Search the Lounge


« Is News Corp's Financial Backing Of GOP A Big Deal? | Main | Blackhead Signpost Road »

August 19, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chad Emerson

I completely agree that the project developers have followed the established land use regulations in order to obtain the necessary approvals for the mosque/community center development. As a legal issue, that seems like the end of the road for this matter.

I'm not sure what RLUIPA has to do with this because the project was approved. Obviously, had it not been approved, then RLUIPA could have come into play but that's not the case.

Doesn't this make a RLUIPA analysis moot in this instance?

On the political side of the issue, I'm not aware (but may very well have missed) other instances where the ADF or other groups opposing this project have opposed the building of mosques in other sites in the U.S. From that quote, it seems like Ms. Hamilton is using one unique instance to evidence a larger nefarious trend that really doesn't exist.

Surely, people can see that this is not a legal issue but an entirely political one with a host of very unique circumstances that are hard to extrapolate beyond this example.

Howard Wasserman

This demonstrates why so many commentators (including, in particular, Prof. Hamilton) feel so strongly about the disestablishmentarian view of the First Amendment. Many people who urge exemptions for religion (and Hamilton consider RLUIPA such an exemption) do so because they or their co-religionists will benefit, but never think about what happens when those religions with which they disagree seek the same benefits.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad