According to an article I have read Ken Livingstone the current Mayor of London is supporting plans to build a 'Mega Mosque' in London. The mosque will be larger than St.Paul's. The Article is written verbatim below.
'Mega Mosque'
"It would appear that Ken Livingstone is planning to use tax payer's money to build an enormous mosque costing an estimated £100M in the docklands.
The Mosque will be bigger than St. Paul's. The plan is for the mosque to be so big that people flying in from all over the world for the 2012 Olympics will see it as the biggest landmark in London, bigger than St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey or Wembley Stadium.
It is an undemocratic use of British Tax payer's money, especially when 100's of years old churches get no government funding to keep their structures standing, and we are supposed to be a Christian nation. Would it not be better to spend the money on a new hospital or improved transport facilities?"
The rest of the article is opinion and so I will not post it. However if there are those who want to vote against it the petition address is
Now, is it just me or does this not seem a complete shambolic coverup. I have not heard anything about this in the news media. Therefore, how could it have gotten so far without people knowing?
My opinion is to simply agree that the mosque should not be built if it is tax payers money that is being used. Does anyone else have thoughts?
This bothers me if the type of building is out of synch with the surrounding architecture but, since I don't live in London, I am not aware of the number of minarets on the local landscape.
Also, since noise complaints against church bells ringing out seems to be a problem, will the call to prayers be considered during planning?
What worries me is that this is a place where 70,000 Muslims could legitimately mass. No thank you. We are not yet so harmonised with our Muslim 'guests' that we could allow such a huge concentration.
Let them come back with their proposals in 100 years' time, when their doctrines and laws are more acceptable here.
My real concern is how far this seems to have progressed before we are alerted to it. The usual nonsense prevails, as in the government interim report,that there is no planning application submitted. In other words, wait until that surfaces and you will have about 3 weeks to support or object. By this time a considerable amount of money will have been spent,much liaison between developer and council all probably under the cloak of commmercial confidentiality .
Then will the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 be used if the Mosque is deeemd to be in the public interest.
Mosques, airports, roads, wind turbines,etc the methodology for them all seeems simply to support the Big Brother syndrome. Their choice not ours,
Timbil
In haste due to yet another application for wind turbines and said to be 400 foot high and 400 metres from houses.must check
Apologies for that, but it is the reason I must be brief,my time is no longer my own.Hate to see people so gutted
As to your question
Please see this thread posted earlier
Quote:
Government interim response to the MegaMosque petition
Author: Lizabeth
Government response is/was true at the time Then read my post on this thread.
I have just been 'involved', voluntarily!,with a mega development in Blair's area, ongoing for 18 months or more and suppported by local and county councils. No application yet so ask if there is a development for xxxxxx in the area the answer will be no application has been received .
TRUE!!! Come a few months hence and all will be revealed
The Mosque is no scare story, The scare story is the manipulation of our lives.by Big Brother
The proposed site of the London Mega Mosque is right next to the London 2012 Olympics site and to have a mosque for 70,000 worshippers, bigger than St. Pauls's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey is a provocation in itself.
The Centre for the Propogation of Islam in Europe wanted to build a similar mega mosque in Rome just opposite the Vatican City and St. Peter's Cathedral which would house 100,000 worshipers and dwarf St. Peter's Cathedral.
The application was turned down by the Italian Government.
Thanks for the link, timbill. I'm not re-assured though since the last paragraph discusses the possibility, whilst dissing the recent rumours. That normally translates as 'it's happening, but not as you are reporting it'. Old cynic that I am.
Tizzy I love church bells ringing (on a Sunday) much better than the whine of wind-turbines. And yes I'd love to see a new cathedral next to the 2012 Olympics site, but, as agreed months ago 'who would fill the pews'? Our churches are nearly empty - even in villages where the community spirit is high we note a lack of young people? Do you not like talking to your neighbours?
It was also written that Muslims themselves (thru donations, charities etc) are paying for this so called 'mega mosque' therefore this £100m is a conspiracy.
C'mon people, Muslims pray at least twice a day (sometimes more) and the building will be in constant use and give enormous pleasure to many. (I like minarets on the sky-line, they are pleasing and will further add a cosmopolitan feel to our capital.
Perhaps the call to pray will dig British people to realise we must always have a quiet place where we can forgive ourselves for causing pain to others (just one day in the week).
scrubsupwell is right in todays new multi-cultural, multi-racial "rainbow" Britain, more British men go to mosque than all the people of all the Christian denominations in the UK go to church.
I just would not like the Muzzin to call for prayers on the loud speakers in Arabic five times a day. It would remind me of Arabia! I prefer church bells!
My concern is why the government allowed this petition if there was no substance in it.
Quote:
will the call to prayers be considered during planning?
So far as I can recall,,
A statutory noise nuisance is "a breach of quiet enjoyment of your property".
To be classed as a nuisance, the problem must interfere with whatever you are doing, and not simply be an annoyance.
Firstly, minarets on a skyline? No can't imagine I could ever get to liking that. Secondly, I would contend that a mosque of the size being discussed is not proportional for this country. This is a breakdown of religions in this country.
these figures come from the UK Census 2001, Here. Given these figures, and the number of churches vs. the number of mosques there is a disproportionate ratio. Therefore, I can only conclude that allowing a minority group to build a catherdral size mosque in a overwhelmingly Christian country seems out of sync.
I can see now that whilst it is fairly obvious that the mosque does not seem to be in the planning process right now, I also wonder what will happen should such plans ever really be put in motion. My hesitance is not of a bigotous nature but of an semi-objective one. Whilst I respect, or at least try to respect, the views and beliefs of others I wonder...Would a Christian Catherdel ever be planned in an Islamic country? Furthermore, whilst I do not wish to offend anyone I must ask, are we as a nation too tolerant? Do we allow for too much? Are, generally speaking, islamic nations as tolerant as secular or christian nations?
I would like to reiterate that I do not mean to cause offence. I do not mean to sound hateful or disrespectful and if anyone chooses to read hatred or disrespect into what I have said I appologise.
For action to be taken, the nuisance complained of must be, or be likely to be prejudicial to people’s health or interfere with a person's legitimate use and enjoyment of land. This particularly applies to nuisance to neighbours in their homes and gardens.
I'm confused by the premise of this thread and the petition. It has been stated many a time by everyone involved that public money is not being spent on this. The statements coming from the mayor leave little wriggle-room on this matter:
Quote:
There are not now, and have never been, any plans by the Mayor or Greater London Authority spend any public money on such mosque. Indeed, it would be illegal for the Mayor of London to do so.
I also don't understand what some of you are getting at...
Quote:
Firstly, minarets on a skyline? No can't imagine I could ever get to liking that
I used to live in Bury St Edmunds, a beautiful Suffolk town whose skyline is utterly dominated by a Silver Spoon sugar factory. It's an eyesore. To be honest, a minaret would be preferable. Thinking about it, London's skyline is riddled with atrociously ugly buildings - would you really prefer Canary Wharf, the 'Erotic Gherkin' or Centre Point to the Taj Mahal?
A lot of this uproar seems to focus on people calling Britain a 'Christian Nation' which I object to - I see Britain as being largely secular, and 'Church of England' is really a misnomer these days. the above statistic saying 71.1% of British people are Christian makes me wonder if I myself am included in that - I was Christened, after all, but in later life I have developed particularly anti-religious views.
Quote:
Would a Christian Catherdel ever be planned in an Islamic country?
I'm fairly certain there ARE churches etc in many islamic countries.
Quote:
Are, generally speaking, islamic nations as tolerant as secular or christian nations?
Surely if they are not, the answer would not be to meet like with like, but to take the moral high ground? That attitude seems a bit like a playground bully shouting 'HE started it!'
Kozmicstu
My concern is why the government allowed this petition if there was no substance in it. Surely it should/could have been rejected at source as it seems many are for a variety of reasons.
Ooohh, I remember a 'which would you choose on' Rejects, Stu! I like all the buildings, bar Centre Point, you've mentioned. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all that. There are some modern churches I'm not keen on, eg Liverpool, personal taste I suppose.
Insofar as practising one's faith in a recognised building, I have to question the grandiose nature of said buildings. I'm not saying that I want historically important buildings pulled down, but questioning the reason for such new build at this sensitive point in time.
St Peter's Church is a very grand and historical building, but the Sistine Chapel is quite drab, bar the ceiling. Is that what you meant by the Vatican?
Not quite, I meant should practicing faith be in a building that inspires you - gives you a feeling of awe.
You think we live in 'sensitive times' - meaning sensitive situations or us humans have reached a stage where every receptor is incapable of blocking those things that distress us? (The latter seems to be describing me; I get distressed at the slightest thing.)
scrubs, I'm with you on the stress thing, though it saddens me that you put so much on your young shoulders, sincerely.
I don't get why a building has to inspire or encourage one's faith; the quakers have no such problem. You either have faith or you don't. Today, new bricks and mortar should be irrelevant. There are enough 'most holy' places, surely? What's wrong with a two-up, two-down, unless you are think that a building is the spur?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all that.
Yep, Tizzy - hence the point I was getting at - whether martinnelson can bring himself to like minarets on the London skyline or not is pretty much irrelevant in this debate...
The old churches were definitely expressions of soaring faith, and very impressive they are too. So it's a tradition. Mosques with minarets are visually impressive too (in the Middle East) though I'm not sure I would wish to live next to one now that they tend to blast out the call to prayers using loudspeaker recordings.
The most interesting thing about religion, in my book, is its architecture.
Especially that little door Yorker that lets 'the Devil' out. I was very young when my father showed me; fascinating. I think it was an old church on the 'Pilgrims Way'. My auntie walked the whole length one hot summer from Ropley to Canterbury cathedral.
the above statistic saying 71.1% of British people are Christian makes me wonder if I myself am included in that
That would depenbd on how you answered the census question back in 2001. The census is based on what people consider themselves to be and reported themselves to be. If you are 'no religion' or 'religion not stated' then you would not be included in that 71.1%, unless you mistakenly identified yourself as such on your census return
