Dept. of Justice interferes with democracy in another Detroit suburb. (Sterling Heights: house, employment)

[nancyplease]

Proper Christianity teaches tolerance, those two passages indicate tolerance IMHO. Anyway, its good that you can take such a black and white stance on this issue. To me, this situation smacks of federal overreach and sets a bad precedent. The city council, elected by the residents, voted this down unanimously, only to be overruled by the DOJ. Time will tell, 5 years from now, all may be great, but currently this 'interference' doesn't sit well with me.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by nancyplease

Proper Christianity teaches tolerance, those two passages indicate tolerance IMHO. Anyway, its good that you can take such a black and white stance on this issue. To me, this situation smacks of federal overreach and sets a bad precedent. The city council, elected by the residents, voted this down unanimously, only to be overruled by the DOJ. Time will tell, 5 years from now, all may be great, but currently this 'interference' doesn't sit well with me.

Making sure that local governments adhere to Constitutional protections is not "federal overreach". Schools would probably still be all segregated down south if the federal government had not gotten involved. Sometimes the proposed "solutions" don't work out so well (such as what happened with cross-district busing), but it is certainly a federal role to make sure that citizens aren't denied their Constitutional rights. The Constitution largely protects against the "tyranny of the majority", as it is sometimes called. Simply because a majority may vote for something doesn't make it right.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

Making sure that local governments adhere to Constitutional protections is not "federal overreach". Schools would probably still be all segregated down south if the federal government had not gotten involved. Sometimes the proposed "solutions" don't work out so well (such as what happened with cross-district busing), but it is certainly a federal role to make sure that citizens aren't denied their Constitutional rights. The Constitution largely protects against the "tyranny of the majority", as it is sometimes called. Simply because a majority may vote for something doesn't make it right.

This is not a civil rights or Constitutional rights issue. It's a zoning issue. There are already 2 mosques in Sterling Heights, so it is not like they are trying to ban Islam. This is about citizens having a right to express their concerns. Would you want a steel company to build a foundry next door to you? How about an oil company building a refinery? How about a bar or strip club? How about an apartment complex? How about a church or synagogue?

[slowdawg]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

Interesting. I, on the other hand, oppose taxpayer funding of private and religious schools--of whatever kind. They're part of the dumbing down of America. There are simply too many "alternative facts" being presented as gospel (literally).

I believe that public schools, run by the government and liberals, is responsible for the dumbing down of society and that private or charter schools are the only hopes for a quality education.

[slowdawg]

Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie

What? No. See the local parks are fine for some, but they're not for my kids and I. I prefer the private country club, but I don't really want to pay for the membership - I'd rather have my membership subsidized by the community's tax dollars so I can take my family to the privately owned country club rather than the neighborhood park and as my part of the bargain I won't step foot in any public spaces, and this makes sense because school of choice, sorry, I mean recreation of choice is a thing.

That was sarcasm.. , but on a more serious note - yes. Religious schools of any kind replacing public schools is unacceptable as it creates a world where dogma becomes an acceptable substitute for observation. I understand this is not something new, but it does seem to be more prevalent today than when I was in school. I too have a major problem with anyone's orders to kill, mistreat, or ostracize Atheists, gays, women, etc - regardless of what flavor of dogma is teaching this, especially when public tax dollars are used to subsidize this kind of direction while traditional schools, based on things which can actually be observed, become out-dated and under-funded.

I remember debating you during the election. The fact that you so passionately supported an avowed socialist scared me.

As someone who is openly Christian, your views on religion also disappoint me.

Ive seen a lot of good things happen because of Christianity. Ive seen lives saved and addictions defeated. I believe churches, with their shelters and soup kitchens, do good for the community.

I hope 1 day we find something we mutually agree on. Until then, Ill just expect that your posts will have me cursing at my screen. I guess I am getting a little grouchy these days...

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by Retroit

This is not a civil rights or Constitutional rights issue. It's a zoning issue. There are already 2 mosques in Sterling Heights, so it is not like they are trying to ban Islam. This is about citizens having a right to express their concerns. Would you want a steel company to build a foundry next door to you? How about an oil company building a refinery? How about a bar or strip club? How about an apartment complex? How about a church or synagogue?

Zoning IS a Constitutional issue if it is applied in a way which is contrary to Constitutional protections. (I'm not speaking to the merits of the federal involvement, only to the basis for their involvement.) You can't use zoning to exclude a use if the real reason for the denial is based upon religion. I haven't followed the Sterling Heights issue enough to know what all has been said, but given the recent political fervor against Muslims it is easy to understand why this issue is under the microscope.

The bottom line is that if the residents would have been less concerned had this been a Christian church, then they have only themselves to blame. With issues like this, it's imperative for it to be addressed factually and impartially. When motivations cloud the issue (which is likely the case here), then it is up to the Courts to decide.

[slowdawg]

I'm not a SH resident but I still oppose it. Not for a reason you would expect, though.
Building the mosque will require the destruction of one of the oldest, and only remaining, farmhouses in the city. A rare vintage home sits on the proposed site, the kind which Sterling Heights has allowed to be bulldozed into virtual extinction (Troy is doing the same thing).
I feel the house should have been given historical protection and the mosque moved to another location IN THE CITY void of architecturally notable vintage buildings.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by slowdawg

I'm not a SH resident but I still oppose it. Not for a reason you would expect, though.
Building the mosque will require the destruction of one of the oldest, and only remaining, farmhouses in the city. A rare vintage home sits on the proposed site, the kind which Sterling Heights has allowed to be bulldozed into virtual extinction (Troy is doing the same thing).
I feel the house should have been given historical protection and the mosque moved to another location IN THE CITY void of architecturally notable vintage buildings.

The problem with cities like Troy and Sterling Heights--which seem to want to bulldoze everything for development--is that their zoning ordinances are usually pretty poor. Very few zoning ordinances in Michigan, unlike in other states, are used to protect a community from over-development. Unfortunately, most residents don't pay attention to the local zoning ordinance until it is too late.

As Will Rogers used to quip, we have the best looking politicians that money can buy.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

Zoning IS a Constitutional issue if it is applied in a way which is contrary to Constitutional protections. (I'm not speaking to the merits of the federal involvement, only to the basis for their involvement.) You can't use zoning to exclude a use if the real reason for the denial is based upon religion. I haven't followed the Sterling Heights issue enough to know what all has been said, but given the recent political fervor against Muslims it is easy to understand why this issue is under the microscope.

The bottom line is that if the residents would have been less concerned had this been a Christian church, then they have only themselves to blame. With issues like this, it's imperative for it to be addressed factually and impartially. When motivations cloud the issue (which is likely the case here), then it is up to the Courts to decide.

Well, I'll give you credit for at least admitting you were assuming that the opposition was only about religion.

This property is zoned single family residential. If Muslims moved into the hoise there or wanted to build a new one, there would be no problem at all. If a Christian church was proposed to be built, neighbors would have a legitimate gripe about building size, parking lot size, traffic congestion (on Fridays, not Sundays, when there is less traffic overall), etc.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Well, I'll give you credit for at least admitting you were assuming that the opposition was only about religion.

This property is zoned single family residential. If Muslims moved into the hoise there or wanted to build a new one, there would be no problem at all. If a Christian church was proposed to be built, neighbors would have a legitimate gripe about building size, parking lot size, traffic congestion (on Fridays, not Sundays, when there is less traffic overall), etc.

No, I wasn't assuming that the opposition was only about religion. I stated that zoning is a Constitutional issue IF zoning is applied inappropriately, or unequally. I'm sure that there are a number of legitimate reasons in the mix. However, since this is a Muslim institution involved, that specter of unequal treatment raises its head as a possibility, hence they're going to argue that side.

As I mentioned in the post prior to yours, unfortunately most communities in Michigan have very poor zoning ordinances. They're primarily set up to encourage development, albeit with some guidelines. I took a couple of zoning law classes while in grad school for urban planning, so I'm rather aware of the complications that poorly crafted and implemented zoning laws can cause.