'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.
dougk
3
Points
dougk 08/07/10 - 11:35 am
0
0
Reading and quoting it is one
Unpublished

Reading and quoting it is one thing. Understanding what it means is another.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 11:40 am
0
0
dougk......I made that very

dougk......I made that very same point earlier. And assuming it means something other than what it says is yet another thing.

sjgraci
2
Points
sjgraci 08/07/10 - 11:41 am
0
0
Not suprised that those who

Not suprised that those who would not defend the United States Constitution would bring up the flag of treason being flown by any government on public land. You didn't support the Constitution in 1861 and you don't now.

Here's a clue to you traitors of the United States of America: When the United States Government builds a mosque, then I'll be with you. I'd include church in there but we all know you'd be for government building that.

ozarkalien
0
Points
ozarkalien 08/07/10 - 12:10 pm
0
0
Another dumb editorial. the

Another dumb editorial. the only think I wish would be to rid America of all religions. I don't want presidents with little voices in his head. I don't want people that believe in fairy tales to decide on what is best for all of us. I want religion and gov out of my life. Religion has caused more misery,death,wars then anything else in history. religious people need to stop telling everyone how to live, if gays want to marry let them, if people want to smoke pot let them. what's funny is the same people that say get gov out of my life are the same ones that want the gov to tell people how to live. I just wasted another few minutes responding to another dumb letter in the paper.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:10 pm
0
0
Traitors....you mean like

Traitors....you mean like those who ignore the constitution by requiring you to purchase insurance? Those who refuse to secure the borders, and in fact are trying to forbid the states from doing the same? Those who insist something is a right, when they have no way to grant that right without forcing someone else to do it (healthcare) ..... sjgaci...are these the traitors to the Constitution that you speak of?

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:13 pm
0
0
Why are some of the so-called

Why are some of the so-called "enlightened" atheists completely rude to anyone who doesn't practice their particular religion? I guess Albert Einstein believed in "fairy tales" too? More of that liberal tolerance, I guess.

fontana
0
Points
fontana 08/07/10 - 12:13 pm
0
0
If nut-jobs think "honor"

If nut-jobs think "honor" killing their children is OK, per their religion, then how the heck do you think they give one thing about anybody else or their religion? EVIL, thats what I call it.

OJP
7738
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 12:15 pm
0
0
Tigger - What you don't

Tigger - What you don't realize is that it is you who is trying to interpret the Constitution in an unconventional and new way. My position is well supported and nearly universally accepted as the most reasonable one.

And as for the big picture, extending the protections of the Bill of Rights is a good thing. Do you disagree?

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:24 pm
0
0
I'm not imposing new

I'm not imposing new meanings....I'm reading the words that the founders wrote!

Extending rights IS a good thing......trampling on states rights is not.

For the record.....I'm not in favor of a state establishing a religion; in fact MOST state constitutions forbid it. All I'm saying is that the Constitution, as it is written, does not forbid it.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:21 pm
0
0
Wow...using the exact words

Wow...using the exact words that the founders wrote is "new and unconventional?" How twisted is that?

OJP
7738
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 12:26 pm
0
0
Tigger - The Supreme Court

Tigger - The Supreme Court disagrees. And its interpretation is not considered radical by conservative jurists.

You can try to get it changed but you'll need to get a better understanding of the current rule. Constitutional interpretation requires much more than simply reading the words written. We all know what the age requirement for President means but concepts like Due Process and Equal Protection require a bit more vague and require greater analysis.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:29 pm
0
0
How do you interpret "shall

How do you interpret "shall not be infringed." Not a lot of gray area there.

OJP
7738
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 12:30 pm
0
0
I can't edit from my phone so

I can't edit from my phone so bear with me...

OJP
7738
Points
OJP 08/07/10 - 12:30 pm
0
0
I can't edit from my phone so

I can't edit from my phone so bear with me...

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 12:31 pm
0
0
I'm patient.

I'm patient.

Riverman1
93737
Points
Riverman1 08/07/10 - 01:02 pm
0
0
I met many in the mideast who

I met many in the mideast who were Muslims, but didn't participate in the prayers, etc. Some just paid lip service to it kind of like I do with my Southern Baptist affiliation. So we can't clump all Muslims in with the extremists. But the mosques in America generally preach that nonMuslims are inferior and that women shouldn't have certain rights. Many want to see Sharia Law enforced.

So, again, my question is should some, most or all the Muslim mosques in America be declared hate groups?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 08/07/10 - 01:09 pm
0
0
Islamophobia and the 'Ground

Islamophobia and the 'Ground Zero Mosque' Debate By Ishaan Tharoor | TIME.com | Saturday, Aug. 07, 2010

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2009147,00.html?xid=rss-t...

"In this context, figures like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — the Arab-American cleric behind the mosque project near Ground Zero — stand out. A consummate moderate who has made a career preaching about the compatibility of Islamic and American values, Rauf has been cast as a dangerous radical by the mosque's opponents. Few of them are moved by the name of Rauf's proposed building: Cordoba House, named for the city in Spanish Andalucia where Muslims, Jews and Christians once co-existed for centuries in an extraordinary flourishing of culture and science. In these times, the richness and diversity of Muslim experience, in the U.S. and elsewhere, seem far from the minds of most Americans."

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 01:12 pm
0
0
Neither hate nor any other

Neither hate nor any other emotion is illegal...(yet) so what would be the point?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 08/07/10 - 01:13 pm
0
0
Where do you get "But the

Where do you get "But the mosques in America generally preach that nonMuslims are inferior and that women shouldn't have certain rights. Many want to see Sharia Law enforced", Riverman1? This is entirely untrue and utter disinformation.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 01:16 pm
0
0
What are you basing YOUR

What are you basing YOUR incite on Cain? You spend a lot of time in a Mosque? How do you know it's untrue? I would assume that a Mosque would teach the Quran, which DOES have all those beliefs. (even though you claim it doesn't)

dougk
3
Points
dougk 08/07/10 - 01:15 pm
0
0
Riverman got Muslims mixed up
Unpublished

Riverman got Muslims mixed up with fundamentalist Christians.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 01:17 pm
0
0
dougk....you are right about

dougk....you are right about Fundamentalist Christians.....but riverman is STILL right about Muslims. It's not an either-or situation.

Riverman1
93737
Points
Riverman1 08/07/10 - 01:17 pm
0
0
DougK, not mixed up...just

DougK, not mixed up...just being honest. The Westboro Baptist Church is on the hate groups list.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 08/07/10 - 01:21 pm
0
0
Jimmy Carter, or me, or

Jimmy Carter, or me, or thousands of other Americans could have written the sentiments expressed in the article linked below. War hawks and Islamophobes went to label anyone who disagrees with U.S. foreign policy or upholds the right to freedom of worship in this country as "unAmerican". We are distressed to watch as our country slips into a xenophobic fever that has characterized undemocratic, authoritarian regimes that condone scapegoating, ethnic purification, pogroms, and other violence against unpopular minorities.

This isn't the America I love by Mehdi Hasan | The Guardian | Saturday 7 August 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/07/ground-ze...

Riverman1
93737
Points
Riverman1 08/07/10 - 01:22 pm
0
0
The relatively small number

The relatively small number of mosques have turned out lots of terrorists. The FBI investigates many of them. If they are preaching religious and racial intolerance, why wouldn't they be called hate groups? Afterall, as I said, the Westboro Baptist Church is on the list as are Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, National Socialist Movement (United States), Aryan Nations, Nation of Islam (the Black one), League of the South, New Black Panther Party, Voz de Aztlán, Nation of Yahweh, Jewish Task Force, the Jewish Defense League and the White Order of Thule.

Little Lamb
49094
Points
Little Lamb 08/07/10 - 01:29 pm
0
0
OJP wrote: Little Lamb - And

OJP wrote:

Little Lamb - And I'd like to point out that the States would be free to ban gun ownership were it not for the recent incorporation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court.

Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights begin with the phrase, “Congress shall make no law . . . .” But the second amendment is different. It does not address Congress, but instead is aimed directly at the people! There is nothing in there about the Congress or the federal government. Here is the relevant text:

. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people. Neither the federal government nor any of the state governments may infringe that right. I just let the words mean what they say, unlike those living in Wonderland.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 08/07/10 - 01:24 pm
0
0
Tigger_The_Tiger, you do not

Tigger_The_Tiger, you do not understand the Qu'ran any better than you understand the U.S. Constitution. All you have to offer is bluster and badgering.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 01:25 pm
0
0
OH I get it....Cain says it's

OH I get it....Cain says it's untrue, and disinformation....therefore it must be so.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/07/10 - 01:26 pm
0
0
I understand it quite

I understand it quite well....I have shown many quotes that you claim were take out of context, yet you ignored me EVERY time I asked you to provide the proper context. You are a very insignificant person, Cain.

Little Lamb
49094
Points
Little Lamb 08/07/10 - 01:31 pm
0
0
OJP wrote: Little Lamb - And

OJP wrote:

Little Lamb - And I'd like to point out that the States would be free to ban gun ownership were it not for the recent incorporation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court.

Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights begin with the phrase, “Congress shall make no law . . . .” But the second amendment is different. It does not address Congress, but instead is aimed directly at the people! There is nothing in there about the Congress or the federal government. Here is the relevant text:

. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people. Neither the federal government nor any of the state governments may infringe that right. I just let the words mean what they say, unlike those living in Wonderland.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Mayor's race historic, controversial

Hardie Davis is still waiting to take office after winning a mayoral race that featured no white candidates and saw one of his opponents drop out the day before the election.
Search Augusta jobs