'An indecent proposal'

Approving a mosque near Ground Zero is the height of intolerance

  • Follow Editorials

Supporters are calling a proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York a victory for American democracy and religious tolerance.

That begs the question: To whom are we obligated to prove either our political or our religious tolerance?

And when is someone going to show tolerance toward us?

We'll put this country's religious tolerance up against anyone's, particularly those in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In Saudi Arabia, the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice makes sure Christianity isn't practiced publicly, and Bibles and other non-Muslim religious articles are banned. Non-Muslims can't even enter the cities of Mecca or Medina.

When you build a church or synagogue in Mecca, then come over here and preach to us about tolerance.

Moreover, you can bet the erection of a Muslim worship center just two blocks from where the Twin Towers once stood won't be seen as a gracious gesture of tolerance. It will be viewed by our enemy, radical Muslims, as a glorious shrine to the mass murderers of 9-11.

New York's approval of the mosque this week isn't tolerant; it's the height of intolerance toward Americans and all others whose relatives and friends were killed in the 2001 attacks.

It's an insult. The imam building it knows that, and is undeterred.

Of course, this same imam refuses to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization, and regarding Islamic terrorism he can only manage that it's a "very complex question."

Not from where we sit. Choosing not to kill innocent civilians is a pretty simple matter. Call us sometime. We'll explain it in 25 words or less.

And while he finds the question of terrorism hopelessly nuanced, he's clear about this country -- whose policies, he said, "were an accessory to the crime that happened."

He speaks of 9-11 as if it were a burglary, and the "burglars" as if they had their reasons -- and the victims as if they participated in it.

The imam also, reports National Review , has associations with arms of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.

Calling the mosque "an indecent proposal and an intentional provocation," the magazine writes, "We have thousands of mosques in the United States, and who knows how many Islamic cultural centers in New York City. We do not need this one, in this place, built by these people. We're all stocked up on Hamas apologists, thanks very much."

When asked if the president would intervene, spokesman Robert Gibbs said it was a "local matter" that the president wouldn't involve himself in. Local matter? Ground zero? Since when? And, oh by the way, as one commentator noted this week, being a local matter didn't stop the president from getting waist-deep in the controversy over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates by Cambridge police.

It's too bad a U.S. president named Barack Hussein Obama can't be more of an ambassador to the Muslim world -- one that would press our interests and concerns.

Tell them to build the mosque somewhere else, Mr. President.

If you're looking for a monument to religious tolerance, we already have one.

It's called the Constitution.

We'll put that up against anyone else's, too.

Comments (229) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Southern Yankee
0
Points
Southern Yankee 08/07/10 - 11:27 am
0
0
Tigger....I am discussing the

Tigger....I am discussing the right of the Mosque to be built, however it is far from being built at this point regardless as to the hurdles it has survived. If it fails to be built because of the decision of the owners or because the protest has risen to such a din then that is its fate.

follower
59
Points
follower 08/07/10 - 11:27 am
0
0
The freedom envisioned by our

The freedom envisioned by our founders brought forth the most amazing document ever written for a country. At the time it was written, it was also understood that it required a principaled mindset for its success. The principals when written were shared by an overwhelming majority of the poplulace. I doubt they imagined the diversity of values and mindsets that now represents this country, and the judiciary that interprets it as they do.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, the KKK, and all of those claiming Christianity that live contrary of scriptural teaching are no more Christian than I am a pitcher for the Braves, even though I wear their hat occasionally. Hate and violence are not taught. The ones that espouse such are NOT Christians, no matter what they claim.

On the contrary, Islam teaches the eradication of Israel and the conversion of "infidels" to the point of death. In reality, the peaceful followers of Islam are "lukewarm" Muslims. The ones that follow their religion faithfully are the same ones that terrorized the 1972 Olympics, bombed the barracks in Beruit, blew the jetliner out of the sky in Scotland, bombed the WTC in 1993, attacked the Cole in 2000, brought down the towers in 2001, blew up a train in Spain, and killed dozens in Texas. They are faithfully following the Quran and Imams.

Unfortunately, the Constitution allows for a mosque to be built. I just doubt the founders would understand how what they intended to protect freedom, could have allowed such to come about.

As the old saying goes, they are probably turning over in their graves.

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 11:30 am
0
0
Tigger - Read the 14th

Tigger - Read the 14th Amendment. It specifically restricts the States. It doesn't completely "nullify" the 10th but, as it was passed AFTER the 10th, it trumps.

This is not controversial constitutional interpretation.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:32 am
0
0
OJP....I've read it. Explain

OJP....I've read it. Explain how it would prevent a state from establishing a religion. I'm still waiting. Telling me to read it isn't explaining anything. I HAVE read it. Difference is, that I understand it.

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 11:39 am
0
0
Tigger - Haha, okay. My

Tigger - Haha, okay. My position is backed by hundreds of years of Supreme Court rulings and accepted by just about anyone with any formal legal training. Yours is backed by ... you.

I've led you to water but I can't make you drink.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:42 am
0
0
Ask for facts and this is all

Ask for facts and this is all you get. "google it" "look it up yourself". The refuge of one who can't back up his argument. It figures.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:40 am
0
0
Tell me about a case where

Tell me about a case where the Supreme court said a state can't establish an official religion.

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 11:44 am
0
0
Tigger - Everson v. Board of

Tigger - Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:45 am
0
0
I was unaware that the state

I was unaware that the state tried to establish an official religion? What religion did they establish? Read my question next time.

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 11:47 am
0
0
Tigger - I've provided more

Tigger - I've provided more than enough information for you to educate yourself about this. You just refuse to do so.

dougk
3
Points
dougk 08/07/10 - 11:48 am
0
0
OMG, Tigger. Just chill and
Unpublished

OMG, Tigger. Just chill and think for a minute...

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:48 am
0
0
Sure you have......"Google

Sure you have......"Google it" and misquoted paraphrasing is a heck of a way to educate.

RAINBOW
11
Points
RAINBOW 08/07/10 - 11:49 am
0
0
what makes you people think

what makes you people think this is a set of good Muslims wanting to build this Mosque?Like me you can't prove it is.I am against it like most people are.Another thing,they way a lot of you people that say bad things against the Chronicle,what if they banned a lot of you from posting on here,wouldn't that make you mad,freedom of speech gives them they right to speak thier mind even if they do own they paper,I have been sent two warnings about posting things on here,did it make me mad? No because they have they right to pull a post if they want,they have the right to report news just like all newspapers do,and they have a right to thier opinion same as they rest of us and other news papers.They probally laugh because some of you get all fired up,but all in all we have a place to vent,and thats good.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:50 am
0
0
"OMG, Tigger. Just chill and

"OMG, Tigger. Just chill and think for a minute..."

Good answer.

Mr.L.A.Kegbrat
0
Points
Mr.L.A.Kegbrat 08/07/10 - 11:52 am
0
0
Tigger, The first amendment

Tigger,

The first amendment bars the establishment of a state religion--that includes the states as well as the federal government.

Muslims won't deny you entry into a mosque. Why don't you visit one in Augusta.

Seriously? Do you think muslims in American mosques celebrate 9-11?

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 11:54 am
0
0
Tigger - From the case: "The

Tigger - From the case: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church."

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:55 am
0
0
Kegbrat....the First

Kegbrat....the First amendment bars CONGRESS from passing a law regarding the establishment of a religion. READ the exact words for crying out loud.

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:55 am
0
0
OJP....why are you assuming

OJP....why are you assuming what it means instead of READING what it says?

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 11:58 am
0
0
Tigger - Regardless of how

Tigger - Regardless of how much you want to ignore the 14th Amendment, it's just as much a part of the Constitution as the 1st Amendment is.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:00 pm
0
0
And it's a part that you have

And it's a part that you have still failed to explain. I have read it, understand it, and don't ignore it. YOU are the one who is trying to twist the words. I post them verbatim......you put your assumptions as to what they mean.

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 12:01 pm
0
0
Tigger - I'm not assuming

Tigger - I'm not assuming what it means. I'm relying solely on the Supreme Court.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:02 pm
0
0
Whatever.....I see no quotes

Whatever.....I see no quotes from the Supreme Court either.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:03 pm
0
0
The Supreme Court can't trump

The Supreme Court can't trump the Constitution either.

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 12:03 pm
0
0
Tigger - I'm not going to

Tigger - I'm not going to post a comprehensive analysis of the Incorporation Doctrine in the comments section, especially when there at dozens of them available to you online.

OJP
6948
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 12:05 pm
0
0
Tigger - My 11:54 post

Tigger - My 11:54 post contains a direct quote from the SCOTUS.

gobsmacked
0
Points
gobsmacked 08/07/10 - 12:12 pm
0
0
Goodness. Why don't these

Goodness. Why don't these ardent pseudo-constitutionalists know that the 14th extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states? Most recently the Roberts court has recognized an individual right to bear arms and the 14th amendment extends the protection against state infringement. Over the decades since its ratification, the scope of the application of the 14th to specific parts of the Bill of Rights has been expanded by the Supremes.

dougk
3
Points
dougk 08/07/10 - 12:16 pm
0
0
I think Tigger's got it now.
Unpublished

I think Tigger's got it now.

chascush
0
Points
chascush 08/07/10 - 12:17 pm
0
0
Southern Yankee, ‘If it fails

Southern Yankee, ‘If it fails to be built because of the decision of the owners or because the protest has risen to such a din then that is its fate.’
The more we protest the more most of the people behind the mosque
will enjoy it. This is like spiting in the face of 9/11 victims and that is what they intent. It is common for Muslims to build a mosque at the site of major victory. And many muslims consider 9/11 a major victory.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:17 pm
0
0
I get it fine...I'm just done

I get it fine...I'm just done trying to argue with those who think the Constitution is open to be interpreted however they like it. There's no point in it.

lsmith
105
Points
lsmith 08/07/10 - 12:19 pm
0
0
RAINBOW you are correct.
Unpublished

RAINBOW you are correct. There seems to be some who believe this mosque/culturual center may in fact have good intentions and be families, children dadadada......I say........the very fact that the builders chose the site they did, by itself sends a strong message about their intent, and that's "stick it in your eye". If they truly, truly had good intentions and wanted good relations with others they would have been sensitive enough to respect the feelings of those who have a problem with it and simply pick another spot. But, nope........that would defeat the whole purpose of their plan. They are now revelling in knowing there really is nothing legally Americans can do to stop it. They're using our own constitution as a tool.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Solar 'farm' for Fort Gordon?

ATLANTA -- Georgia military installations at Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Fort Benning and Kings Bay will one day be housing solar farms that can make them independent of the power grid in ...
Search Augusta jobs