Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's controversial because the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act (passed in the Clinton Administration) says that Local & State Regulations for Zoning do not apply in the case of a Religious Organization. Technically they can do whatever they wish, build anywhere they wish IF they either own the property or have a contract to own the property.
So now I'm wondering -- my city has zoning laws against any business that sell alcohol located within a certain distance from a Religious structure of Educational structure. That zoning law would prevent either a business from opening on vacant land OR a Religious or Educational Structure built on open land. Turns out the Religious structure doesn't have to follow Zoning Regulations ..... so I guess the other businesses would have to move or shut down.
Our Transformed America includes removing Local & State Powers and the voice of the citizens in zoning issues for their neighborhood.
That's what you get for protecting churches.
I say let them build the darn mosque, build a structure nearby where you can "listen into" the mosque and photograph visitors, and build bars, strip joints and liquor stores on the road to the mosque. Add a cheap Motel 6 where all these good Muslims can go fornicate too.
Zoned to permit religious organizations, doesn't mean the religious organizations have to be Muslim, Christian, catholic, or anything else.
Correct. The law makes it perfectly clear that you cannot pick one religion over the other. Where you can build a church, you can build a synagogue. If the city has a problem with that, they can call a first-year law student who will explain their options, to wit:
Permit the synagogue
Get sued, spend their constituents' money on legal costs, lose and permit the synagogue.
Correct. The law makes it perfectly clear that you cannot pick one religion over the other. Where you can build a church, you can build a synagogue. If the city has a problem with that, they can call a first-year law student who will explain their options, to wit:
Permit the synagogue
Get sued, spend their constituents' money on legal costs, lose and permit the synagogue.
What you don't understand is government can discriminate against any protected group if it finds it necessary. The problem is most judges are progressives and only allow discrimination against historical Americans. You think that's a good thing.
Nothing good is coming of mosque and mass muslim immigration. But not enough people have the good sense or backbone or more likely the benevolent motivation to roll back the immigration policy to pre 1965 or even some version of it.
No it's what anyone without a bias who looks into the historical context and sources believes.
The historical context was the Enlightenment - y'know, the movement that made Deism and even atheism mainstream isdes? Some of the finest political thinkers to come out of that era decided that wink-wink, nudge-nudge, the founding document they were going to great lengths to pen was going to have a "Cristians-only" subtext that they just plain forgot to make clear? It's flat-out laughable.
Anyway, here's Jefferson's recollection of events:
Quote:
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
But what does he know? He just wrote the damn thing.
What you don't understand is government can discriminate against any protected group if it finds it necessary. The problem is most judges are progressives and only allow discrimination against historical Americans. You think that's a good thing.
Nothing good is coming of mosque and mass muslim immigration. But not enough people have the good sense or backbone or more likely the benevolent motivation to roll back the immigration policy to pre 1965 or even some version of it.
The historical context was the Enlightenment - y'know, the movement that made Deism and even atheism mainstream isdes? Some of the finest political thinkers to come out of that era decided that wink-wink, nudge-nudge, the founding document they were going to great lengths to pen was going to have a "Cristians-only" subtext that they just plain forgot to make clear? It's flat-out laughable.
Anyway, here's Jefferson's recollection of events:
But what does he know? He just wrote the damn thing.
That's not a source that an unsourced opinion. Thomas Jefferson did not have a part in writing the constitution or the 1st amendment.
The genetic stock that descended from those here primarily before 1870 to 1600. They were almost entirely from the British Isle and NW Europe and of course W. Africa. Most of the population growth was from native born not immigrants. Around 1880 more southern and Eastern Europeans started coming in and it was restricted. The real change was after 1965. More immigrants (mostly non western) arrive every year now than during the entire nearly 200 year colonial area.
Many Americans ancestry traces back to the colonial days and their ancestors were never really even immigrants, but British subjects moving to a British colony. It'd be similar to an American moving to Hawaii, not really an immigrant.
Im not sure why Islam is even considered a religian after 911. Should have lost its religous status and relisted as a Terrorist organization on 9/12. Im an Atheist and dont care for any religian but theres only one that has spawned a 1000 Terrorist organizations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
