"As a citizen, and as president, I believe 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. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."He later clarified these statements yet cowardly avoided a forthright moral appraisal of the project:
“I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” Mr. Obama said. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”Obama holds the "rights" of foreign peoples over the palpable anguish of the vast majority of American citizens. One shouldn't be surprised at this loyalty, obscured under the guise of "founding principles", as native born Americans have little cultural and political say besides total capitulation.
The left frames this as an issue of fundamental rights and I admittedly can not offer an opposing argument in this regard. Freedom of religion applies to all in every circumstance. But is a nation defined solely by its laws and legal principles or do the people occasionally supersede these guidelines? Do widespread cultural and social desires allow us to occasionally circumvent these principles? And what circumstances warrant subverting our laws?
The conservative opposition to the mosque is primarily concerned with our collective "sensitivity". They take the position that emotional consensus concerning this event justifies opposition. I agree with them, yet the left does persuasively counter by noting the universality of religious freedom and the nebulous precedent advocated in this instance. Mainly, I disagree with the specificity of the conservative opposition, an inexorable aspect of the debate caused by the prevailing mainstream discourse.
Instead of focusing on this particular mosque, an important issue for sure, the Right needs to take a more general approach about the fabric of this nation and what constitutes "American principles". The "proposition nation" fails due to its inherent globalism; the Mosque supporters use this embedded concept, one ignored by pusillanimous conservatives, as justification for their project and their triumphalist edifice. This debate isn't necessarily about Ground Zero, but rather about the national capitulation we must endure if diversity and tolerance, instead of national vigor, become the highest values. Too much of a great thing, constitutional republicanism, can ultimately cause a nation's downfall.
Allowing this mosque represents a vile insult against the American people. Surely we cherish the founding concepts of this nation and owe our predominance to these freedoms. But a nation exists independent of its laws; it's an amalgamation of cultural mores, traditions, social bonds, collective pride, national folklore, and, yes, an incorporeal spirit. A nation is founded upon laws, but a nation is defined by its people, a concept illustrated by the most basic thought experiments. (Walk from your local Bodega to Little Italy.) This mosque abides by our laws, but it enervates our nationhood. It's an ostentatious display implying that America must willfully acquiesce, even welcome, that which disturbs their solidarity and upsets them greatly. Only to the liberal reductionist, obstinately beholden to "diversity" and "tolerance", would the emotional spirit of a people and the death of a cohesive civilization matter so little.
Update: Here's Youtube atheist personality, Pat Condell, correctly diagnosing the issue. This isn't really an issue of rights; it's about nationhood and the collective spirit of our country:
America is a soft country — a decadent country crippled by political correctness; confused and guilt ridden, with no backbone and no pride.
54 comments:
So, do you propose amending the Constitution? Or is it just that you think the government should be able to disobey the laws and do whatever it wants, to whomever it wants, whenever the citizenry is emo enough?
Do you really believe that allowing this much power to the state is a conservative opinion?
Dave
It's probably legal to build an Osama Bin Laden Death To America Center in the shape of a f*** finger on that site if all the paperwork is executed correctly. That's not the issue, and Obama knows it. If he had personally asked them to relocate it, and had invited them to the White House to discuss it, they would have had to back down.
I have a suspicion that its Middle Eastern financial backers are only interested in funding it if it can be on that site. If it can only be built in an innocuous location with no triumphalist overtones, the money won't be forthcoming.
The "proposition nation" fails due to its inherent globalism
This is one of the best, most powerful in its simplicity, and succinctly persuasive points one can make on the broad subject of immigration and multiculti. I'm gonna keep that one handy.
In pickup and seduction, a "shit test" is any interaction that covertly and indirectly gauges the strength of a counter party.
Building a mosque at ground zero is a shit test.
The Constitution of the United States does not forbid any legislature other than Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Whether or not creating a building constitutes the exercise of religion is a matter of opinion.
I'm sure the Constitution of New York has a similar clause. They and all states should be amend their constitutions to exclude all ideologies, religious or not, who have among their central tenets the commandment to "fight back" against those who do not believe in their god until they pay religious ransom*, from protection as religions. Protection could be restored if evidence were presented that that commandment has fallen into disuse, i.e. that it had not caused religionists to commit acts of violence, beggary, etc.
*[9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
This is what happens when you become President - you have to take sides on a loaded issue where either choice alienates a lot of people. I am sure Obama liked things better when he could just make cool, "progressive" lollipops and rainbow speeches to motivate the youth, but now he's actually got to take some fire.
Can't talk your way out of this one, Obama.
I am looking for his approval rating among whites to drop even more in the upcoming weeks.
Willmoore Kendall- a major conservative intellectual back in the '50's and '60's(when conservative intellectuals still existed)on the American tradition as actually lived by flesh-and-blood human beings:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/?p=3854
One begins to suspect that the true American tradition is less that of our Fourth of July orations and our constitutional law textbooks, with their cluck-clucking over the so-called preferred freedoms, than, quite simply, that of riding somebody out of town on a rail.
— Willmoore Kendall, Conservative Affirmation
You can still see *that* American tradition in action on college campuses whenever the Minutemen(before they conveniently imploded), Jared Taylor, Ann Coulter or Tom Tancredo show up.
whenever the citizenry is emo enough?
"Emo"?!? - There you go again belittling the emotions connected to this situation. So sorrow concerning that singularly horrible event is equivalent to some goth teenager sad because he has no friends?! In fact, that statement is sickening.
But that wasn't my most important objection. I even admitted that legally it does set an amorphous precedent. The more important, and tenable, point is below:
Or is it just that you think the government should be able to disobey the laws and do whatever it wants. Do you really believe that allowing this much power to the state is a conservative opinion?
It's conservative because the alternative means the undermining of our nationhood. In those instances, in such obvious displays of foreign intrusion, yes the government can subvert the laws. That's why I support the Swiss minaret ban as well:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/12/swiss-minarets-and-liberal-atheists.html
In those instances, in such obvious displays of foreign intrusion, yes the government can subvert the laws. - OneSTDV
I agree, except I don't think "subvert" is the right word. I would use "amend".
But a nation exists independent of its laws; it's an amalgamation of cultural mores, traditions, social bonds, collective pride, national folklore, and, yes, an incorporeal spirit. A nation is founded upon laws, but a nation is defined by its people, a concept illustrated by the most basic thought experiments.
The United States is unique in that it is not a nation based on blood but on ideology and principles. Freedom of religion being one of the most important. I don't want the government in the business of determining what religions are socially acceptable and which aren't.
It's hard for me to see why the government would have a compelling interest in stopping this particular Mosque. Unless for those who ban Islam entirely, the posturing on this issue is primarily based on emotion.
Well if the US is a nation built on ideology and principles every citizen must buy into those ideologies and principles.
Read the Federalist Papers: the founding fathers assumed most citizens would be Christian and that most citizens would cherish liberty and other "rights of Englishmen".
If each citizen thinks alike, and fears the same God, and follows the same commandments, then a weak Constitution works. If not, then you need a different form of government.
As many of those assumptions are no longer valid today it is perfectly acceptable government authorities to say NO to a ground zero mosque.
To me, you're foreign.
I guess you shouldn't have rights either because, to me, you're foreign.
You're an ideological crackpot, not-mainstream at all. That makes you foreign.
I was at the Trade Center the day it fell. I volunteered to help. American Muslims volunteered with me. When the Trade Centers fell many American Muslims were inside the buildings and died as a result. When I was in the army I served with American Muslims. American Muslims Fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proud they will have their chance to build near ground zero. It is not offensive, immoral or wrong to be Muslim, and just because one is Muslim does not mean they should be judged by the actions of other Muslims half a world away with different ideals and values. That is not how it is supposed to work in America.
Sunflowerpipes.com
There would be no Constitutional Right to construct a KKK Memorial opposite the motel where Dr. King was shot. There would be no Constitutional Right to construct a memorial to the Confederacy in Southside Chicago near Farrakhan's lair. There is no Constitutional Right to construct a memorial dedicated to the slain Border Patrol Agents in East LA.
There is no "Constitutional Right" because the Constitution is merely whatever Liberals/Leftists say it is. Voters turn out under the California Constitution to define Marriage as one man and one woman? Its overturned by Judicial Fiat.
American Muslims? You mean like Major Hassan, murdered 13 people in Jihad, or Faisal Shahzad, Times Square Bomber?
Muslims CANNOT be Americans, by definition. Polygamy, Jihad, Sharia, Burquas, FGM, are all un-American and embedded in Islam. You can't take it out and remain Muslim. Therefore, no Muslims should be allowed to remain in the US, and eventually that will be the case.
The issue is not religious freedom. It is weakness and strength. Allowing the Ground Zero Victory Mosque will encourage American Muslims to commit more Jihad at home, and more attacks on America from Muslims world-wide. A little strength now (forbidding the project, jailing its backers for promotion of terrorism, staging raids very visibly on Mosques and perp-walking Muslims on TV) would have prevented what will come, eventually, after we lose major cities.
It is not offensive, immoral or wrong to be Muslim, and just because one is Muslim does not mean they should be judged by the actions of other Muslims half a world away with different ideals and values.
Just because one is Muslim does mean they should be assessed as potential neighbors based partly on their professed belief systems. Sura 9.29 again. Let's say Islam is completely inoffensive, completely moral, and completely right - that does not automatically make Muslims and infidels compatible in the long term.
In fact, nothing can make Muslims and infidels compatible. When a Muslim ceases his war to make the infidels submit and pay taxes, he ceases being a Muslim. That is their law.
If this "Muslim community center" is such a peaceful endeavor then how come the original name for the project was the "Cordoba center", referring to the Islamic colonization of Western, Christian Spain? Hmmm. What's also ironic is that its the more "tolerant" liberal types are the ones defending this blatantly provocative mosque. If the muslims had their way, these "tolerant" types would be the first ones run out of town. Anyone who doesn't see straight through this whole project is a willingly blind. How much more obvious could they be??
The United States is unique in that it is not a nation based on blood but on ideology and principles. Freedom of religion being one of the most important. I don't want the government in the business of determining what religions are socially acceptable and which aren't.
I'd like a sturdy official handbook that shows me what "ideology and principles" the govt and MSM think we're all supposed to follow. Please delete all the disingenuous references to the Constitution. WE all know the Constitution is effectively meaningless because it is "flexible" and therefore subject to the fads which periodically sweep the Federal Judiciary. ON the legislative side, Speaker Pelosi expressed shock when asked about the Constitution and said that no one reads the bills and no one knows what to expect with the major bills until after the bureaucrats implement them.
I like what some commenter said that exposed a lot of the nastier propagandists for the lying POS's
they are:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/pamela-geller-on-ground-zero-mosque-bus-ads-on-fox-and-friends.html#comment-696507
It is perhaps a small point in all this, but I am rather tired of references to the proposed triumphal mosque being built "near Ground Zero" or "a few blocks from Ground Zero".
The fact is, Iman Rauf was able to pick up the Burlington Coat Factory building on the cheap—or, as his wife Daisy Khan put it, the "building came to them"—because *the landing gear of one of the hijacked planes came crashing through the roof*.
The building was rendered condemned because it was so heavily damaged by the 9/11 hijackers. The only reason this is not directly part of the terrible graveyard of Ground Zero is that the attack occurred so early in the day—the Burlington Coat Factory store was not open for business yet, and the staff there were in the basement, gathering merchandise to bring up to the floor.
If the main store had been full of shoppers and employees—as it would have been just a few hours later—the terrible toll of 9/11 would likely have been even higher than it was. This building is not *"near" Ground Zero*—it is *part of Ground Zero*.
THe State should really use eminent domain to acquire the existing building as a war memorial.
The United States is unique in that it is not a nation based on blood but on ideology and principles.
You can only maintain American ideology so long as you don't import immigrants who, either because of biology and/or culture*, are similar enough that they and their descendants can adapt to those American principles.
Allow me to illustrate,
Freedom of religion being one of the most important. I don't want the government in the business of determining what religions are socially acceptable and which aren't.
You can't maintain religious freedom with large scale Muslim immigration because Islam commands its followers to politically and militarily subjugate different religions.
If we imported 500 million Muslims in year and give them voting rights, how do you intend to maintain religious freedom when those 500 Muslim Americans outvote the non-Muslim population and institute an Islam theocracy???
* Remember, though HBDers focus considerable attention on hardwired genetic abilities, that culture is hard to change too.
For instance, Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats are genetically almost identical and yet they had no problem mass murdering one another during WWII and the 1990s.
Remember, though HBDers focus considerable attention on hardwired genetic abilities, that culture is hard to change too.
Well-put, and too rarely emphasized.
"THe State should really use eminent domain to acquire the existing building as a war memorial."
I agree. The City of New York; the State of New York; or even the Federal Government could easily just acquire the property through eminent domain.
And as Whisky alludes to, that's exactly what would happen if somebody tried to build a museum of white pride across the street from where Martin Luther King Jr. was shot.
________
And by the way, I don't see what difference it makes that Muslims died in the 9/11 attacks.
By analogy, imagine if somebody tried to build a Museum of German Cultural History across the street from Aushwitz. It would be wrong to do so even though surely plenty of Germans died working against Hitler.
And also by the way, I agree with Bamagirl -- anyone who doesn't see this Cordoba project as an aggressive, provocative, spiteful act is a self-deluded idiot.
If you want to support the Mosque on the grounds that people have a right to be deliberately offensive in America, I would disagree with you but I will still respect your point of view.
But if you support the Mosque on the grounds that good intent underlies it, then I have nothing but contempt for your point of view.
with no backbone and no pride.
It's worse than that. People in this country are ashamed and embarrassed.
The United States is unique in that it is not a nation based on blood but on ideology and principles.
Oh, bullshit. If it's based on ideology then it's not a nation. Ideologies, by definition, know no boundaries. Nations, by definition, do.
I don't want the government in the business of determining what religions are socially acceptable and which aren't.
I want the American people to be in that business, and I want their government to do their bidding.
By analogy, imagine if somebody tried to build a Museum of German Cultural History across the street from Aushwitz.
Or a convent ...
Women may think that they are the winners when you feminize a country, but ultimately, they are the losers.
Let's look at the ways.
When a country becomes feminized and weak, the strong come and take your lunch away. They conquer you. They kill the existing males and use the young females. They have little use for older females, so only the young females have the option of spreading their legs to appease the conquerors ...
Any mature woman who has sons has little to look forward to in such circumstances and the treatment of their daughters will not please them either.
Life's a bitch.
At some point you have to value your tribe more than your sense of fair play. I say screw them and screw Obongo.
The left has made Democrat an aspirational brand.
People like to think of themselves as tolerant and progressive (in the non-political sense), and the message coming from Democrats is that if you are a cool, upwardly mobile, worldly, healthy, concious... I could go on... basically a SWPL type of person, you belong with the Democrats.
Obama deliberately throws his support behind something like this to inflame the right. He knows in doing so he will get an old white guy in front of a microphone saying things that the left-controlled media has told people are uncool or socially backward. Of course, the ones that get shown on TV will mostly be Republican politicans and "people of wal-mart" look alikes.
The idea being, of course, to make Republicans look uncool and indirectly promote their own brand. People don't want to associate themselves with blathering old rednecks.
This is a no-brainer for him because under the constitution the muslims have every right to build the mosque wherever they want. An honest conservative would have to concede this. However, I'm sure that local authorities have found ways to administratively discourage, say, Protestant Churches or other institutions they deemed out of sync with their progressive values. Personally I think we should considering telling them to build it but only on condition that they also purchase a neighboring lot and erect section 8 housing next door to the "cultural center". More diversity and inclusion is always good right?
Evidence of why atheism means the destruction of a nation:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/08/14/responses-to-the-ground-zero-mosque/#comments
This is pretty simple: America's continued existence is a higher value than religious freedom. They have the right to build it, but America has the right to protect itself from the intrusion of foreign entities. And there's nothing more foreign than Islam, a political philosophy that doesn't pass even the principles test of being an American, let alone have any historical tradition in our land.
The founding peoples have been quite generous in opening this land to foreign peoples, but there's got to be a limit.
Further, allowing this obvious display of defeat is an advertisement that America no longer has any national pride.
"I even admitted that legally it does set an amorphous precedent."
You admitted it. So, now explain how you expect a country to function with shapeless laws that the government can change whenever the populace is whipped up into a frenzy.
You're proposing that America reject the principles that it was founded upon and embrace fascism.
Anyone who thinks that something is accomplished by banning muslims from building their Cordoba house in that particular location is delusional. The fact is there are enough muslims in the US with enough access to money and enough willingness to make their mark. The problem is that the Cordoba house is possible in the first place. You can tell those muslims that they have to put their center five blocks to the north or five blocks to the south, but they are still there and they still have the same intentions.
As it stands, we have exactly one place where separation of church and state is an issue and that place is in immigration. A person's religious affiliation is not a valid reason to deny them immigration. What is worse is that the fact that a person lives in an oppressive country or a country where they cannot practice their religion only gives them greater right to enter the US. For example, if a Muslim of a minority sect in Saudi Arabia claims that they are barred from practicing their religion, this can be considered a reason to grant the person a visa to enter the US.
The only thing we can do to protect the US internally from muslims is to end the family reunification act and to create beurocratic barriers to Muslims so that they cannot immigrate to the US.
“But is a nation defined solely by its laws and legal principles or do the people occasionally supersede these guidelines? Do widespread cultural and social desires allow us to occasionally circumvent these principles? And what circumstances warrant subverting our laws?”
This sounds like the sort of thing said by those who propose hate speech laws.
The Constitution does not exist. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Pete Stark have all said, repeatedly, there is NO LIMIT to the laws Congress can pass in the Constitution. Elena Kagan answered basically, yes, the Congress can regulate personal behavior including jail time for not eating vegetables or exercising or other stuff. Whites (and Asians) can legally be discriminated against, in order to help Blacks or Hispanics. There is no equal protection under the law, because the Constitution is whatever the Supremes and Congress say it is, on that day. It could change tomorrow, mind you.
So the Constitution is already dead. It died years ago. It is meaningless. Like the Holy Roman Empire, a relic of a bygone era.
Now that we've got that BS out of the way, the only question is, defeat or fight back?
Defeat is rolling over and ALLOWING the Ground Zero Victory Mosque to be built. Fight back means don't build it, raid Mosques, perp-walk Muslims out in front of TV cameras, charge them with stuff, come down HARD.
Why? Because fear breeds respect and deters attack, and weakness breeds contempt and invites attack.
"Muslims CANNOT be Americans, by definition. Polygamy, Jihad, Sharia, Burquas, FGM, are all un-American and embedded in Islam."
So, Whiskey, I guess only you can define what being an American is. Sounds like McCarthyism is still alive and well...
A whiskey for Whiskey! Now boys, that's Alpha! Kudos to a man with balls.
@Whiskey
"Muslims CANNOT be Americans, by definition. Polygamy, Jihad, Sharia, Burquas, FGM, are all un-American and embedded in Islam."
If that is the case then by observation most Muslims arent embedded in Islam. FGM is African. Polygamy is no worse than parenting with multiple women-Mormons do it. Jihad is very neo-con. Burqas are south Asian, ditto the Arabian peninsula versions. Sharia deals with how to wash your bum. With the exception of warring against America, Muslims can live like the Amish. So long as people dont break laws, no use getting the trotts over people doing weird shit.
@george
"I have a suspicion that its Middle Eastern financial backers are only interested in funding it if it can be on that site. If it can only be built in an innocuous location with no triumphalist overtones, the money won't be forthcoming."
They have been pretty forthcoming with money for mosques in other places.
Ok, so they have a right to build the mosque. They claim it is all about "outreach", to help people get over Islamaphobia.
So...do what Greg Gutfeld suggests: build a gay bar with a special outreach to gay Muslims next door to the mosque. It will help the Mulsims get over their homophobia. He suggest you could have 72 varieties of non-alcoholic "virgin" drinks available, and call the place "Heaven and Halal".
Then on the other side of the building, I suggest you set up a petting zoo with lots of piglets and puppies. You can walk the little cuties on the sidewalk in front of the mosque, and let the kids pet them while they are on their way in to pray. It will help them get over their weird phobias about pigs and dogs. You're doing them a favour, right?
It wouldn't hurt to put up a giant picture of the Mohammed (piss be upon him) cartoon across the street. This would teach the Muslims about important things such as freedom of expression. It is all to help them,of course...it is outreach to help them understand the non-Muslim culture, just as the mosque is supposed to make everyone else understand Muslim culture.
OneSTDV,
It must be tough to come up with a new idea for a post everyday.
Here are some ideas of mine you can borrow:
1) You can do a follow up post analyzing the alpha-yearning of Rihanna in the song: Love the Way you Lie. I can tell you from personal experience that some lower class/unintelligent people have relationships like this.
2) You can talk about the replacement of dating with a hook-up culture. It is especially evident at the hilarious website TextsFromLastNight.
3) You can talk about how skepticism on the HBD right has possibly gone too far. This is evident from Mangan's HIV skepticism which I destroy in the comments section of his recent post.
4) You can also talk about futurism. What does it says about the usefulness of HBD politically? What are the long-term implications of HBD considering the impending genomics revolution?
@Melykin
Gay bars are now apart of American culture? An even better idea would be to put a Gay wedding Chapal next to the mosque. That would really get them upset.
There is a party called Habibi in NYC that already caters to gay Arabs men at least. Youre probably dying to go.
Habibi @Speed
20 W. 39th St., between Fifth and Sixth Aves.; 212-719-4479
Looking to find your Arabian prince? You’ll have plenty to choose from at Habibi, an Arabic dance party filled with belly dancing and dark, handsome men. The party's outgrown its former digs at Downtime and has increased its regularity—from quarterly to monthly—along with its size. (Although, given Speed's recent police raid, the party may need to find a new location.) The dancing is intense, gets going early, and doesn't let up until at least 3 a.m.
• Saturday, April 29, at 10 p.m.
• $15
"the founding fathers assumed most citizens would be Christian"
Self-serving lies from the theocrat right (probably some member of the "Constitutionalist" Party, which has no respect for the First Amendment). Quite a few of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, but Deists. Today they would be secular humanists and/or atheists.
"If each citizen thinks alike, and fears the same God, and follows the same commandments, then a weak Constitution works."
More proof that AlphaOmega is a theocrat (as if the name isn't proof); he thinks different Constitutional treatment is required for anyone who renounces Christianity (what about the putative "followers" just going through the motions?). He's so thoroughly un-American, he'd make the author of this quote a second-class citizen if he'd still be a citizen at all:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
Of course, without Jefferson, we would have a very different USA if we had one at all.
"As many of those assumptions are no longer valid today it is perfectly acceptable government authorities to say NO to a ground zero mosque."
Correct conclusion, but not because of his argument (which is utterly whacked).
"Evidence of why atheism means the destruction of a nation"
An atheist nation wouldn't have any more use for Muslims than fundie Christians. Gellar just plays to her constituency, which includes supporting the whackjob from Wasila as a mutual-backscratching exercise (I'm sure Gellar is smart enough to realize a Palin candidacy means failure on the scale of Bob Dole in 1996).
"FGM is African."
Which is why it's practiced by Iraqi Kurds and even Indonesians? How stupid is that? Oh, right: you don't want to be identified with such an idiotic remark, so you won't even use a pseudo.
Cynical
You're proposing that America reject the principles that it was founded upon and embrace fascism. - Dave
A graceful admission of defeat by the left.
Anyone who thinks that something is accomplished by banning muslims from building their Cordoba house in that particular location is delusional. - FeministX
All symbolism is a form of delusion, no?
This sounds like the sort of thing said by those who propose hate speech laws. - Harold
That's the trouble with critiquing double standards. If you criticize both halves of the double standard, pointing out that either one would be acceptable, then you can easily be made to sound like you want the reverse double standard.
If there were no "open arms for refugees" policy, no affirmative action (violating the 14th Amendment), no social welfare or health care policy (violating the 10th), and no Federal hate speech laws (violating the 1st), then rightists like myself wouldn't feel the need to argue for a narrower interpretation of the free exercise clause.
I for one am all in favor of the single standard that would be created by a strong textualist reading of the constitution. Throw out all Federal AA, health care policy, hate crimes, and all the other lefty Robin Hood crap designed to enslave the taxpaying class, and I'll oppose any Federal effort to stop the mosque. I'll even donate money to it and the gay-owned pork processing plant across the street - all on the grounds that, as Sabril put it so well, people have the right to be deliberately offensive in America.
Is that single-standard enough for you people?
cynical
"Which is why it's practiced by Iraqi Kurds and even Indonesians? How stupid is that? Oh, right: you don't want to be identified with such an idiotic remark, so you won't even use a pseudo."
And Copts and Ethiopians, and Sudanese Animist and a whole host of other Africans. The reason why ceremonial prin pricking happen in Indonesia is because they follow the Shafi school of thought which predominates in Muslim Africa. An African custom has spread to Indonesia via an African Islam. Iraqi Kurds are an outlier.
BLode
I for one am all in favor of the single standard that would be created by a strong textualist reading of the constitution. Throw out all Federal AA, health care policy, hate crimes, and all the other lefty Robin Hood crap designed to enslave the taxpaying class, and I'll oppose any Federal effort to stop the mosque.
How lame. You'll honor your principles, but only in Happy Princess Rainbow Town, once all of your dreams have been met.
In order to have principles, you have to live them. You have to set an example.
No, Polygamy is absolutely, 100% contradictory to being American. Its embedded in Islam, as it was in Mormonism. Brigham Young was told forthright, as the Utah Territory was shrunk ever further, that Polygamy would have to go or Utah would NEVER make it into the Union, rather be swallowed up by other States and Mormons persecuted, good and hard.
He took the hint.
Polygamy allows one Big Man to construct a harem, it is un-American as human sacrifice, child rape, and every other loathsome thing. So too, FGM, Jihad, Sharia (domination by Muslims over non-Muslims) are un-American. So too are killing your neighbor, and taking his daughters as sex slaves (which is what Sharia and Jihad boil down to). Or cannibalism, and other disgusting things.
It does not take brains to say there are some, obvious limits. A cannibal pagan worshipping MBala, God of the Volcanoes, who wishes to ritually sacrifice a neighbor, cannot be an American. He just can't. Not ever.
Anon -- Sharia puts Allah's law above the law made by men, and makes us infidels fourth class citizens. So no, Sharia is unconstitutional. Funny, Polygamy is and has been (see Utah) a fighting cause. Muslims cannot live like the Amish -- the Amish don't fly planes into buildings, wish to "dominate" us, and construct their own discriminatory legal system replacing ours. I don't relish supporting Kabir and his four wives all on welfare.
Whiskey, for once I agree with you completely.
"Then on the other side of the building, I suggest you set up a petting zoo with lots of piglets and puppies"
In theory this seems like a cool idea, but the problem is that the Muslims and their Leftist friends will play every trick in the book, including dirty ones, to keep the petting zoo, gay bar, etc. from getting built, possibly even including murder.
Mosques are the problem? The real threat to freedom is the Christian Taliban who hijacked Protestantism in order to push their Old Testament Shariah on this nation.
Whiskey, for once I agree with you completely. - Bama Resident
Me too. Strange bedfellows and all that.
"Then on the other side of the building, I suggest you set up a petting zoo with lots of piglets and puppies"
In theory this seems like a cool idea, but the problem is that the Muslims and their Leftist friends will play every trick in the book, including dirty ones, to keep the petting zoo, gay bar, etc. from getting built, possibly even including murder. - sabril
Also true. Leftist value have little in common with Muslim values, but leftist lying is nearly a carbon copy of Muslim lying.
"Leftist value have little in common with Muslim values,"
This would seem to be true on the surface. After all, Leftists supposedly support womens' rights; and gay rights; and freedom of expression; and tolerance; and abortion rights; and sexual freedom; At the same time, Muslims oppose all of these things.
And yet, it seems these groups are closely allied. For example in the recent Gaza flotilla incident.
I would propose that the true core values of modern Leftism are envy and hatred for the West. Which is why Leftists and Muslims are actually natural allies.
JMHO
"but the problem is that the Muslims and their Leftist friends will play every trick in the book, including dirty ones, to keep the petting zoo, gay bar, etc. from getting built, possibly even including murder."
As if they need any special leftist trick. They can rely on plain old rightist platitudes. A petting zoo? Seriously? In the middle of the financial district? A muslim community center is already bizarre, but at least there are other major religious centers in the area. A pork plant? K 'cept it's manhattan, not oklahoma. And even the gay bar would go out of business in a month since there is no gay scene or trendy bar scene anywhere in that district.
"
And yet, it seems these groups are closely allied. For example in the recent Gaza flotilla incident."
Mmm hmm. You know the one thing that would annoy Muslims that actually could be successful in the middle of the financial district would be a giant Zionist activism center. Some leftists wouldn't like it, but that they couldn't and wouldn't keep down.
The real threat to freedom is the Christian Taliban who hijacked Protestantism in order to push their Old Testament Shariah on this nation.
LOL! I love guys like you. Go on, say some more stuff!
"I would propose that the true core values of modern Leftism are envy and hatred for the West. Which is why Leftists and Muslims are actually natural allies."
Indeed, I've reached the same conclusions. For example, modern liberals gladly throw feminists/gays/environmentalists under the bus in the name of "diversity."
The thing everyone is missing is that even trying to have the Mosque built near ground zero is a hate crime:
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--
(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been--
(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;
(C) applying for or enjoying [public] employment ...
(E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air;
(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel ...
... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both....
The hate crimes law is pretty broad - too broad, obviously. The only real defense the Mosque planners would have is if they could prove Manhattan was a location of last resort. Otherwise they have to admit that they picked that place because it is centrally located - i.e. because there are so many people around wanting attend colleges, travel, enjoy hotels, etc.
They could also try to make the case that their religion isn't designed to intimidate people, i.e., force them to submit. Given the English translation of "Islam", this isn't very plausible.
Post a Comment