam vs. the sick way in which it is perverted by those who wish to do violence should be a top priority if we wish to honor the memory of the victims, and avoid tragedies like this in the future.

Your point that there isn't enough of a Muslim response to tragedies like this is well taken though. I imagine it is mainly cultural, but I agree that it is unfortunate.

Aunty Belle said...

"Education about Islam vs. the sick way in which it is perverted by those who wish to do violence should be a top priority..."

Well, mah gracious, I could'na said it better. With all due dulcet tones, may I suggest Rhaco do jes' that?

The hurdle we have to acknowledge is that "moderate" Islam doan mean the same thang to them as it do to us'uns. We think of "moderate" in the way that the West uses the word, but they ain't got the same angle of view. For starters, the "moderate" muslim has the same goal as the fanatical muslim --to bring the world under sharia law, and subjugation of resistant peoples is considered legitimate--has to be because Mohamed himself said so. The "moderation" is that the "moderates" will --personally-- not use the physical violence we associate with the fanatics. But they do support it financially and conceptually.

Simple question to test moderate vs fanatic: the islamic terrorists have spent an estimated 230 billion dollars on their efforts since 9-11. Where does a "handful of fanatics" get that money? They don't of course. It comes from "moderates" whose job it is to set up "moderate" centers where money is siphoned, then piped into the fanatical centers.

Even a cursory investigation of Islamic teachin' shows that Islam prohibits the separation of religion from state law. For that reason alone there ain't no sucha a thang as a "moderate" muslim in the way we Western folks define political or religious moderation.

I hear whar' Rhaco is comin' from--really I does--but thas' OUR hope not THEIR truth.

May I offer a wee idea? Get yoreself a copy of the Koran an see how the teachin's define "peace" as when everyone is under Allah's law. take care not to cherry pick the verses, but read the whole thang ( I done it) cause' our own survival ain't enhanced by our choosin' to be ignorant of Islam AS DEFINED BY ISLAM not CNN.

Milk River Madman said...

Well put Aunty.

Rhacodactylus said...

Aunty I gotta disagree. I'm a bit buzzed so lets take this point by point (and Mad Man Whisky, spelled with no E, is best served neat lol, thus say my Scottish ancestorys ;-)

First off, the 230 billion dollars claim is one I have never actually heard, but for the sake of argument lets assume it's accurate, it's a product of the US having a horrible energy policy.

We funnel huge amounts of money each year to just a few Arab leaders in that region . . . if just one of them has an Anti-American agenda then we have just shot ourselves in the foot. Every bit of money funding Al Qaeda is oil money.

This was a 3rd world region at best before oil reserves were discovered. So I don't think the 230 Billion claim really indicates massive involvement by the Islamic people as was implied, in that region with wealth so focused in the hands of a few, huge expenditures are commonplace among the ruling elite. 9-11 really could represent a few dollars by a few horrible men.

Now onto your Qur'an claim, I have read both the Bible and the Qur'an cover to cover, I would be ECSTATIC to debate with anyone else who had done the same if you are willing. But be certain you don't "cherry pick" bible verses either, cause believe me I've done my homework. Is violent retribution against non believers REALLY so specific to their religion . . . think before you answer =)

Oh and Mad Man, buddy, we gotta move a few dick joke threads over to your page and have a few social engineering discussions on mine lol, I'd hate to think you were having ALL the fun!

I think you and Joe Rogan top the list of people I most disagree with who I would most like to have a beer with.