Conservatives seek violation of Constitution & law

[Civicsman]

Perhaps your ranting is response enough. I find it laughable that you complain about how I did not answer your biased question. You rarely ever answer any questions I pose to you.

Ask anything of value, and I might consider a response. I'm waiting.

My "biased" question? Which one is that? The one where I ask you to provide some substantiation for a baseless allegation?

Who is it that regularly thumps his chest about the importance of taking personal responsibility for one's behavior. This guy's sign suggests he supports personal responsibility. http://media.collegepublisher.com/me...s/fo82dh87.jpg , but I can't read the fine print. Does it say "for everyone else"?

Why is it that I have to post this again. Couldn't you have just fessed-up in a manly fashion without me having to re-post? By now, you know the truth about St. Nicholas, yet you're not retracting your allegation, which you made as a statement of fact. That makes it a lie. Man up.

----------------------------------------------------------

I find it interesting that while I do not think it is appropriate for the building of a Mosque near ground Zero, even if it is not illegal, the conversation is not going at all to a real legal problem where the government of New York has denied permission for the building of a church at the Ground Zero site.

A Greek Orthodox Church, called St. Nickolas, was crushed by the falling of the towers. It was an established church at ground Zero, with hundreds of years of history, that has been denied permission to rebuild. That's right, an established church that has applied for and not been given permits to rebuild, yet the Mosque had no problems.

This is a function of political correctness not only running amok, but being very selective in doing so. KSagal

This may be the lamest post you have ever made, Karl.

First of all, 51 Park is not a "mosque", although it commonly called that by those who want to crank up the ambient noise. Mosques don't have culinary schools and basketball courts. As far as I can tell, the facility is everything westerners could possibly hope for from Islam. Yet, those people, mostly American citizens, are being treated as pariahs for political reasons. It's shameful and disgusting.

Then, let me trash your claim that St. Nicholas has "hundreds of years of history". A lie, Karl? Or, just a failure to do any investigation. Where DO you (and Darth) get this stuff? St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was first founded in 1916, and services started in that building (which was not originally built as a church) in 1922. So it has some history, but it was not historic, by any definition.

Karl, you allegedly served on Wilmington, MA Zoning Board of Appeals. Unless Wilmington is in some zoning backwater, you know full well that there are a myriad of reasons why a building permit legitimately might not be issued, even to rebuild the same facility in the same location.

Please tell us, Karl, that you have investigated this situation and know the precise situation, and that you're not just venting conservative plasma out your aft port

Tell us about the 2008 agreement between the Port Authority and St. Nicholas. Tell us who ratcheted up their demands so that this agreement later fell apart. Tell us where the replacement church was to be built, and who owns that land where the permit was denied.

When you have done some investigation work (which you clearly have not done to date), come back here and admit that you were wrong to make such a baseless allegation. Civicsman

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

Perhaps your ranting is response enough. I find it laughable that you complain about how I did not answer your biased question. You rarely ever answer any questions I pose to you.

Ask anything of value, and I might consider a response. I'm waiting.

Karl, it seems to me that Civicsman addresses virtually everything you bring up or ask, whether he considers it "of value" or not. If threads like this are meant to be enlightening dialogues, the haughty / elitist / dismissive attitude expressed above contributes nothing towards it and seems counterproductive, so why even bother?

[Gihgehls]

You know...

Christians, Atheists, and Muslims alike ALL died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Considering this an "us vs. them" thing is really, really ignorant.

Lot's of people are for the freedom to build a mosque at ground zero, and lots of people are against that freedom. On each side, you will find Christians, Muslims, and Atheists. Some of the ignorance on display in this thread is absolutely staggering.

[Gihgehls]

Originally Posted by emrnyc

This is still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

I am truly sorry for your loss.
That said, I don't understand how it is disrespectful to the people who have met their god by now to build a religious structure to worship said god. Or did you forget that people of many religions lost their lives there that day? Wait, do you mean it is disrespectful to the Christians who lost their lives that day, or to the Muslims that lost their lives that day? Or is it offensive to the Jewish people who died there? All of them?

You have one thing right. This is the Land of the Free (to build any religious structure they want to) and the Home of the Brave (to do so in the face of adversity.) Doesn't get much more American than that.

[KSagal]

There are many things that are not illegal, that are still wrong to do.

I have never said that the mosque is illegal, I do feel it is not appropriate, however.

I have said that the church was not given permits to build, and there were many delays and faults in the process, and public hearings were not scheduled. Why? I do not know, and have seen no clear story either.

I agree that there are two sides to every story. It just seemed to me that the path to a permit for the mosque was quicker and easier than the path for the church. Perhaps this was the fault of the church and not the city. I do not know. What I do know is that one got a permit and the other did not, and says they are unhappy about it.

I was off on the length of time that particular building was in use as that church. Sorry. It was only about a hundred years, not 'hundreds of years' as I stated.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by KSagal

This is one post that has very little to complain about. I know your twist on all that you say, but point for point, this is not too bad.

Yes, Muslims are unlikely to say that they flew the planes to appease Jesus. But if we agree on that, what exactly would you say was their motivation?

...

I see here that I posted that another was right in their posting. Acknowledged that he had a point.


I also asked a question that was NEVER answered.

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Thanks, Pete.

I had that information too, although Mr. Thinks Some, Posts More clearly did not. I was hoping that he would actually have to do some work to find that his allegations were wrong.

Instead of an admission, I expect that we'll get some "I have the right to create my own reality" song and dance. If so, I'm ready. Go ahead. Make my day.

Whether Karl admits to the error of his ways or not, the reality of this situation is in your post. The last paragraph is particularly telling. This little parish saw an opportunity and got big dollar signs in their eyes.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Orthodox priest and Archdiocese are using the current situation as political leverage to try to get better concessions than the generous ones they were already offered.

You say that the offer was generous, but clearly the church did not agree.

The very biased New York Times is not the final word on much of anything these days, unless you drink the coolaide. It is an informative article however. I have the same respect for that publication that you have for FOX news.

Originally Posted by Civicsman

I have the greatest respect for those that gave everything, and those like you who are still suffering.

You are absolutely entitled to your personal perspective. I have no doubts that it is strong and genuine, and I have empathy for your feelings. My issue is not with the personal feelings of individuals such as yourself. I understand how you would welcome support for your position, but I hope you feel as strongly as I do about the shameless jackals who are taking advantage of the situation to further themselves politically.

However, I believe that your negative feelings towards the entirety of the Muslim faith are misplaced. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda brought the towers down, not the people who want to build the Community Center. If someone was suggesting a facility dedicated to the memory of the attackers, I would share your feelings 100%, but that is most definitely not the case. Instead, Bin Laden has to consider Park 51 a slap to HIS face, rejecting his fundamentalism and demonstrating that Islam can not only coexist with western civilization, but can be an integrated part of of it.

...

1. I heard no statement of negative feelings toward the entirety of Muslim faith from emrnyc. I only heard you accuse him of it.

2. Your statement of how Bin Laden 'has' to consider this mosque is speculation at best. Fantasy to my eyes. Where is your objective research to support this?

Now, I am not saying it is not possible for you to be right. Perhaps Bin Laden would hate it. I don't know. I do know others who have actually said they don't think it appropriate, and have said so in many formats.

I choose to act on those whom I have heard speak from their heart, not some personality I have assigned to a terrorist in a cave in Pakistan, whom would order my death if he had the opportunity to, without a care of my position.

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Just last evening KSagal made an allegation that it is "political correctness not only running amok, but being very selective in doing so", that the Park51 facility was given a building permit, while the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was not.

I challenged KSagal to present the facts that would make his case. PeteInLongBeach was kind enough to post a NY Times article with some very enlightening information.

Curious, then that KSagal made multiple posts tonight, yet was somehow unable to get around to this thread.

I posted that I had not seen a reasonable question to answer. I am the arbiter of what is valuable to me, no one else.

I surely owe civicsman no answers to anything, and his chides fall to my ears like the buzzing of insects. Annoying, but of little value. Some of his points have value, some of his questions too, not his chides and challenges.

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

Karl, it seems to me that Civicsman addresses virtually everything you bring up or ask, whether he considers it "of value" or not. If threads like this are meant to be enlightening dialogues, the haughty / elitist / dismissive attitude expressed above contributes nothing towards it and seems counterproductive, so why even bother?

See my question above, about what he feels was the motivation for the terrorists in the planes flown into American Buildings. Asked and not answered.

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I have said that the church was not given permits to build, and there were many delays and faults in the process, and public hearings were not scheduled. Why? I do not know, and have seen no clear story either.

I agree that there are two sides to every story. It just seemed to me that the path to a permit for the mosque was quicker and easier than the path for the church. Perhaps this was the fault of the church and not the city. I do not know. What I do know is that one got a permit and the other did not, and says they are unhappy about it.

This is going in circles. Questions and issues are raised, dialogue and editorials are posted in response, then the issues are rephrased and repeated all over again, feigning ignorance, because the responses did not align with the personal politics.

If you listened to Mr. Olbermann's editorial and read the NY Times article, and STILL posted the entry above, there is little point in continuing this discussion. Dialogue also requires listening to produce understanding.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

This is going in circles. Questions and issues are raised, dialogue and editorials are posted in response, then the issues are rephrased and repeated all over again, feigning ignorance, because the responses did not align with the personal politics.

If you listened to Mr. Olbermann's editorial and read the NY Times article, and STILL posted the entry above, there is little point in continuing this discussion. Dialogue also requires listening to produce understanding.

Not all who publish, or speak with apparent authority are telling the truth, or the whole truth.

If proof is offered from a corrupt source, it may not be accepted. Each person needs to decide what is corrupt or not for themselves.

Anyone who says that Mr. Olbermann is fair and balanced has a different definition for that than I.

When people post here from FOX news, it is decried as biased. Yet when the leg tingler or the NYTimes is quoted, people do not seem to be able to claim the same bias in the other direction.

I do know more about the Church and its travails with the city than I knew before, and said as much. That does not mean that I feel I know the whole story, or that the whole story is contained in the sources posted.

There are some (many?) on this forum, and I will not identify individuals, because this is not universal nor absolute, who will deny facts from one source (Fox news) yet will not tolerate facts from other sources (NYTimes) being denied.

Most of this is done with the feeling that it is okay, because those who do it feel they are right. Therefore it is not double standard, just being discriminatory about where we get our information, in the minds of those involved. I see the problem as the EXACT same view from a different perspective is said to be wrong or biased.

I feel comfortable to present my views, and offer what I wish to support them. I invite anyone who reads them to believe me or not, consider my position or not, or even rail against it. Have fun. Just do not get too twisted if I choose not to change my mind because some person has ranted against it. Sometimes I do, sometimes not.

1976

1976 (October 4) Frank Collin, leader of a band of Nazi sympathizers from Chicago's South side, sends a letter to Daniel D. Brown, Director of Parks and Recreation, Skokie Park District, requesting that his group be permitted to march in Skokie's "Birch Park" on November 6, 1976.

October 25 At its regular meeting, the Board of Commissioners of the Skokie Park District direct Daniel D. Brown, Director of Parks and Recreation, to respond to Mr. Collin of the Nationalist Socialist Party that Skokie has no "Birch Park". In addition, the Board passes an ordinance relating to "Parades and Public Assemblies" which required that prospective marchers to 1) obtain a permit at least thirty days in advance of the parade date and 2) post an insurance bond equal to $350,000.00. (Minutes of the Board Meeting of October 25, 1976, Skokie Park District Board of Park Commissioners (Ordinance attached), Archives, Skokie Park District)


1977

1977 (April 28) Judge Joseph Wosik, a judge in the Chancery Department of the Circuit Court of Cook County, in a suit filed by the Village of Skokie against the Nationalist Socialist party, issues a preliminary injunction prohibiting members of the Nationalist Socialist party from marching in Skokie. In this suit, the Village asserts, as a matter of fact, that the Jewish population is approximately 40,000 out of a total population of 70,000. (Defending my enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case and the Risks of Freedom. Aryeh Neier, E.P. Dutton, N.Y., N.Y., 1979, p. 44).

May 2 The Skokie Village Board, in response to a request from Nationalist Socialist party for a permit to march in front of Skokie Village Hall, passes three ordinances which 1) require a $350,000.00 indemnity bond to be posted in advance of any march (V.O. 77-5-N-994) 2) prohibits the distribution of printed material which promotes hatred of groups of people (V.O. 77-5-N-995) and 3) prohibits demonstrations by individuals wearing military style uniforms (V.O. 77-5-N-996). (Skokie Life, October 27, 1977, p. 1 / Opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., Collin v. Smith, et.al, Nos. 78-1381 & 78-1385, Issued May 22, 1978, Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

June 22 Frank Collin and his band of Nazis apply to Skokie officials for a permit to march in Skokie. (Letter from Nationalist Socialist Party of America to John N. Matzer, Jr., Manager, Village of Skokie, dtd June 22, 1977, Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

June 24 The Village of Skokie denies the Nazis the right to a permit to march in military style uniforms. (Letter from John N. Matzer, Jr., Manager, Village of Skokie to Frank Collin, National Socialist Party, dtd June 24, 1977, Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

October 21 Judge Bernard Decker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issues a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Village of Skokie from enforcing three ordinances aimed at preventing Frank Collin and his Nationalist Socialist party sympathizers from marching in Skokie. (Skokie Life, October 27, 1977, p. 1).


1978

1978 (January 27) The Illinois Supreme Court reverses the Illinois Appellate Court and the Circuit Court of Cook County's grant of Injunctive Relief in favor of the Village of Skokie and against the Nazi group headed by Frank Collin. The Nazis are free to March in Skokie pending resolution of the federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of the Nazis. (Case No. 49769, Illinois Supreme Court).

February 23 Judge Bernard Decker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issues an order ruling that the three ordinances adopted by the Skokie Village Board aimed at preventing Frank Collin and his Nationalist Socialist party sympathizers from marching in Skokie are unconstitutional as violative of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Skokie Life, April 9, 1978, p. 1).

March 17 Judge Bernard Decker grants the Village of Skokie's Motion to stay his order voiding the Skokie anti-Nazi ordinances so as to permit the Village to perfect an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. (Application for Stay of Mandate, Harvey Schwartz & Gilbert Gordon, filed in the United States Supreme Court, No. 77-1736, on behalf of the Village of Skokie, p. 2 / Archives, Skokie Historical Society.)

April 6 The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, sitting en banc, vacates all previous "stay orders" and orders an expedited briefing schedule. (Application for Stay of Mandate, Harvey Schwartz & Gilbert Gordon, filed in the United States Supreme Court, No. 77-1736, on behalf of the Village of Skokie, p. 2 /Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

April 11 Frank Collin and his band of Nazis apply to the Village of Skokie for a permit to conduct a demonstration in front of Skokie's Village Hall on Sunday, June 25, 1978. (Application for Stay of Mandate, Harvey Schwartz & Gilbert Gordon, filed in the United States Supreme Court, No. 77-1736, on behalf of the Village of Skokie, p. 2 / Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

May 22 The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirms Judge Decker's February 23, 1978 ruling that the three ordinances adopted by the Skokie Village Board aimed at preventing Frank Collin and his Nationalist Socialist party sympathizers from marching in Skokie are unconstitutional as violative of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals, Nos. 78-1381 & 78-1385, Judges Pell, Sprecher (concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Wood, Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

May 25 The Village of Skokie issues a permit allowing Frank Collin and his band of Nazi sympathizers to demonstrate in front of Skokie's Village Hall on Sunday, June 25, 1978. (Application for Stay of Mandate, Harvey Schwartz & Gilbert Gordon, filed in the United States Supreme Court, No. 77-1736, on behalf of the Village of Skokie, p. 2 / Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

June 2 The United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, enters an order denying the Village of Skokie's request for a stay of mandate. Application for Stay of Mandate, Harvey Schwartz & Gilbert Gordon, filed in the United States Supreme Court, No. 77-1736, on behalf of the Village of Skokie, p. 3 / Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

June 5 The Village of Skokie files its Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court requesting review of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, rendered in the Nazi case. (Application for Stay of Mandate, Harvey Schwartz & Gilbert Gordon, filed in the United States Supreme Court, No. 77-1736, on behalf of the Village of Skokie, p. 3).

June 22 Skokie Police Chief Kenneth Chamberlain issues a directive that the area bounded by Edens Highway, Howard Street, Skokie Blvd. and Main Street will be cordoned off to vehicular traffic on June 25. Only residents may enter into the cordoned off area. All vehicles will be subject to cursory searches for weapons. (Archives, Skokie Historical Society, 1983.36.4).

June 23 Frank Collin and his band of Nazi sympathizers cancel their planned demonstration in Skokie scheduled for June 25. (Statement by Mayor Albert J. Smith dtd June 23, 1978, Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

June 25 The date on which Frank Collin and his band of Nazi sympathizers are to march in front of Skokie's Village Hall. The march is called off when the City of Chicago relents and permits the group to march in Marquette Park on July 9. (Skokie Life, February 12, 1981, Sec. 1-B, p. 3 / Archives, Skokie Historical Society).

Historically, Skokie has a demographic that differs from most suburbs of Chicago. Most famously, Skokie has been home to a large Jewish population, particularly after World War II, and it is the only suburb of Chicago with more Jewish schools than Catholic schools. While in recent years Skokie's population has become significantly more diverse, it nonetheless was considered the logical location for the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center when it opened in northwest Skokie in 2009.

My point to all of this is sometimes feelings need to prevail. Just because you have the right to do something does not make it right to do.
I have been on both sides of this argument for the past few months now. After hearing both sides this is where I stand (not that it matters to anyone but me)

[Civicsman]

I find it interesting that while I do not think it is appropriate for the building of a Mosque near ground Zero, even if it is not illegal, the conversation is not going at all to a real legal problem where the government of New York has denied permission for the building of a church at the Ground Zero site.

A Greek Orthodox Church, called St. Nickolas, was crushed by the falling of the towers. It was an established church at ground Zero, with hundreds of years of history, that has been denied permission to rebuild. That's right, an established church that has applied for and not been given permits to rebuild, yet the Mosque had no problems.

This is a function of political correctness not only running amok, but being very selective in doing so.KSagal

I do know more about the Church and its travails with the city than I knew before, and said as much. That does not mean that I feel I know the whole story, or that the whole story is contained in the sources posted. KSagal

In fact, when you made the post, you knew essentially nothing about the story. Yet, you posted a knee-jerk reaction that permits were denied for the Greek Orthodox church because of "political correctness running amok, and being very selective in doing so".

In fact, your conclusion is nothing more than an uninformed individual coming to a prejudicial conclusion, unimpeded by facts. Thank you for stating the obvious when you say you "don't know the whole story". Gosh, ya think?

You still did not tell us the details about the 2008 agreement between the Port Authority and St. Nicholas, or why the agreement fell apart, or tell us who owns the land where the replacement church was to be built.

I don't care if you don't trust the NY Times, or Keith Olbermann. DO try to stay on topic! You brought up this red herring. Now defend it, if you can!

Surely you must get your "facts" from somewhere? Right? If you have any personal responsibility whatsoever, tell us what you've got to support your position, and where you got it.