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? My critics so far miss the point. Different automobiles cost different amounts to insure. Same with planes, boats, amusement parks, skating rinks. Premiums are individually related to the risk posed -- it's not one size fits all. Is there a risk that is special to this situation? Well, some muslims do tend to blow things up. To deny that is too absurd even for my opponents, so I assume they accept that simple reality. We have absolutely no way of knowing which muslims may or may not be using or not using the Cordoba House if it is built. Could be just peaceful muslims. Could be terrorist muslims. Could be folks from Hamas there to assemble a nuclear device so that Dr. Ahmedinejad can make good on his threats. We don't know! What do people do when they don't know about a risk? They get insurance. This is not an idea I'm inventing and bringing to you for the first time (like people up in the hollers that have never seen a chair before). This is reason! To: "Common Sense" (ha) 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.
Insurance - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's fair only if every other church in the United States had to post a similar bond just in case they were blown up...how much would it cost to insure St. Peter's in NYC for the same amount - I am sure the Vatican has that amount of money just sitting around...what about the National Cathedral in DC or any of the churches near the White House or the Capitol...they could be used in similar fashion. You mistakenly equate the building of a Mosque with the actions of a minority of Muslims. I could do the same and point to the violence in Northern Ireland in clashes between Catholics and Protestants and the various IRA bombings in London. Finally, you could not require them to take out the insurance as there is a Constitutional right to separation between church and state and in this instance, you would be singling out one church.
2 :
its not a mosque, but a community center with a prayer room, like the jewish and catholic ones already in nyc. are you going to require them to post a bond as well?
3 :
That's ridiculous. First, it would violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, as no other church or synagogue must post a bond like that. Second, any building like that would have insurance anyway. And who is "they" getting 50 million a week? Not the ones building this project. You just hate Muslims. I don't like it either, but they have the same rights as everyone else.
4 :
Community Centers qualify for matching funds, I don't want to provide them for any. Liability Insurance is required for many collectives already so , Yes they should be required a Construction Bond & Liability Insurance as well as being denied any US taxpayer funds. ALL of Them not just this Mosque.
5 :
Not fair, because you're singling out one religion. Not possible because: 1. BUILDINGS don't cause massive damage, explosions, toxins, or radiation - those are all caused by people building the buildings, or supplying the materials, or behaving badly. 2. NO insurance is going to cover toxins or radiation. It's a standard exclusion, across the board. 3. A "bond" doesn't work that way. A bond is a three party agreement, with the obligee being the entity that gets paid, the insurance company doing the paying, and the obligor the one who's behavior is guaranteed by the bond. You're talking about insurance, not a bond. 4. Americans pick up the tab, because we vote in politicians that LOVE to spend our money. We ARE able to stop our politicians from behaving badly. Most of us can't be bothered, as indicated by voter turnout polls. 5. Yes, of course there's risk! Islam is absolutely the MOST VIOLENT religion in the world, and the history of the world! Know how the last muslim invasion of Europe was stopped? THE CRUSADES. But here in the USA, my relatives and ancestors have DIED to protect the right of every single person here in this country to worship - or not worship - exactly as they please. 6. I think you're missing one very, very vital point . . . which insurance company would WANT to "insure" a group of muslims funded by terrorist backing organizations, with pro-terrorist spokespersons, against terroristic acts? None I can think of. So it's a moot point. Don't get me wrong. I think the "park 51" location for a mosque is in extremely poor taste. And it boggles my mind, how people can claim that the site is not ground zero. Because it's occupied by a building, which was hit by a plane, flown by a terrorist, on September 11, 2001. Must be some new definition of 'ground zero'.
6 :
I think we should make any Germans moving into the region post a bond too. There are millions of Jews in New York City, and you know what might happens if you let Germans to close to Jews. . . .. OK, I admit that is a dumb thing to say. But no more dumb than your proposal.
