I'm sorry: am I on that side? Please define explicitly. And should Muslim-Americans opposed to the mosque be taken seriously also?
I did not say that you were on their side in the push to ban mosques more generally, but you do shae the same high quality thinking when it comes to ascertaining the legal rights of those building the the Park 51 mosque. Also, as I said, they are clearly on your side (even if you are not on theirs).
Actually, a minor snag has seemingly occurred: the developer of the site only owns half the proposed site. The other half is owned by Con Edison.
This is a legal issue I was not expecting. My side will still win, of course, but I do agree that if a private company owned the land and was not willing to sell it to them, they'd be SOL. But, in reality, this is only a delay. The Muslims have a valid purchase option and ConEd isn't argung it has the right to breach it.
The Public Service Commission is a government body. As such they cannot discriminate against the sale on the basis of the speech or the religion that will be practiced on the new site...again, it's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...and the fact that the land is already leased to this SoHo Properties means that the land isn't being used for a public purpose. The Public Service Commission only has grounds to block it if the sale would interfere with public utility services. If that were the case, they should have blocked the lease of that land in the first place.
Besides, if you believe the Cordoba Institute is a bunch of terrorists...if they get denied the sale they will sue NYS for millions and win...and by your logic, that money will no doubt fund terrorism. So you should let them build their mosque.
One might also argue that the full exercise of the American legal system is a validation of the Constitution; I would think that this case in particular would be such an example.
It can be if the claims are legitimate, but what we actually saw was a bunch of bigots browbeating the Landmarks Commission hoping they would decide to protect the Burlington Coat Factory *not* because it is particularly historic, but because people don't want Muslims to have a mosque near ground zero.
They wanted the commission to set aside that pesky First Amendment and vote against a particular point of view (whether the Cordoba House holds to that particular view or not), and a strong sense that the minority's rights are conditional on the majority agreeing to honor them. When that is the argument, the only victry for the Constitution is when that kind of bigotry is rightfully dismissed.
You certainly have the right to ask questions, but no right to compel others to answer. Feel free to learn what you can from those who want to answer you, but you don't get a private subpoena power just because you fear the effects of radical Islam and you believe based on limited evidence that Rauf is a radical.
Even if you did have a right to have all your questions answered, I strongly suspect your side, if not you personally, would never be happy. If the answers they gave made the project seem benign, they would be accused of lying and fabricating the evidence. And, more likely, if these Muslims had even one however tenuous connection to a radical, then your side would declare the desire to see their rights to be suspended even more.
