http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-temple-in-texas-faces-razing-following-a-court-ruling-45192

Sikh temple in Texas faces razing following a court ruling
Press Trust of India, Updated: August 17, 2010 17:08 IST


Houston: A newly-built Sikh temple in Austin may soon be razed or moved following a Texas appellate-court ruling that it violated zoning laws, resulting in an outcry from members of the community.

The temple was completed in April to replace a mobile home that the congregation of about 60 families in central Texas had been using as a place of worship since 2003.

But, the congregation says it was unaware of the subdivision's restricting covenants stating that only single-family dwellings can be built on the lot and that they must be used as housing.

The group purchased the 2.75-acre property where the new temple sits in 2003 in a subdivision of the Austin suburb of Bee Cave and set up the makeshift temple in the 1,200-square-foot mobile home, which was already on the property.

Two years later, the congregation started plans to build a temple on the property and obtained all necessary permits from the city, said Harnek Bains, president of the Austin congregation.

Sikh organisation Austin Gurdwara Sahib said it cost US $350,000 to build the temple, and it paid US $100,000 for the land.

The court ruling has resulted in an outcry from members of the religious group, some of whom claim discrimination is at the heart of the case.

"There is a great amount of grief that a religious house of worship is being destroyed," said Amardeep Singh, director of programmes at the National Sikh Coalition, a civil-rights organisation.

Bains said the congregation faced no opposition until 2008, when the Bolliers moved into the neighbourhood and filed suit while the temple was under construction.

"We were shocked and stunned," Bains said.

The Bolliers said in a statement: "We did not bring this suit until AGS violated the single-family dwelling restriction by beginning construction of a large, pre-fabricated aluminum commercial building on its lot".

The dispute began when a couple, John and Leslie Bollier, living in the neighbourhood filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the temple violated the subdivision's rules restricting construction to single-family dwellings.

"It isn't about religion, but rather the construction of a building that could bring down property values in a residential neighbourhood".

The trial-court judge sided with the Sikh group in March 2009, saying while it was in violation of the subdivision's covenants, the Bolliers were barred from seeking court action on use of the property in large part due to the expiration of a statute of limitations that requires citizens to file suit within four years of an alleged violation.


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-temple-in-texas-faces-razing-following-a-court-ruling-45192?cp

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-temple-in-texas-faces-razing-following-a-court-ruling-45192

Sikh temple in Texas faces razing following a court ruling
Press Trust of India, Updated: August 17, 2010 17:08 IST


Houston: A newly-built Sikh temple in Austin may soon be razed or moved following a Texas appellate-court ruling that it violated zoning laws, resulting in an outcry from members of the community.

The temple was completed in April to replace a mobile home that the congregation of about 60 families in central Texas had been using as a place of worship since 2003.

But, the congregation says it was unaware of the subdivision's restricting covenants stating that only single-family dwellings can be built on the lot and that they must be used as housing.

The group purchased the 2.75-acre property where the new temple sits in 2003 in a subdivision of the Austin suburb of Bee Cave and set up the makeshift temple in the 1,200-square-foot mobile home, which was already on the property.

Two years later, the congregation started plans to build a temple on the property and obtained all necessary permits from the city, said Harnek Bains, president of the Austin congregation.

Sikh organisation Austin Gurdwara Sahib said it cost US $350,000 to build the temple, and it paid US $100,000 for the land.

The court ruling has resulted in an outcry from members of the religious group, some of whom claim discrimination is at the heart of the case.

"There is a great amount of grief that a religious house of worship is being destroyed," said Amardeep Singh, director of programmes at the National Sikh Coalition, a civil-rights organisation.

Bains said the congregation faced no opposition until 2008, when the Bolliers moved into the neighbourhood and filed suit while the temple was under construction.

"We were shocked and stunned," Bains said.

The Bolliers said in a statement: "We did not bring this suit until AGS violated the single-family dwelling restriction by beginning construction of a large, pre-fabricated aluminum commercial building on its lot".

The dispute began when a couple, John and Leslie Bollier, living in the neighbourhood filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the temple violated the subdivision's rules restricting construction to single-family dwellings.

"It isn't about religion, but rather the construction of a building that could bring down property values in a residential neighbourhood".

The trial-court judge sided with the Sikh group in March 2009, saying while it was in violation of the subdivision's covenants, the Bolliers were barred from seeking court action on use of the property in large part due to the expiration of a statute of limitations that requires citizens to file suit within four years of an alleged violation.


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-temple-in-texas-faces-razing-following-a-court-ruling-45192?cp

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-temple-in-texas-faces-razing-following-a-court-ruling-45192

Sikh temple in Texas faces razing following a court ruling
Press Trust of India, Updated: August 17, 2010 17:08 IST


Houston: A newly-built Sikh temple in Austin may soon be razed or moved following a Texas appellate-court ruling that it violated zoning laws, resulting in an outcry from members of the community.

The temple was completed in April to replace a mobile home that the congregation of about 60 families in central Texas had been using as a place of worship since 2003.

But, the congregation says it was unaware of the subdivision's restricting covenants stating that only single-family dwellings can be built on the lot and that they must be used as housing.

The group purchased the 2.75-acre property where the new temple sits in 2003 in a subdivision of the Austin suburb of Bee Cave and set up the makeshift temple in the 1,200-square-foot mobile home, which was already on the property.

Two years later, the congregation started plans to build a temple on the property and obtained all necessary permits from the city, said Harnek Bains, president of the Austin congregation.

Sikh organisation Austin Gurdwara Sahib said it cost US $350,000 to build the temple, and it paid US $100,000 for the land.

The court ruling has resulted in an outcry from members of the religious group, some of whom claim discrimination is at the heart of the case.

"There is a great amount of grief that a religious house of worship is being destroyed," said Amardeep Singh, director of programmes at the National Sikh Coalition, a civil-rights organisation.

Bains said the congregation faced no opposition until 2008, when the Bolliers moved into the neighbourhood and filed suit while the temple was under construction.

"We were shocked and stunned," Bains said.

The Bolliers said in a statement: "We did not bring this suit until AGS violated the single-family dwelling restriction by beginning construction of a large, pre-fabricated aluminum commercial building on its lot".

The dispute began when a couple, John and Leslie Bollier, living in the neighbourhood filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the temple violated the subdivision's rules restricting construction to single-family dwellings.

"It isn't about religion, but rather the construction of a building that could bring down property values in a residential neighbourhood".

The trial-court judge sided with the Sikh group in March 2009, saying while it was in violation of the subdivision's covenants, the Bolliers were barred from seeking court action on use of the property in large part due to the expiration of a statute of limitations that requires citizens to file suit within four years of an alleged violation.


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-temple-in-texas-faces-razing-following-a-court-ruling-45192?cp

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Leone a true Canadian DESI now back in India !.

It is like rubbing salt to wounds of people who lost near and dear ones in 9/11. I have seen this specific trend whenever a place of worship for Muslim community comes up in picture. They insist on certain places as if Allah lives there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
He who has not acquired one of the following: religious merit (dharma), wealth (artha), satisfaction of desires (kama), or liberation (moksa) is repeatedly born to die

I have a question for VM and others who are shocked by mosque near Ground Zero. Are you guys shocked by controversy over Ayodhya temple?

Obama has already endorsed construction of mosque and so has liberal minded democrats.

To me, it is evident that Obama is trying to appease Islamic community. Obama, and for that matter most politicians know the power that Islam wields. There are there options. Either one can fight it and go down like hero, or one can fight like BJP in India halfheartedly and go down like wimp or one can appease Islamic community and retain the power like Kangress has done in India. Obama has chosen the last option. This would boost his standing amongst left liberals though I doubt it would be enough to help win the upcoming election of Senate and Congress.

Fact remains that Islam would conquer Europe in next decade and eventually would capture Canada and USA in next 3 to 4 decades.

Islam is effectively ruling in India. Any one who is familiar with Indian politics should know that the Government’s all policies are designed and directed to benefit Islamic community as MMS and Sonia know that without support of Islamic community , they can not retain the power. In past, there was very vitriolic attack against me for making such a statement. Well, mosque near Ground Zero is one more proof. As regards India, hundreds are killed in fake encounter every year. However, killing of Sohrabuddin , a known associate of terrorist and against whom hundreds of criminal cases were pending, has put Modi in deep trouble. Whole India is watching the episode unfolding with glee. ELM is daily publishing some unsavory news and Modi is being hounded. There is not a single English Language (ELM) newspaper or TV channel ever tried to defend Modi. Domination of the world (barring China) by Islam in next 4 decades is foregone conclusion. If one can not read writing on the wall, who is to be blamed?

What's so confusing? A man has every right to tell his wife she looks fat, but does that make it a good idea? President Obama said that they have every right to practice their religion, but was not weighing in on the appropriateness of the location.

To come up with another example of what he said, It isn't illegal for a man to say yes when his wife asks if she looks fat, but the fact that it is legal does not make it smart.

Note: Project cost is @ 100 millions US$, It would be better to donate some part of the project cost to Pakistani flood victim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Mahatma Gandhi

see this article



Nine years after 9/11, the site of the Twin Towers is still an open sore on the face of New York — a festering reminder of the terror attack which claimed almost 3,000 lives.

To add insult to injury, in the eyes of the victims’ families and the majority of Americans, approval has just been granted for a mosque to be built two blocks away from Ground Zero.

What began as a local planning dispute could come to determine the fate of Barack Obama’s Presidency.


In favour: America’s liberal elite. Against: 70 per cent of the American people. With crucial mid-term elections looming in November, the President finds himself marooned on the wrong side of public opinion. It could cost him control of Congress and, in two years’ time, the White House itself. At an event to mark the Muslim festival of Ramadan, Obama backed the plans for a mosque and Islamic cultural centre 400 yards from Ground Zero, saying: ‘As a citizen and a President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as anyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.’

He also managed to ignite the Bible Belt and God-fearing, moderate Middle America by proclaiming that Islam was a major force in ‘advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings’ and had ‘always been part of America’.


In so doing, he displayed an ignorance of history which made David Cameron’s recent confusion over the timing of America’s entry into World War II look like a minor clerical error.

Obama’s words would have come as a surprise not only to the Founding Fathers, who established the United States on concrete Christian principles, but also to those unfortunate women being stoned to death and subjugated in the more barbaric outposts of Islam.

The President’s inept intervention hosed fuel on the flames of a furore which has been smouldering for months. His attempts to backtrack 24 hours later only made him look weak and indecisive.

This all began when an Islamic group submitted plans to convert a former clothing factory. Despite local protests, City officials could see no lawful impediment to the mosque/cultural centre being built.

In that respect, Obama is absolutely right when he talks about ‘local laws and ordinances’. He is also perfectly justified in defending America’s constitutionally protected religious freedom.

But his reaction was characteristically legalistic, when it should have been empathetic. He concentrated on process, when he should have been focusing on politics and public reaction.

When I was in the U.S. a few weeks ago, it was obvious that this had the potential to explode on to the national stage. The radio talk shows buzzed with indignation. Sarah Palin, the pin-up of the populist Tea Party movement, was busily Twittering her opposition.

After Newt Gingrich, a potential Republican Presidential candidate in 2012, likened the mosque to planting a swastika at a Holocaust memorial, or a Japanese cultural centre at Pearl Harbour, it went nuclear.

Gingrich’s deliberately incendiary analogy hit its intended target. America’s liberal elite spasmed into overdrive, branding all opposition to the mosque as being motived by bigotry and religious hatred, in an attempt to shut down debate.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused campaigners of being part of Hillary Clinton’s imaginary ‘vast Right-wing conspiracy’.

It was as predictable as Britain’s self-styled ‘liberal’ establishment’s track record of smearing anyone who expresses doubts about unlimited immigration as a knuckle-dragging, BNP racist.

At a stroke, almost three-quarters of Americans were written off as ‘bigots’. Unlike Britain, though, America’s silent majority refuses to be cowed into submission.

Of course, the crazies have come crawling out of the woodwork. Obama has always attracted conspiracy theorists who think he is a Muslim ‘sleeper’; emphasise his middle name, Hussein; and refuse even to accept that he was born in the United States.

The more extreme opponents point out that the group behind the plan want to call the project ‘Cordoba House’ — in honour of the Spanish city where medieval Islamic invaders erected a mosque on the site of a razed Roman Catholic cathedral to mark their conquest of Christianity.

But just because batty Sarah Palin is against the mosque, it doesn’t automatically mean she’s wrong.

In their determination to display their ‘tolerance’ of other religions, the supporters of the mosque have paraded their own ingrained intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them.

By proclaiming their ‘sensitivity’ towards Islam they have demonstrated their utter insensitivity to the vast majority of Americans, primarily the 9/11 families.

The establishment’s fundamental mistake was trying to treat this application as a local matter, in the hope that no one would notice. Ground Zero doesn’t just belong to New York, it belongs to all America.

Almost 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001, after Muslim hijackers flew two hijacked jetliners into the centre's Twin Towers

Blue-collar New Jersey and bluegrass Kentucky have just as big a stake in the future of this tragic site as the wealthy bien-pensant population of Manhattan’s Upper East Side, epitomised by New York’s billionaire

Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg.

It is hallowed ground, a shrine as holy as any of the Muslim ‘holy cities’ which America’s mainstream media insist are routinely violated by U.S. troops.

The enthusiasm for this mosque is contrasted starkly with the conspicuous failure to rebuild the Twin Towers after nine years; refusal of planning permission for the rebuilding of a nearby Greek Orthodox church damaged in the attacks; and failure to implement a promise to meet the health care costs of rescue workers who sustained debilitating illnesses and injuries on 9/11.

In any debate about Islam, it is obligatory to emphasise that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving etc. No one is arguing with that proposition.

But it remains indisputable that 9/11 was an attack carried out by Muslims, in the name of an admittedly insane form of their faith.

What seems to be forgotten in this case, as so often when it comes to dealing with Islam, is that tolerance is a two-way street. This isn’t about freedom to worship. There are already 100 official mosques in New York’s five boroughs, and more than 1,800 across America.

So the question is: Why here? Why now? Why a stone’s throw from Ground Zero? There’s no Muslim population in this part of Manhattan. It’s a business district.

New York’s Governor David Paterson has offered the mosque’s backers an alternative site, away from Ground Zero, but has so far been rebuffed. It is difficult not to conclude that the location of this project is designed deliberately to be provocative.

While Pelosi and others have questioned the motives of the mosque’s opponents, there has been little investigation into its backers.

Most of the money is said to be coming from Saudi Arabia, which would never allow a Christian church to be built in Riyadh. That should, of course be irrelevant given America’s tradition of religious freedom — but somehow, in this context, it isn’t.

The imam at the centre is Faisal Abdul Rauf, a ‘moderate’ who has advised the FBI and the State Department. But like so many ‘moderates’ this imam speaks with forked tongue, rather like some of the dubious characters seconded by our own Home Office and Scotland Yard over the past few years.

Rauf has called America an ‘accessory to 9/11’ and says Osama bin Laden was ‘born in the USA’.