When even Muslims defend our interests but we don't

lovemywig

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 11:55 am

I must say I'm pretty surprised by most of your posts. And I wonder how much you understand.

Of coarse its legal to build it there, but don't you think they are trying to make a point for dafka building it there.

That day will always be embossed in my heart with fear. One a september day it looked like snow. Burned papers everywhere. The smell was bad. My husband watched the second tower being hit live. My grandmother running for her life with millions of people till across the bridge. One cousin a first responded trapped in ground zero for hours with some other. That day has left us NYorkers with pain and fear. N you woman just defend our enemy who caused us all this pain? HOW???

Barbara

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 12:11 pm

lovemywig wrote:

So what do you suggest. Ban Muslims from Lower Manhattan? Amend the Constitution to outlaw the Islam faith, taking away religious freedom? Make them wear yellow sickles on their clothes?

I'm fundamentally selfish. I worry about me, my family, my friends. And I know that when we take the first step to curtail freedom of religion and civil liberties, that next step is directed against Jews.

small bean

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 12:23 pm

Barbara wrote:

lovemywig wrote:

there is anti jewish setiments already and it will get worse whether or not America is tolerant of other religions. And there's tolerant and too tolerant.

lovemywig

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 12:29 pm

the gov was ready to help them find a different location for the same price. They didn't want that since there point is to be at the sight. To rub in the hot oil. My recommendation is to fight it.

We jewish people never attempted a terror attack so why would you worry.

Also for the ones that are so worried that its legal so let it be. Let me ask you, if your 16 year old son just got his driving license would u allow him to cross country with your family car and a group of friends? Its legal!

Barbara

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 12:35 pm

small bean wrote:

Barbara wrote:

lovemywig wrote:

there is anti jewish setiments already and it will get worse whether or not America is tolerant of other religions. And there's tolerant and too tolerant.

Yes, there is anti-Jewish sentiment. But no one can tell us that we can't build a shul or Jewish center somewhere because it will be offensive to others to be near Jews, because we're protected under US law. That's why courts have repeatedly sided with us in battles over building eruvs and updating day schools. Not because the communities wanted us. But because we're protected by the government and by the laws of the US.

Others deserve those same rights.

saw50st8

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 12:40 pm

lovemywig wrote:

As the legal owner of the car, I get to decide who drives it. So no, legally its not his right. He is also a minor so his legal rights are restricted.

Why should they back down? To make you feel better? Should Rosa Parks have sat in the back to make white people feel better?

The minute you start to restrict people's freedoms based on YOUR DESIRED AND NON-LEGAL "SENSITIVITIES" you start to erode your own freedom.

And basically Thumbs Up

to Barbara

Barbara

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 12:44 pm

lovemywig wrote:

Mamaroneck refused Westchester Day School the right to renovate and expand its facilties. Let's face it, that's because they didn't want a bunch of religious Jews around. Why should Jews offend these upstanding people. The school should just close down.

Places like Tenafly and Ventnor objected to the construction of eruvs. Not because they minded a wire, but because they didn't want religious Jews around. Moving there is like rubbing hot oil in it. All religious people should leave.

And lest you think otherwise, a good percentage of Americans think that Israel -- Jews -- launch terror attacks on the Palestinians on a regular basis. You disagree. I disagree. But when those find upstanding Americans say that you shouldn't have an eruv, or a shul, near them because they're so offended by those *terror attacks* are you going to slink away? Say that if there's some chance that you might offend someone, then they have the right to ban you and your institutions?

And by the way, would you really feel better if they open their cultural center 3 blocks away, or 5 blocks away?

We don't need religious freedom to protect the majority, or to protect popular religions. The Protestants would be just fine without it. But WE need it. And WE need to stand up and protect encroachments on religious freedom from all fronts.

Barbara

Fri, Aug 20 2010, 1:05 pm

[quote="lovemywig"]Again we have never committed a terror attack. I think there is a difference.

Curious... If u feel that should be allowed to build it, are you from NY?[/]

I live in NYC. What possible relevance does that have?

And while we're at it, There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and somewhere between 2 and 7 million in the US (no one really knows). Of those in the US, fewer than 20 were directly involved in 9/11. But you want to take away the religious freedom of millions of others.

HindaRochel

Sat, Aug 21 2010, 1:31 pm

saw50st8 wrote:

lovemywig wrote:

.

Why should they back down? To make you feel better? Should Rosa Parks have sat in the back to make white people feel better?

The minute you start to restrict people's freedoms based on YOUR DESIRED AND NON-LEGAL "SENSITIVITIES" you start to erode your own freedom.

And basically Thumbs Up

to Barbara

Again with the restricting freedoms bit, which is a not a good argument since no one is trying to make it illegal for Muslims to build in the area. What they are asking for IS SENSITIVITY on the part of the MUSLIMS to the victims of 9/11-- the very families they are stating they want to reach out to.

Or not.

Crowning victory over a population with a Mosque or other such symbolic building has been a norm for Muslims for millennium.

And Barbara, really? Only 20 families involved in 9/11? Come on, you can't believe that.

HindaRochel

Sun, Aug 22 2010, 3:59 am

Legally. They are not trying to stop them from building legally. They were looking for LEGAL measures that would prevent the building from going up. They were not seeking to make it illegal for Muslims to build a Mosque, they were not seeking to find a way for THESE Muslims to build a Mosque, they were seeking legal measure to prevent the building, damaged in 9/11 from becoming a Mosque. This measures happen all the time when people don't like something being built in the area, whether it is a gay bar or a Mosque or a Shul or whatever.

HindaRochel

Sun, Aug 22 2010, 6:21 am

chavamom wrote:

Funny how Jews cry foul when people try to rezone, or otherwise tie-up in court building a shul....

Honestly Chavamom this is what makes me think you naive. The law is a tool, media is a tool. Most groups try to use them for their own benefit. The left does this the right does this the Jew and the Muslim and the Christian and the Wiccan and the atheists try to use them.

I suppose this will be the state of things till the time of the Moshiach

HindaRochel

Mon, Aug 23 2010, 12:25 am

chavamom wrote:

No, I'm not naive. You are missing the point. I'm pointing out the irony that the same people that will scream from the rooftops, suddenly have no problem when it is not them. And most don't even seem to recognize it in themselves.

You are missing my point. This is natural. This is what occurs all the time. The same people who X also Y. I am not missing your point, I'm saying this happens with all groups, with all people, who all protesters, with all media, with all whatever.

It happens with you as well as with every poster here on this board and other boards.

People never notice their own hypocrisy.

My simple statement is this:

I am much more concerned with my rights and the rights of all Jews to pray at Har Habayit (as well as all others, because at one point all prayed) than I am with the Mosque/Cultural center being put up where many people don't want it put up, by an Iman who insist he is trying to make bridging. Talk about hypocrisy.

I think denying the historical significance of putting up a Mosque upon the area where Muslims were "triumphant", and not seeing how that could cause great pain to the families of 9/11, while worrying about the feelings of this Iman and his crew, is hypocritical.

I think the Mosque/Cultural center should be moved by the Iman and would be moved by the Iman if he really wanted peace. J
I doubt if he will move it. Because I doubt if he cares about making bridges.

I think many people will be hurt by the M/C. I think that is a shame.

I think the Moshiach will be here soon. I'm very impatient.

HindaRochel

Mon, Aug 23 2010, 2:49 am

chavamom wrote:

When it's the Constitution we are talking about, you cannot just say "oh, this is natural. People want their rights protected but ignore when other's rights are violated". Historically, that has not been true of Jews. It's a shame that you consider me "naive" and this "normal".

There is no right to build in any particular place. If the rights being abridged were the rights of Muslims to pray, you would be correct. But this isn't about the right to pray; no Muslim is being told they CANNOT PRAY, nor are they being told they can never more build a Mosque, hold that Mohammend was a prophet, that they cannot fast during Ramadan.

It is about the right to build, which is not constitutionally protected. There is no constitutional amendment that permits people to build Shuls, Churches or Mosques anywhere they want. There is no constitutional amendment that forces any municipality to put up a Community Center.

There have been several cases of people who have been forbidden to hold religious services IN THEIR HOMES, which I think goes much more against the grain of the constitution than making up a new right that hasn't been there.

There is a constitutional right to protest (freedom of assembly, freedom of speech). Protesting against the Mosque/Cultural center is a LEGAL USA right. Polaski, who is a government leaders, is calling for an investigation of those who protest.

Intimidation is a form of limiting free speech. Such behavior could very well be considered a violation of the constitution. Protesting cannot.

So no right will be abrogated if they groups opposed to the building of the Mosque in THAT particular location, at THIS particular time are able to prevail upon the Mosque builders to move, or are able to find the legal means to stop it (in which case, depending on the legal issue, the Mosque might remain operational but the building will have to remain as it is, or there could be no religious services of any kind in the building, or whatever, but it wouldn't be a law that constrained Mosques. It would be a law that constrained the particular use of that building for a specific purpose).

Naive is what I mean when you don't realize that people are hypocritical, and that is normal for the human being. Nature doesn't change because of the constitution. Laws are built around the idea that (at least some) people naturally would/not conform to them; they are not magic pills that make people conform.