7 comments on “Is it still constitutional for a mosque to built if it threatens national security?”

• 

  maxmom

  September 5, 2011 at 12:01 am

  Probably, but since that is not the case, moot point.

  This community center was approved by the city of NY, the local councils, etc. It has been in the works for over 2 years. It would not have been approved if your scenario were in existence.

  Radicalism is not a crime, whether it is religious, left right, whatever.

• 

  I'm Sane

  September 5, 2011 at 12:23 am

  I understand what your saying but they would need proof that they are connected to terrorist organizations first, and if they got that proof I would say then that the Mosque shouldn’t be allowed to be built because of national security.

  Then again that would be the common sense answer so if these Muslims in particular were found to be connected to terrorist organizations I honestly think in the time we live in now the libs would argue that they still be allowed to build the Mosque in the name of tolerance………………..

• 

  Johnny

  September 5, 2011 at 12:38 am

  A mosque cannot be a threat to national security. There are plenty of churches with radical members, yet no one wants to stop them from being built.

• 

  г๏๓คгє

  September 5, 2011 at 1:13 am

  It’s not at Ground Zero and it’s not a mosque.

  http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/08/16/the-ground-zero-mosque-is-not-a-mosque-or-at-ground-zero

• 

  gobbie

  September 5, 2011 at 1:42 am

  For the first poster- Here’s proof.

  http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/f/22/T40kpU6GdJI

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HMQxr3xuIE

  You raise a good question… Religion isn’t so special and shouldn’t be tax exempt. It shouldn’t be treated like it is special and over our laws.

• 

  Donald F

  September 5, 2011 at 1:50 am

  They have the right to build it. Anyone opposed is arguing out of emotion. It has to be proved that the funding is coming from terrorist organizations and then it can be brought to court.

  Also, so called “conservatives” that are against it are ignoring that conservatism respects religious freedoms and separation of church and state. Also conservatives are supposed to be pro private property rights.

  I personally think that Republicans are all talk when it comes to principles. Democrats have no principles either, but that is obvious.

  To be selectively for those principles is hypocritical.

• 

  John B

  September 5, 2011 at 2:21 am

  “Nobody argues the right of muslims to build a mosque.”

  Actually, there are plenty of people who are arguing exactly that, so I wish that those who claim to not argue that line would quit saying that, because it’s not true.

  “However if that mosque is funded by terrorist organizations…”

  and you know that according to whom?

  “…and this mosque at ground zero is a rallying point for radical muslims…”

  and if the Muslims in question turn out to be Sufis who are not radical Muslims, who in fact oppose them, and who are hated and persecuted by radicals, then what do you do?

  “If the mosque threatens the very thing that makes it legal what should trump what?”

  Does a mosque in fact threaten the First Amendment? Please explain.

  Do a little research before you regurgitate the hyperbole that floats about the Internet. Imam Feisal led the prayers at a SUFI mosque, Masjid al-Farah, for 27 years. There is no shortage of information on this congregation. You will find some of it surprising. Like how they allow sexes to mix and they have a female spiritual leader, who is unabashedly against fundamentalists and terrorists, and they’ve participated in Interfaith events for some 30 years. It’s one of the major reasons why Bloomberg and the council voted for the Park 51 project, but hey, who bothers reading up before jumping to take offense and running their mouth off any more?