For the Ground Zero Mosque Would a Compulsory Insurance Bond Make Sense?
Would it be Fair to Make the Mosque Promoters Post an Insurance Bond? This would be an insurance forfeiture bond in case the mosque was a source of massive damage to New York City or the people there from Explosion or from Toxic or Radioactive materials of any kind. The insurance bond would be paid for out of the charitable donations that support the Mosque's creation and development. In that part of town, within very close blast range of 25 Federal agencies, two stock exchanges, and two major telecom hubs (one of which handles inter-regional bank check clearances), a bond that included consequential damages, pain and sufferring, loss of life, and loss of commercial use would run at least $500 Billion. So, it could cost $50 Million a year to maintain unless the full sum were put up in cash upfront. This would not be a problem for the muslim world. They get $50 million in oil money from us every week. It would be very helpful to victims of this project if there are any. Keep in mind that no recovery of any kind was ever made from any muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia, for the massive destruction that occurred on 9/11. It being so difficult to recover money from overseas sources after the fact of harm being done, perhaps a bond posted upfront from those overseas sources who will be funding this mosque would be appropriate. Why should American taxpayers have to pick up the tab -- again? We may or may not be able to stop our politicians from doing astonishingly improvident things, but insurance could buffer USA from some small part of the potential consequences of poor decision making by highly confused persons. What do you think? That's my question. Would it be fair to have a bond be posted? In Re:Equal Protection Issue: The Equal Protection Clause does NOT require that all organizations or building plans be treated equally. It requires only that similarly situated ones be treated equally. So all other religious community centers from religions that claim almost all of the world's terrorists over the past 30 years would have to post a bond. Any of these that were located in extremely high rent areas that are vital to the national security, would have to post a $500 Billion bond. See that's treating everybody equally. Oh oh -- you say there are no other religions that claim almost every terrorist on Earth for the past 30 years? The Buddhists can't say that, nor can the Unitarians, or the B'ahai's or the Shintos. Well this would not be the first time that an insurance premium was tailored to the risk.
Law & Ethics - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Of course it would not be fair. What a nonsensical suggestion. The AMERICAN group proposing the development has no connection to any terrorist group, nor any connection to 9/11. Nor does it make any sense whatsoever to connect Islamic nations to 9/11 for that matter. 9/11 was the work of TERRORISTS, not any state. It's also utterly preposterous to suggest that any of the objections to the project revolve around risk of some sort of 'blast' (to use your words). It's about racism/religious intolerance, and that is ALL.
2 :
Only if you require every other building and church to post the same sort of bond.
3 :
I would think that you would need to make an actual connection, not an emotional one, between the administrators and members of the Mosque and the terrorist attacks. Of course, they would point out the number of other Mosques in the area whose members are not being targeted and required to take out an expensive multi million dollar policy. Nobody is also making the Saudi embassy pay for such an insurance bond and the same emotional argument can be made about them too. The whole suggestion will never fly other then to inflame the radicals on YA.
4 :
In the amount of 134 Billion. Yes , the risk assessment on this project is astronomical
