My Last Word on the Ground Zero Mosque

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Since these guys have the "right" to exist, there could be no possible objections to them. Right? RIGHT??

The whole Ground Zero Mosque kerfuffle will continue for quite some time. Until it’s built, and long after, I suspect. However, I find there is only so much one can say about it. I will continue to lend my support to those opposed to the mosque on philosophical and moral grounds. If it’s pertinent, I will continue to write about the controversy when I cover Red Eye for NewsReal Blog. I will probably tweet about it. But I won’t waste any more time writing about the subject here. After this post, that is.

See, there’s no point in going over and over the same arguments. The tired, stale, politically correct arguments of the intolerable Left will remain so. They won’t listen to reason, nor are they willing to learn anything about the man behind the mosque: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Therefore, they simply play the bigot card, like parrots squawking for a new cracker. And, yes, I meant cracker. Why bother? Are we all to be reduced to monkeys throwing poop at each other in the form of our own stubborn opinions constantly rephrased and restated? We have other fish to fry. Other islamofascist fish.

I’m going to take a last stab at deconstructing the most popular arguments I see from leftists and big-L Libertarians, then let it be.

1 – The property is privately owned and the owners have a right to develop it as they will

Yes. So I’m going to buy a spare lot next to a Planned Parenthood office, develop it into a “business” and call it: My Next Door Neighbors Are Baby Killers. Get the point? I have a right to do that, yes? It’s Constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Guess how many “feminists” would be out there, protesting on a daily basis. Guess how long it would take the city to shut me down for some reason or another. The answer to the first question is: lots. To the second: not long.

We all know how rights have been applied in this country. Unevenly, is how. Imagine the Roman Catholic Church wanted to open a community center and put a Catholic worship space right inside it. Sure, the worship space would be open “to all.” As long as you followed all the Catholic rules.

My examples are admittedly silly, but the larger point is valid. We have zoning laws. In New York City, you can’t build a bar or a liquor store within a certain distance from a place of worship. Why should a religious institution get to interfere with free trade? Because that’s the law, no matter how unconstitutional it might be. So, why shouldn’t we be able to prevent a Muslim worship space within a certain distance from some other site? Because of freedom of worship, that’s why. But, according to many, all rights descend directly from God. Ergo, they are all sacred. My free speech is equally divine as the right to worship.

You either agree with zoning laws or are totally against them. You don’t get to pick one example and suddenly become a proponent of private property rights.

2 – It’s not a mosque. It’s a community center.

Yes, it’s a community center. Open to all. However, when I asked if I could hold a gay civil union ceremony in that community center, I was told to ask the Cordoba Initiative. By the official Park51 Twitter account, no less. Problem: The Cordoba Initiative will not be running the community center, so why should I ask them? From the official Park51 website:

Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project is separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA.  The next step in developing Park51 is forming a non-profit and applying for tax-exempt status. Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf and Sharif El-Gamal are serving as the project managers until that time.

Short answer: They don’t want to answer, because they do not want to tolerate all Americans. Duh.

The community center will contain a … wait for it … mosque! This mosque will be run separately, though it is completely contained within the Park51 center. It will have a separate board, a separate non-profit and, therefore, separate rules. There is a mosque going in at ground zero and those who say there isn’t are lying.

3 – The Ground Zero Mosque isn’t at Ground Zero, and the location is just a happy coincidence

Really? Where does Ground Zero end? Park51 is going into the old Burlington Coat Factory building. It’s true. That building is a full 2.5 blocks from the crater left after the twin towers fell. Clearly, Ground Zero ends at that crater and the fact that the Park51 building was actually damaged during the attacks of 9/11 has nothing to do with anything, right? RIGHT?

The community center has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11! Which is why there is going to be a museum dedicated to the horrors of the attacks built right in. So, Park51 is in no way trying to avoid being associated with September 11, 2001 while simultaneously making a buck off the tragedy. Nuh uh. Not happening. Pay no attention to the Imam behind the curtain.

Speaking of that Imam. Feisal Abdul Rauf has said America is at least partially to blame for the terrorist attacks and that Osama bin Laden was made in America. Think these are the conspiratorial rantings of right wing nut jobs? They are. If Wikipedia and Rauf’s own written/spoken words can be considered part of the right wing conspiracy.

You have to ask yourself: How can a group simultaneously distance themselves from 9/11 and latch onto it? Also, what type of “memorial” museum will a man who blamed the US for the attacks build? Let me just jump the shark and make the inevitable Nazi comparison. Would we want the Italians running the Holocaust museum at Auschwitz? Why not? After all, Mussolini changed sides!

Park51 wants to be a part of the war against terror any 9/11 monument must become. They would like us to remember Muslims died in those attacks, too. Fair enough. Muslims have always killed Muslims. No surprise there. But they’d also like to join the Obama dialectic: that Islam is somehow not responsible for Islamic terrorism. History: revised!

I don’t think so.

4 – Only bigoted Christian extremists oppose the mosque

Certainly, some of the opponents are bigoted Christian extremists. I know I constantly write polemics favoring the Judeo-Christian traditions upon which America was founded. One teensy little snag: I’m an atheist. And yes, some Jewish leaders have compared discrimination against the mosque to the religious intolerance suffered by Jews in this country and others. That’s a convenient boon to the leftists who support the project. The not so convenient other side of the story are the Muslims who have come out against it.

I suppose these Muslims will be, in the ever tolerant language of the left, considered “Uncle Achmeds” and similarly condemned, just like any non-white TEA Party members are. If you’re fishing for bigotry and can’t find it, simply cast a wider net.

5 – Rauf is a moderate and the intention of the community center is to build bridges between Muslims and the rest of the world.

The moderate stances of Feisal Rauf have already been discredited by myself, other bloggers and his own words.

The fact that 70% of the American population is against the building of this community center, but Park51 is going to go ahead and do it anyway, proves that Rauf and friends aren’t interested in building bridges; they’re interested in achieving their own ends for their own sakes.

6 – All Americans have the freedom to worship as they choose

Not true. Rastafarians have been prevented from ritual use of marijuana. Various sects that believe in polygamy have been prevented from those practices. Not everything people hold as sacred is lawful, nor should it be. Should we allow honor killings? Sharia courts (Rauf is for them, natch)? The stoning of adulterers?

Also, how can the Left argue religious freedom while simultaneously holding onto the belief the Ground Zero Mosque is an ecumenical community center and not a place of worship? Because they don’t care about any objective truth. That’s how. They only care about jumping on the “Christianity is bad, ergo anything that opposes it is good” bandwagon.

7 – Well, if you’re against the mosque, then you must be against a Christian church near the Murrah federal building site in Oklahoma City

Why, no I’m not, as a matter of fact. First off, to make an analogy here, the pastor of said hypothetical church would have to believe that the residents of Oklahoma City were at least partially responsible for Timothy McVeigh. Of course, no Christian would. And, if he did, he would be shouted out of town. The exact same leftist nutbags making this argument would be first in line to condemn him and all Christians.

Secondly, McVeigh distanced himself from his Catholic upbringing and claimed to be an agnostic. According to McVeigh: “Science is my religion.” I guess it would be a much closer analogy is the Left were to insist it would be offensive to put an embryonic stem cell research facility next to the Murrah building. Think they will? Then you think wrong.

If you want to support the legal right to build a mosque, then please do so. You won’t get any argument from me. I also believe in the legal right  to unrestricted pornography, membership in the KKK and for Target to support whatever candidates it feels it should. I bet you’re all for those rights and have no moral or ethical objections to any of them, yes?


You confuse me. Kindly start making sense.

11 Responses to “My Last Word on the Ground Zero Mosque”
  1. I feel like I’m running around on a hamster wheel when I make these arguments. How do you get people to listen if they don’t actually believe that Islamofascism is a serious threat and they’re unwilling to actually read the Qur’an or books written by ex-terrorists and apostates?

    I read a post today on a leftist blog from a woman who admitted that she’s not concerned about the Ground Zero mosque because she just likes Muslims better than Christians. At least she was honest, I guess. :(

    • ChrisIsRIGHT says:

      Exactly, Jenn. People don’t want to listen. I’ve put it out there and provided links. I did the same thing with Rauf and the Mosque. I know you and others have done the same. People will either educate themselves or they won’t. If we don’t try, we have to accept part of the blame. Now that we’ve told them, it’s their decision.

  2. bteacher99 says:

    Gee, logical arguments to refute lib arguments.

    Those who say GZM will “build a bridge” overlook the fact that there isn’t a bridge long enough to cross this chasm.

  3. DCG says:

    My mom, a lib that voted for Obama, was furious when she heard this. She’s extremely disappointed that this would be allowed to be built near Ground Zero and that Zero supports it. At least one of them gets it!

  4. WOW. Some people have forgotten a document called the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. I had thought Conservatives were its guardians, it appears from reading your blog I am mistaken.
    1. If you do buy a lot next to a Planned Parenthood center, I’ll come and help you picket.
    2. If it is a Mosque, it IS specifically protected by the First Amendment.
    3. On Ground Zero, near Ground Zero, under it, who gives a flip, while it is in bad TASTE and ill-advised, there is NOTHING that bars them from building it. Before you brand me as a heartless bastard or worse, unpatriotic, I lost my college rifle coach in tower number two and my brother was at the Pentagon the day before the attacks.
    4. Irrelevant. Doesn’t matter who is for it or against it, see #2 above.
    5. Doesn’t matter their goals (if legal), or Rauf’s goals, your goals, or mine, again, see #2 above. If he is a terrorist, arrest him. As far as religious intolerance, yes, it is. You oppose the building of this center for ONE basic reason; it is being built by Muslims. You have painted the entire religion that consists of over a BILLION people on the actions of less than 100 Muslims. This is stereotyping at its WORSE.
    6. You are kidding, right? One this is apples and oranges. The US Supreme Court has ruled that laws of general applicability (laws against marijuana) trump religious freedoms regarding use of banned substances. The 1988 case involved American Indians who use peyote. You may want to look up the makeup of the court, it was most definitely conservative. There is no law nor zoning restriction against building a Mosque in that location.
    7. Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what I (or you) support or don’t support. They have the Constitutional RIGHT to use the space.
    Face it Chris, the Muslims have a RIGHT to build a mosque anywhere they can get the land if they comply with the laws; yes, even at Ground Zero itself. Regardless of the fact 70% of the population is against building it there, the Constitution is the safe guard the Founding Fathers put into place to PREVENT the tyrannical majority from violating the rights of the minority.
    Personally, you can’t believe how much I am against the mosque, but I do support their RIGHT to build it. This is REALLY what the First Amendment says. In case anyone has forgotten, I quote, “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”. Nope, none of the liberal crap of separation of church and state, no prohibition of religious objects in public places, but the RIGHT to worship as we please, or in this case as THEY please and where they please.
    If we as a nation start to pick and choose which people get to follow which articles, we are on a very slippery slope.

    • ChrisIsRIGHT says:

      Gee, Keith. maybe you’re not paying attention to the propaganda. This building is a secular community center according to the funders and organizers. Therefore, freedom of religion does NOT really apply, does it?

      As for my stereotyping of all Muslims. When the Muslim world rises up against these “100” radicals and DEALS with them, I’ll stand by the side of Muslims. For the record, after the 9/11 attacks, I lived in DC and helped a group provide safety for Muslims walking from their mosques to their cars after services.

      Also, since YOU are obviously a Constitutional Law expert, tell me how, exactly, my post violates the rights of anyone. If my exercise of free speech violates the rights of Park51 in some way, then your objections to my free speech are similarly anti-constitutional.

      It’s just POSSIBLE I can object to something on moral and ethical grounds AND that I can disagree with people without violating someone’s rights.

      • Like you, I believe this is a propaganda issue as well and I (again, like yourself) oppose it on moral and ethical grounds. I am of the opinion that the Mosque/Community Center is a tool for radical Muslims and its construction WILL be seen by the Muslim world as a victory for Islam. There are no logical reasons for them to build this “Community Center” so close to Ground Zero, especially since there is a Mosque about 2 blocks away.
        “(T)ell me how, exactly, my post violates the rights of anyone. “ I’m not saying your posts violate the Constitutional rights of anyone. But your reasons for opposing the center do. In the following post from your blog, I understand you to say you are opposed to the building being close to Ground Zero because it IS a Mosque. “It’s a community center, right? That’s not a mosque! What’s the problem? Rauf himself says it’s not a mosque (NY Daily News), and he must know what he’s talking about. (That’s the man in his own words! Doesn’t he sound pious?) It just includes a space for Muslim prayer. Completely innocuous. Problem: Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, says the center will include a mosque for up to 1,500 worshipers (ABC News).”
        “This building is a secular community center according to the funders and organizers. Therefore, freedom of religion does NOT really apply, does it?” Can’t have it both ways Chris, either you are opposed to it because it contains a Mosque (above), and thus IS protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment, or it really is a community center that happens to have ties to the Muslim world, like a YMCA would have to a Christian religion and thus is of no moral or ethical threat to Ground Zero. (As I stated earlier I don’t believe this for an instant.)
        I am no Constitutional Law expert, nor do I claim to be one. However, I have a deep and unwavering belief that the Constitution, unless amended should be read and followed as the written. I’ve seen what the liberals have done to the Constitution, with their “living Constitution” ideas and it disgusts me. I don’t want to see the same happen from the other side of the aisle.
        “When the Muslim world rises up against these “100″ radicals and DEALS with them, I’ll stand by the side of Muslims” What would you have the Muslims do? Google “Muslims against terrorism” and you’ll see thousands of Muslims opposed to the few radicals of their own religion. If that isn’t enough, do you stand with the 4,000 Muslims in uniform that are taking a stand by serving this nation in Afghanistan and Iraq or are all of these to be painted with the same brush?
        You have EVERY right to voice your opinion, and not only do I support your right to an opinion, I respect it, but I respectfully disagree with the stereotyping of the Muslim religion that conservatives are using to make their point. For the record, Donna Marsh O’Conner, who lost her daughter Vanessa and 250 other families of victims of 9/11 not only support the building the center there, feel it should be built at Ground Zero!
        Treating all Muslims like terrorists will do nothing but reinforce the idea that America is an enemy of Islam.

        • ChrisIsRIGHT says:


          If you’d re-read my initial post, you’d realize my points were to counter the arguments used by the Left supporting the mosque. You say I can’t have it both ways. My point is: neither can they. NYC zoning laws are different for community centers and houses of worship. For example, the law that restricts the sale of alcohol to within a certain distance from a house of worship applies only to buildings used exclusively as houses of worship. A community center that contains a mosque is not exclusively a mosque. The larger Leftist point is to use the word “community center” when convenient, and to use the word “mosque” when convenient. My point was to give them a taste of their own medicine.

          You claim I oppose this mosque simply because it’s Muslim. I have repeatedly pointed out that it is the man behind the mosque and the lies of the group that are the problem. Yes, I do not like Islam. It does not stand to reason my distaste for a religion that continues to usurp the laws of every country it infiltrates expands to encompass all Muslims as people. I dislike Communism, too. Yet I have friends who think Communism is a great idea. I will continue to speak out against Communism and meanwhile keep those friends.

          What do I expect the Muslim world to do about its terrorist problem? Deal with it! Words are nice, but it sucks when WE have to go in and clean up the mess. It wasn’t just radicals who danced in the streets when the Twin Towers fell. It was hundreds of thousands of Muslims. It’s not just terrorists that burn the flag and call us the Great Satan. If I spoke out against murder while simultaneously blaming the murder victim, would you consider me an innocent? If there really are only a few radicals, why is Islamic terrorism an increasing problem in the mid-East and the South Pacific?

          I deal with Muslims every day. Roughly 1/3 of the people who live in my apartment building are Somali refugees, all of whom are Muslim. Ramadan is celebrated here. I do not think of these women as terrorists, so cut the crap. Don’t want me to label? Practice what you preach. I’ll stop using the generic “Muslims” when you stop using the generic “conservatives.” Also, you say you’ve seen what the “liberals” have done to the Constitution. How dare you paint all liberals with the same brush! Bigot! See how easy that is? There is a point to using words with varying degrees of granularity. There is a point to shouting down the lie Islam is a religion of peace when it clearly isn’t.

          Where have I stated the Muslims can’t build the mosque? Have I spoken out against other mosques? No. It was your knee jerk reaction to label me a hater of all Muslims because I don’t buy into the religion of peace crap. It was your knee jerk reaction to label my response to the top 8 leftist arguments to claim I was trying to deny someone their Constitutional rights.

          As to whether I stand with the Muslims in Afghanistan who serve us in the war in their country, have you read my post regarding Wikileaks? Did you note the concern I had for the safety of Afghan citizens who support us?

          Also, the entire post was countering Leftist arguments. I never stated that Rauf can’t build his mosque/community center. I simply find the religious freedom implications to be a disingenuous interpretation of the first amendment since the institution itself claims it is not a mosque, but merely contains one. Rauf, the representatives of Park51 and the representatives of the Cordoba Initiative have all stated this is a secular endeavor, open to all Manhattanites.

          NYC has local codes prohibiting the building of houses of worship in certain districts. This is a violation of the first amendment as written, isn’t it? My point wasn’t that they can’t build the mosque. My point was that claiming religious freedom while simultaneous claiming the building is secular is stupid and nonsensical, and I stand by that.

          Of course there are families of victims who support the mosque. There are also those opposed. There are Jews who support the mosque. There are those opposed. There are Muslims who support the mosque, and there are those opposed.

          For example, my use of popular opinion is somehow invalid, but your use of evidence of support by way of opinion is valid. Explain this dichotomy of logic to me, please, because it seems little less than wanton hypocrisy to me.

          See, not all of my arguments pointed to “can’t.” They pointed to “shouldn’t.” If you’d pay attention to the conservative media, many people have repeatedly stated we recognize the Constitutional right to build the mosque. Yet, you don’t seem to mention that. You see what you want to see, just like everyone else. I’ll continue to oppose the mosque every way I can. Since I have no power to prevent the mosque from being built, I can neither interfere with Park51’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech or property rights.

          I, like you, believe in the Constitution. However, that document was never meant to be divorced from an ethical framework. Nor were my statements meant to be taken wildly out of context, as you have done. If you’re going to label me a bigot and claim I’m painting all Muslims as terrorists, then … well … go away. I’m not going to defend myself to you or anyone else on this issue ever again. The fact you can only see one aspect of this argument as valid says much more about yourbias than mine.

          • Chris,
            I apologize if I misread your intent, but to me, your post was not clear that you were “giving them a taste of their own medicine”. Please don’t misunderstand what I am about to say, but perhaps since you are an atheist, you are unaware that like a Christian church, a mosque is more than just a place of worship, it is a place of fellowship, learning and education. Most if not all the churches I have attended have been used as senior centers, locations for community meetings such as boy and girl scouts, AA and NA meetings, etc. Some are even still being used as a polling station for elections. This is perhaps the reason I don’t see much of a difference between calling it a mosque or a community center.
            Regardless of the name, Mosque or Community Center, I believe we both can agree that it is perfectly legal in accordance with the zoning laws of NYC to be built in that area. I think we can also agree that it IS being built at this location as a way for some Muslims to thumb their nose at America.
            “Words are nice, but it sucks when WE have to go in and clean up the mess.” You mean like in 1995 when I had to “go in and clean up the mess” the Christian Serbs made against the Muslim Bosnians? When the Serbs murdered over 60,000 Muslim men, women and children and the Serbs raped between 20 – 60,000 Muslim women and children (as young at 12)? Christians didn’t rise up and protest the atrocities, but I do not believe the people who follow Christ are not responsible for the acts of a few hundred thousand Christians, just as I do not believe all Muslims are responsible for the acts of a few hundred thousand Muslims.
            Please quote the line where I label you a “hater of all Muslims” or a bigot. If I did it was purely unintentional. I have observed, and been the focus of similar attacks on liberal websites such as Huffington, etc and don’t believe that calling anyone a bigot, nazi or other slanderous label being constructive to good dialogue. I believe the use of name calling is nothing more than a bullying technique and is being used by some to shout down those with whom we disagree. To me the people on those sites that use this technique have turned the “Party of Inclusion” to the Party of Coercion.
            I amend my sentences to add “some” liberals and “some” conservatives and apologize for the implied stereotyping of those groups.
            I do not claim your use of public opinion is invalid, I merely point out that some of the families of the victims stand opposite of you and I who resist the center being built in that location. Similarly many Conservatives have said the Muslims have the right to build the Mosque, others like Limbaugh, Gingrich, Sekulow and Land have said the Muslims do not have the right to build the Mosque near Ground Zero. Surely there is some value to be gained for observing those that normally have viewpoints similar to ours, having a differing perspective on this issue.
            Hopefully you will not consider anything I have written in this post an attack, as it was not meant to be. Have a good weekend.

  5. ChrisIsRIGHT says:


    Directly quoted from my original post: “I will continue to lend my support to those opposed to the mosque on philosophical and moral grounds.”

    Please hone in on the words “philosophical” and “moral.” I never said “legal.” I specifically stated on what level I was offering support Also, please note the entire final paragraph. I’ve highlighted portions

    If you want to support the legal right to build a mosque, then please do so. You won’t get any argument from me. I also believe in the legal right to unrestricted pornography, membership in the KKK and for Target to support whatever candidates it feels it should. I bet you’re all for those rights and have no moral or ethical objections to any of them, yes?

    No. I didn’t specifically state I was giving them a taste of their own medicine, however I felt it was clear based on the arguments I presented and how I presented. However, and please don’t consider this an attack – though I certainly admit to a high level of frustration with your correspondence on this issue – you ignored what I specifically stated and presented an argument based solely on Constitutionality: that is, on legality. The very thing I said I would not argue against. Are we clear on this now?

    Now, from your wildly misdirected first comment:

    As far as religious intolerance, yes, it is. You oppose the building of this center for ONE basic reason; it is being built by Muslims. You have painted the entire religion that consists of over a BILLION people on the actions of less than 100 Muslims. This is stereotyping at its WORSE.

    Did you actually use the words “bigot” or “hatred?” No. Can you defend this paragraph as meaning anything other than that, however? Your entire tone in your first comment was attacking, condescending and completely misdirected as I specifically stated that I would not argue the legality of building the mosque. I have clarified my position on Muslims individuals, and yet you are still bringing up examples. So let’s take off the kidd gloves.

    You were part of peace keeping forces in Serbia, I take it. Under the authority of what country? Who was the president of that country at the time? And what is the major religion of the country you were representing? The religion of that country’s commander in chief? You say Christians didn’t rise up and protest. I think Christians did much more than that.

    How much do you know about Islam worldwide? Do you know that the governments, or government officials, of Saudia Arabia, the UAE, Iran, Turkey, Iran, have all officially declared the Holocaust didn’t happen, and that many of them believe it was a Zionist conspiracy? Do you know the official think tank of the Arab League did the same?

    Do you know that, according to British Police, there are an estimated 17,000 honor attacks against women in the UK each year? That’s just in the UK alone. If there are only “100” violent radicals, do we attribute all these acts to those 100, or are moderates to blame?

    Remember when those cartoonists published pictures of the prophet Mohammed? Was it a handful of terrorists who threatened to kill them? Remember Everybody Draw Mohammed Day? Was it just a handful of terrorists threatening them? Look on Facebook for “Fuck America and Israel.” Scroll down to the video of the WTC attacks. Scroll further to the image and words of Hitler used as a positive. Facebook deleted the Everyone Draw Mohammed Day page, but allows a page that openly advocates the destruction of the USA and Israel, in violation of its own terms of service, and Facebook was founded by a Jew!

    Watch videos of the reactions of Muslims around the world when the WTC fell. They danced in the streets.

    The governments of Iran and Palestine are terrorist organizations. Turkey is headed in that direction. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE… all fund terroist organizations. A highly reputable Egyptican Sunni institution just came out and said the Ground Zero Mosque was a Zionist Conspiracy. Why? Because the GZM is making Muslims look bad. When the same people who condemned the 9/11 attacks as a Zionist conspiracy say the same thing about the mosque, it’s time to take some notice.

    Read this post, where I track down the number of terrorist groups recognized by the US and the percentage of Islamic terrorists on the most wanted list.

    Yes, there are many peaceful Muslims around the world. However, there is a worldwide Jihad (and yes, I realize that word has several different meanings. It’s obvious which one I mean) against all non-Muslims. In the UK, Muslims groups protest the police using a dog for an advertisement as dogs are unclean. The police apologize, ridiculously. In the US, a student group of Muslims protests Trinity Universities use of the phrase “In the Year of Our Lord” on its diplomas.

    The UK already has sharia compliant family courts.

    The very reason I point all this out, and indicate Muslims must do more than speak, they must take action, is that radical, violent and politicized Islam is spreading like wildfire. Soon, the worst nightmares of Islamic apologists will be realized, and a war on radical Islam and so called Islamofascism really will be a warn against Islam.

    If we’re going to compare religions, let’s adjust chronologically. What’s going on in the world of Islam today is – more and more – what went on in Christianity during the dark ages. Hardly anyone of any faith has any problem speaking out against the Spanish Inquisition, for example. Though, of course, there are certain extreme Catholic organization who claim it never happened.

    It is imperative that the Muslim world seek a real solution to this problem. The USA and Israel can’t stand alone.

    All of the above about Islam wasn’t to speak against anything you’ve said, but to clarify my view. I suppose, in a certain light, I am highly bigoted against Islam. But that’s because I understand terms like taqiyya and am paying close attention to what has been happening worldwide. Once again, I stress I do not think all Muslims are terrorists, but I do think the Muslim world in general has drifted a long, LONG way from being a Religion of Peace.

    In context, Rauf has stated the US is Sharia compliant and only needs a few small adjustments so that Sharia law could be fully implemented. He says the US is at least partially to blame for 9/11 and that bin Laden was made in the USA. While he has done nothing illegal yet, that I know of, he has certainly done many immoral things, at least from my perspective.

    Supposedly, 13 hours of tape involving Rauf have recently been discovered and analyzed where he actually makes bolder statements. Until such time as they are fully transcribed and published, I won’t comment on them.

    We MUST continue to voice moral and ethical objections to violent Islam, the Ground Zero Mosque and the man behind it. Consider it a form of cultural brinkmanship.

    Yet, once again, my initial post stated I wouldn’t argue the legality of the mosque, and that’s what lead to this thread of comments.

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] sooner do I write that I will never again post about the Ground Zero Mosque than “Red Eye” host Greg Gutfeld brings up the marginal topic absolutely no one in America is […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • wordpress blog stats
  • Performancing Metrics
  • Globe of Blogs
%d bloggers like this: