August 11, 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque: Prevent It, Because the Want It
[The following essay is a guest post from CY commenter Mike McDaniel]
"The capitalists will sell us the rope which we will use to hang them!" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was fond of saying. While there was a kernel of truth in his observation, not only did Lenin and his successors fail to understand their enemy, ultimately the Soviets couldn't afford to build the gallows. Cultural misunderstanding and self delusion have been the downfall of more than one nation.
And so we find ourselves contemplating the construction of a mosque overshadowing Ground Zero. Many Muslims and a great many leftists are speaking with one voice and using the same propaganda techniques. Foremost among them is a sort of constitutional Ju-Jitsu whereby the freedoms and tolerance inherent in the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethic are used against America.
"Tolerance demands that we allow Muslims to build a Mosque wherever they want but particularly here! Freedom of religion! Freedom of speech! Freedom of assembly and association! Tolerance! Muslims around the world will see that we like them and they in turn will like us! Muslims have legitimate grievances and building the mosque will address them! They want to build it there to establish a dialogue! It's a community center where we can all come together and build, you know, like, a bridge or a community or something!" They cry, boldly thrusting their receding chins fractions of an inch forward.
There is one reason to prevent the construction of this mosque that is compelling and self evident. It is the only reason we need: We should prevent it because they want it.
Among the primary concerns of any faith congregation building a house of worship is the cost of land. Location is an associated concern, of course, but we are to believe that the particular Muslim congregation (does such a congregation exist?) behind this mosque thinks it, first and foremost, a good idea to build on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet? Are NYC area Muslims forced to worship exposed to the cruel elements? Are there no other mosques in NYC? Are there no other landowners who would be delighted to sell land elsewhere in the area for millions, perhaps tens of millions less?
While we justly revere the First Amendment, Muslims cannot, not if they are strictly observant Muslims. The Constitution establishes no right to build a church wherever one wishes, nor does a church have any overarching moral claim (absent compelling historical issues) to a particular plot of land. Zoning laws can and do prevail. The democratic, secular law takes precedence.
Islam, which means "submission," makes no distinction between church and state. In fact, under Sharia, the church is the super state. Let us keep in mind that Islam is not, in fact, a religion of peace, but a violent, expansionist creed whose holy text spells out in substantial detail exactly how to conquer and treat the conquered who have the choice of converting to Islam, accepting slavery (dhimmitude), or death. In fact, when various islamist lunatics issue mandates, they commonly demand that the infidels (all non-Muslims) they wish to attack (that's us, folks) convert to Islam. Americans tend to think they're just engaging in silly rhetoric, but they are scrupulously following their scripture, which requires them to make that very offer. If the offer is rejected they may slaughter the infidels with Allah's blessing.
While it is undeniably true that most Muslims do practice cultural and religious tolerance and have no intention of undertaking Jihad against infidels, this speaks only to their individual humanity and/or lack of bloodlust. It certainly does not reflect the undeniable, historic dictates of their faith and the tens of millions of Muslims who have taken or will take the path of Jihad. In short, Islam, at its core, is not compatible with democracy, freedom of religion, or tolerance. It does require that all faithful Muslims labor to take over the world for Islam and to establish Sharia everywhere. And where Sharia rules, democracy and western civilization are, of necessity, obliterated. The self deluded may imagine that Sharia and individual freedom can peacefully coexist in mutually tolerant bliss, but Islamists have no such misapprehensions.
Ah, tolerance! Tolerance is a luxury that is affordable only in advanced, democratic civilizations that share the same political and cultural assumptions. We can be sure that the Methodist congregation building a new church down the street will not be plotting to kill Catholics, or anyone else for that matter. We can tolerate them because we know that they will play by the rules, and will, in return, tolerate us. Should one member of that church decide to reject all religion or to become a Lutheran, no religious hit will be issued by the Methodists because freedom of religion, in conscience and practice, is fundamental to America. And should a Baptist minister suspect that a member of his congregation is homosexual or having an affair, he will not order their torture, mutilation or death because he has no such power or inclination. All know that should they decide to visit another church, they will be welcomed.
Sadly, none of this is true with Islam, and this is where so many well intentioned Christians and Americans make a fundamental mistake: They assume that Muslims, that people raised in other nations and cultures, are just like us. They believe that our reasoning, our traditions, our arguments will be convincing to peoples who may as well be from another planet in their ability and inclination to accept American values and culture. They know, intellectually, that many Muslims murder their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters for real or imagined offenses against family honor. They know that many Muslim men consider it their religious, manly duty to beat women. They know that in many Muslim nations, livestock are treated better than women. They know that under Sharia, there is no such thing as due process, and punishments are medieval. They know that homosexuals are routinely slaughtered. They may even be willing to admit that Islam is murderously hostile to virtually every social and political cause they hold dear. They may even admit that tens of millions of Muslims are actively training and plotting to kill all infidels, and particularly Israelis and Americans. They know that the idea of a Muslim "community center" in a mosque is an oxymoron because no infidel is allowed to set foot in a mosque, where Muslim men and women are strictly segregated. Yet in the same breath, they earnestly say "but," and continue to believe that this time, this gesture, this appeasement, their individual force of personality, will prevail and magically turn Martians into Americans. If only the American president, The One, he of the Muslim middle name, which must never be spoken to or by infidels, only reaches out to the Muslim world from a Muslim capital, his rhetoric will transform Islam as it is attempting to transform America. As Sarah Palin might say, "how's that hope and change and outreach working out for you?"
Let us not forget too the power of symbolism for Muslims, specifically, the Bin Laden "strong horse" symbolism. For Americans, extending mercy and practicing tolerance are virtues, signs of strength, character and altruism. For traditional Muslims, mercy is extended only to other Muslims. Infidels who offer it during Jihad are weak horses. Historically, Muslims conquering other lands and faiths have razed the houses of worship of the conquered and erected mosques on their foundations. Could any symbolism be more obvious? Recall, if you will, how untold millions of Muslims around the world, most of whom will likely never undertake Jihad, danced in the streets with rapturous glee at the news of 9-11. Symbolism. Building a mosque on Ground Zero would be the ultimate expression of world wide jihadist triumphalism, akin to dancing on the grave of an enemy. That's not going to happen, so they're going for the next best thing. They believe that we will sell them the rope that they'll use to hang us, or in this case, the real estate.
Our Constitution does enshrine fundamental liberties such as the freedom to worship as conscience dictates, and that freedom is extended to any faith willing to reciprocate the liberty, the adherence to the rule of secular law and the tolerance that those freedoms promise and require. But the old axiom that the Constitution is not a suicide pact applies with unique strength here. Relatives of 9-11 victims opposing the mosque are not engaging in irrational expressions of emotion, but tapping into one of the fundamental truths of democracy: Allowing enemies to use our Constitution against us is itself un-American and undemocratic. This kind of cultural misunderstanding, this kind of conceit that places principle above reality can be deadly.
We should, we must, prevent the success of what is unmistakably vile propaganda in furtherance of a declared war against America and western civilization. Many leftists and their allies won't go so far as to admit that we are at war with Islamist forces determined to kill or enslave us all. They won't even speak the name of our enemy. The war proceeds apace nonetheless.
Denied a Ground Zero mosque, Muslims will not be in any way harmed. For a wide variety of reasons, plans to build churches are abandoned every day across the land. There are thousands of mosques wherein Muslims are free to worship, but not here, not on or near this hallowed ground, not now, not ever. This ultimate strong horse symbol, short of world Muslim domination, must be crushed, as Shakespeare put it in Julius Caesar, in the shell.
We should, we must, prevent it because they want it.
There is this basic American concept, enshrined in the constitution, of freedom of religion.
Obviously, it wasn't codified into law to protect the religions no one objects to. It was made into law to protect the religions people hate. That's the point!
Either your for freedom of people to practice their religion where and how they want, or you're living in the wrong country. You'd like Iran.
Oh, and it's a community center that contains a small mosque. Like how YMCAs contain small chaples.
Oh, and it's a community center that contains a small mosque. Like how YMCAs contain small chaples.
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2010 12:04 PM
And how many Jews and Christians will be allowed to set foot in this 'Community Center'? Will they be able to say a prayer in this 'small chapel'?
Let me ask you some things, Steve...
How do you feel about the name Cordoba House Mosque?
Do you understand the signifigance of that name?
Should people who's religious beliefs include slavery of women, murder of gays, and denial of religious freedom of other religions be allowed to freely practice that religion?
Steve, No one is advocating religious intolerance, except the Koranimals. This "community center" is a victory shrine, plain and simple. If they had wanted to put anywhere other than basically ACROSS THE STREET from the smoking hole in the ground where the twin towers used to be, no one would have said a word. Are you familiar with the terms "Dar Al Harb" and "Dar Al Islam"? Look them up sometime, along with the term "Dhimmi". Don't be surprised if a picture of Mayor Bloomberg is next to the definition.
Posted by: Jeremy at August 11, 2010 12:25 PMThis "community center" is a victory shrine, plain and simple.
This is a lie.
Another classic right wing lunatic--trashing the Constitution while wrapping himself in the flag, and violating the 9th Commandment while claiming to defend Christendom.
Posted by: mondo dentro at August 11, 2010 12:32 PMFirst off, it doesn't matter what someone told you the purpose of the mosque is, or that it's a mosque vs a community center. Or even that it's not really that close to the site where the World Trade Center stood. The one fact here is that the constitution makes freedom of religion, IN PARTICULR UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS, a pillar of this country.
America, love it or leave it! Learn the rules. They work to everyone's benefit, eventually.
P.S. Nobody demanded a halt on constructing Christian churches in Oklahoma Ciry post McVeigh.
mondo dento,
You wish to call this a lie. What are you basing this contention on?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2010 12:38 PMThat's a good one, CY. You just make stuff up and you're asking me that question?! What are you basing your contention on?
By the way, it disgusts me that you take as your moniker a reference to the greatest single act of treason ever committed against our Republic.
Put you money where your mouth is and take up arms. Stop being a coward who just incites other to do so. I look forward to the second defeat of the Confederacy.
Posted by: mondo dentro at August 11, 2010 01:02 PMSteve,
I hear you. You support freedom of religion (now that it is convenient).
But what are your thoughts on the separation of church and state? The last I heard tell, most secular lefties were utterly opposed to the mixture of state power and religion. Islam, to it's very core, is an aberration to that separation, being entirely formed as a politicized religion.
It would seem that if there was any logical consistency about the left-wing insistence about the absolute separation of religion and state power, that Islam, as the most purely inter-meshed hybrid of both, must be banned... and therefore, all mosques.
You're on both sides of the issue. Please pick one.
Or is the truth far more simple, and that you hate Republicans more than the misnamed Religion of peace that delights in using you as useful idiots?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2010 01:08 PMIslam, to it's very core, is an aberration to that separation, being entirely formed as a politicized religion.
No kidding. That's why lefties (and not just the secular ones) say "a pox on both your houses" when it comes to fundamentalists. But my political view on that topic has nothing to do with the Constitution's enshrinement of freedom of religion.
Let me ask you this, CY, since you seem to think you have the standing to challenge others' consistency: if a Moslem blows up a government building, that's terrorism, but when a Christian blows up a government building, why is that just some sort of "aberration" carried out by a "deranged individual"?
Posted by: mondo dentro at August 11, 2010 01:18 PMmondo dento,
I ask for specific evidence for your contention that the author of this post lied. You have not provided any... none. We must therefore conclude that either you cannot find any evidence to support your contention, or that you know the truth and prefer to avoid it.
In other words, you are a blowhard.
As for the name of this blog, I'd reference the About page of this blog, which rather clearly explains that the name of this blog came not from a desire to re-fight the Civil War, but from my mocking of another dim-witted left-winger... rather much like yourself!
Of course, that undeniable and well-documented truism has never stood in the way of dullards creating their own reality-based community in which a blog originally named to slam a lefty and which also symbolized the convergence of two cultures through marriage has been misrepresented.
Rather like your belief that this essay MUST be a lie it is something you just "know"... damn the facts, or reality.
If a Muslim murders innocents and attempts to blow up a building (it doesn't have to be a government building, and typically isn't since they are usually well defended), shoots up women and children, blows up a bus, crash airliners, etc, they do so to strike a blow for their religion, following mandates specifically recognized in their religion, for a favored place in the afterlife promised by their primary prophet and faith for destroying unbelievers and heretics.
If someone calling themselves a Christian committed an identical act, he does not do so with the blessing of his religion's primary prophet... instead he acts 100% counter to his faith, the teachings of his prophet, and instead of striking a blow that will send him to heaven, more than likely has committed his soul to Hell.
And I'm still waiting for you to defend your claim the the author lied, and beginning to think your a rather predictable drone without much to contribute to the conversation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2010 01:34 PMFirst off, it doesn't matter what someone told you the purpose of the mosque is, or that it's a mosque vs a community center.
So, first it is a community center, now it doesn't matter what it is. How convenient that you get to change your argument mid-stream
Or even that it's not really that close to the site where the World Trade Center stood.
Close enought that a piece of one of the plane landed on it.
The one fact here is that the constitution makes freedom of religion, IN PARTICULR UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS, a pillar of this country.
Unless that religion is Christian. Then it is all about 'separation of church and state'. Sorry, but the Constitution says nothing about allowing unpopular religions anywhere. All it says is that we have the freedom to worship as we please without government interfering. Of course, if a particular religion worships by killing people that don't beleive as they do, that's a bit different, isn't it?
America, love it or leave it!
Right back at you, skippy!
Learn the rules.
Already know them. You, on the other hand, could use a refresher.
They work to everyone's benefit, eventually.
So long as we convert to Islam or live as 2nd class citizens, you'd be right. I happen to like my freedom.
P.S. Nobody demanded a halt on constructing Christian churches in Oklahoma Ciry post McVeigh.
First, McVeigh was not a Christian or following Christian doctrine. That cannot be said of the Muslims terrorists.
Second, Christian churchs are still not being rebuilt in the same area due to governmental interference. Why is a Mosque getting fast-tracked through?
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2010 12:38 PM
Posted by: StanInTexas at August 11, 2010 01:44 PM...on the other hand, though, I've heard another theory about the mosque.
It's a real estate scam.
It turns out that the guys who want to build it own only half of the lot, and have a lease (with option to buy) for the other half, and have been paying quite a lot of money every year for a while now. They don't seem to have the money to purchase the land, though, and seem to have come up with this scheme to fund a purchase/buyout of their failed investment. If they get enough money to buy it, but not enough to build, they win anyway...
"Being entirely formed as a politicized religion." Really? While a number of radicals have tried to politicize Islam in recent years, to state that it was "entirely formed" as a politicized religion is just plain, flat out incorrect. As someone once said, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Posted by: Abdullah the Butcher at August 11, 2010 02:02 PMIt is true that the Constitution protects religion. But what do we do when we are at conflict with a religion?
Perhaps the greatest diservice that Bush did was to frame the current war in terms of teror. This is like FDR saying he wants to fight Zero planes. Our war is with Islam. The majority of Muslims have not denounced the actions of 9/11 and it is framed into aspects of their religion and celebration. That is why Americans do not want a religious center near the area of Muslims killing of innocents.
Compare and contrast to the IRA. They carried out terror acts but were roundly denounced by Christians and especially the Catholic church.
Posted by: David at August 11, 2010 02:22 PMThat guest post hits the nail squarely on the head.
Those who doubt or deny the stated facts really need to educate themselves about islam (I refuse to capitalize it) before we're turned into a bunch of dhimmis in our own land.
The proposed mosque at Ground Zero is but a single step in the long process of imposing conversion or submission upon us.
As was stated, in the view of the muslims, there are ONLY 3 choices available to us: Convert, Submit (dhimmitude), or Die. It's that simple. It's what they're taught and it's what they believe.
I choose the 4th choice: None of the above.
Posted by: Charles at August 11, 2010 04:59 PMAnyone who would call Islam a religion is nuts or a Muslim. It is a socio-political legal control system. God or Allah is only used to convert or kill anyone whom they meet and as the bad guy to control Muslims. Islam controls a Muslim's life from birth through death and all laws of the federal or local levels come second to Sharia laws. They condone honor killings and female mutilation as well as total subjugation of women. They are taught that to advance the cause of Islam one is allowed to lie, cheat and in anyway be dishonorable. They allow no religion to occupy their space in property, deed or membership. This is truly a suicide pact that the West has signed onto by allowing this evil cancer to flourish. If we as a nation had any self respect we would forbid any Mosque in the 911 site and also require that any meeting or other events inside a Mosque must be recorded and video taped. To keep it fair do the same to all real religious houses of worship. Muslims and preachers like Jeramiah Wright would be exposed for what they truly are, haters.
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 11, 2010 05:10 PMhe one fact here is that the constitution makes freedom of religion, IN PARTICULR UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS, a pillar of this country.
The Constitution says nothing of the sort. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It does not say that a state body (Con Ed, in this case) has a positive obligation to lease property to any religion. And it says nothing about "in particular unpopular religions"
Posted by: flenser at August 11, 2010 05:56 PMFlenser,
Islam is unpopular just like Nazism was unpopular. Muslim's have been killing innocents for at least 50 years. To what end? That they don't like Israel. Guess what, I don't feel that Israel should have been formed in the manner that it was. In fact, most who would look at the history of the state would not be happy with what happened. But take it out on Israel. Or target politicians. But to attack innocent people in the name of a religion is to discredit that religion and make it a political body. Their is a big difference.
"P.S. Nobody demanded a halt on constructing Christian churches in Oklahoma Ciry post McVeigh.
Posted by Steve at August 11, 2010 12:38 PM "
Why would they do that? McVeigh was an atheist
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 11, 2010 08:46 PMhoe boy are the leftists stupid on this.
Islam was formed as a militant religion.
When a person today gets lost down a hole fore several days without food and water and comes out spouting gibberish, we consider them delirious.
A certain general did this once and a religion got based on this maniac's rantings. That is islam.
This general then got his followeres to conquer some lands and ruled (far less enlightened than the history re-writers would have us believe) until the areas people drove them back out.
When Osama Bin Hidin demands the return of the lands to sharia law, he means Spain, Portugal, Parts of France Russia, Georgia, India, Hungary, etc. Any place they ever won a battle they think they are owners of. Even if they got kicked out the next week.
I'm sure the leftists would also let Mongols demand their lands back conquered by Kahn.
Freedom of Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion. this is the problem most leftist fools have, especially the atheists among them. I too am an atheist, but 99% of the hissy fits tossed by these maroons are baseless, and that other 1% are just over reaction. Yet, all these same fools are now all for backing this. "To promote better understanding". Understand This.
CONVERT OR DIE. That is what Islam is telling you. They might decide not to kill you, but enslavement is just fine with this religion. There is a reason just about every modern case of slavery in the day and age is committed by followers of islam. Roots? The white man did not chase africans around to capture them for shipment. . . they bought them from Islamic Arabs.
OKCity?
Christianity does not celebrate the attacks. Islam does. A majority of them danced in the streets at the news of the attacks. McViegh was agnostic at best and a fool who was not supported by the holy book (any version of the bible) or given assistance and support from any church. You cannot say the same thing about Atta and the deadly fools with him. His Koran covers what he did and several mosques gave material support to him and his band.
Tell you leftist fools what. . . las change it from a mosque/community center to a Church.
A big cathedral with a center to promote the pastor's teachings. . . you all for it?
You still support this idea?
Lets make it the phool Phred Phelps' Baptist congregation who wants a big church on this site so they can make the claim it was because god hate gays. And they will teach gay hating in their little center attached.
You'd be all for it then too, right?
Maybe then you'd know how any right thinking person feels on this matter.
And being as muslims do not tolerate gays, there is not much difference in the teaching of them and Phecking Phelps.
Posted by: JP at August 12, 2010 02:59 AMCan someone especially Steve and Mondo show me the exact wording in our constitution where it says these folks who in my opinion are devoid of simple common sense have the right to build a mosque at ground zero?
Are you folks that devoid of common sense to realize that the place needs to be moved a distance away. Are you so far out of your own USA citizens way of thinking that you simply cannot think llogically how it is a bad idea for this mosque to be put where it is put. Let me guess, you also support Fred Phelps quest to humiliate people who are grieving the loss of their relatives who have defended your sorry arses over seas is okay with you too...eh? SO here we are , 70% of Americans do not want mosque build yet you seem to think 70% of Americans whom you walk amongst daily are out of touch with the constitution...hmmm...again show the wording of where it says they have the right to build a mosque there. NIOw put all yoru silly civil rights religious freedom mumbo jumbo aside and talk as an individual American...you actaully really think this mosque is a good idea knowing deaaamm well the heartache it will cause your fellow Americans? Really?
if you read the Karan (Original ones and not the Koran they sent to the west) you would see that Islam is not a religion, hell like worshipping Satan!
Posted by: jim at August 14, 2010 03:38 PMConfederate Yankee wrote:
"Steve,
I hear you. You support freedom of religion (now that it is convenient).
But what are your thoughts on the separation of church and state? The last I heard tell, most secular lefties were utterly opposed to the mixture of state power and religion. Islam, to it's very core, is an aberration to that separation, being entirely formed as a politicized religion.
It would seem that if there was any logical consistency about the left-wing insistence about the absolute separation of religion and state power, that Islam, as the most purely inter-meshed hybrid of both, must be banned... and therefore, all mosques.
You're on both sides of the issue. Please pick one.
Or is the truth far more simple, and that you hate Republicans more than the misnamed Religion of peace that delights in using you as useful idiots?"
========================================================
I'm not surprised that you advocate banning an opinion that you don't agree with. Saddened, but not surprised. What you don't understand, CY, is that while Steve and myself may not approve of all Islamic tenents, we don't fear them and we don't have a need to impose our tenets on them because...wait for it...we don't live in an Islamic society.
I see nothing contradictory about Steve's position. You are the one trying to impose an American ideal of separation between church and state on a Muslim platform that does not have that tradition. It sounds like more neo-conservative "soft imperialism". Look how well that worked out for previous Republican administrations.
I see that it bothers you that a Muslim community center/mosque will be build near 'Ground Zero'. Go protest your little heart out. I think that you are paranoid and ignoring the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution but you would not be the first and you won't be the last.
Posted by: Kenley Davis at August 17, 2010 02:26 PMIF they build it, burn it down. Or have a protest rally of millions of people, and tear it down by hand. If they rebuild, re-burn/tear down. It's NOT a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of sensitivity to fellow citizens who lost loved ones on 9/11/01!
If the American people lack the will and courage to burn or tear down this slap in the face of ALL AMERICANS, then put a gay bar on one side and a Women's Rights Organization on the other.
Insist that Christians be allowed to enter the Mosque/community center or whatever they decide to call it. And every time one visits, take a part of it back out the door with you.
The radical muslims who are pushing the building of this mosque want to use "tolerance and sensitivity" against us to manipulate us into allowing them to build this insult but are themselves totally intolerant and insensitive to the victims of the jihadist attack against America on 9/11/01!
My last word to them is: well, it starts with an F and ends with a K and is often symbolized with the extension and presentation of the middle finger.
Posted by: Spook at August 19, 2010 11:56 AMOops. Correction. That should've been, "ends with a U" not "K."
Posted by: Spook at August 19, 2010 11:59 AM
