43 F
Indianapolis
Friday, March 29, 2024

Ground Zero mosque issue heats up again

More by this author

The public relations battle over building a mosque at Ground Zero is cranking up even as a New York judge considers whether to allow the suit to go to trial.

CNN is running an opinion piece that suggests “Mosques are a positive force in America.” The cable news network also rehashed a six-month-old Islamophobia report last week. And a Boston University professor thinks Mormons should support a Ground Zero mosque because they know what it’s like to be a hated religious minority.

All this led up to a hearing to decide whether or not the case of a New York City firefighter who survived the 9/11 terrorist attacks will be heard before a jury. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed suit on behalf of the firefighter, who opposes the mosque and Islamic Center.

The ACLJ argued in New York Supreme Court that the building that would be replaced by the mosque must be preserved.

“This site, in the shadow of the Twin Towers where landing gear from one of the hijacked planes landed, is part of sacred, hallowed ground and not the place to build a mosque,” says Brett Joshpe, counsel for the ACLJ.Ā  “Attempting to do so deeply offends many Americans – including family and friends of the 9/11 victims – and is simply wrong.”

The ACLJ filed suit against the city, naming the New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), the New York City Department of Buildings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and the mosque’s developers.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, but the ACLJ argued that the preservation commission abused its discretion by declining to landmark the building that would be replaced by the mosque, a building that was damaged on 9/11 but remained standing.

The ACLJ alleges that political pressure from Mayor Bloomberg’s office caused the preservation group to act in contravention of prior precedent and to treat the subject building different from similar buildings in the past.

Bloomberg nor LPC were available for comment.

New York City already has landmarked 148 similar buildings. The ACLJ calls the city’s rationale for not landmarking the building “the very definition of arbitrary and capricious.”

Attorney Virginia Waters represented the city, and argued, “The court must defer to the agency’s decision, and the agency’s decision was that it wasn’t closely connected to 9/11.”

Judge Paul G. Feinman said he would rule on the lawsuit within a month.

Ā 

- Advertisement -
ads:

Upcoming Online Townhalls

- Advertisement -

Subscribe to our newsletter

To be updated with all the latest local news.

Stay connected

1FansLike
1FollowersFollow
1FollowersFollow
1SubscribersSubscribe

Related articles

Popular articles

EspaƱol + Translate Ā»
Skip to content