'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.
Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/08/10 - 06:30 pm
0
0
I see Cain never provided

I see Cain never provided that context I asked for. Just hurled personal attacks as predicted.

KSL
187190
Points
KSL 08/08/10 - 07:09 pm
0
0
Tigger, is it worth my time

Tigger, is it worth my time going back and reading all of this?

baronvonreich
1
Points
baronvonreich 08/08/10 - 07:53 pm
0
0
dani Saturday, Aug. 7 8:13 PM

dani Saturday, Aug. 7 8:13 PM I didn't know this was about "Freedom of Religion". Is someone trying to stop the Muslims from practicing their religion. NO. The question is the Ground Zero location...no matter that this conversation has taken a definite religious turn, religion is NOT the question.
---------------------------
So where is the outrage of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church being built at Ground Zero?

Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/08/10 - 09:14 pm
0
0
Probably not KSL.....same

Probably not KSL.....same people trying to refute facts with opinions and emotion and political correctness.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/08/10 - 09:23 pm
0
0
Baron.....Was the WTC attcked

Baron.....Was the WTC attcked by people in the name of the Pope?

JusticeForEva
0
Points
JusticeForEva 08/08/10 - 10:32 pm
0
0
You religious people do

You religious people do realize, that the pledge of allegiance was not written originally with the terms "Under God" right? That it was incorporated into the Flag Code in 1954. This was brought forth in response to the religious era in the 50s that coincided with the nations fear of "godless" communism.

This is a modern incarnation of a belief that this country was founded by Christians and is a Christian Nation. The country may have a majority of its citizens who identify as Christians, and it is recorded that many of the Founding Fathers were believers, but not all of them were, many were Deist. And they created the foundations of this country the way they did as to not have a "National Religion".

I take offense to anyone telling me to like it or leave. This is my country too. Just because I choose not to recite the pledge with the words "Under God" does not make me less of an American. Just because I do not believe in the Christian God, does not mean that I do not have rights like everyone else does. I'm getting tired of this whole, do it my way or the highway. On both sides of the aisle.

And frankly, those who are wanting to insert God into every single part of the American experience but then sit there and say they believe in the words of the Constitution and the ideals that it was written on [filtered word] me off too. You can't have it both ways.

Add God into your personal life. That is what the First Amendment was enacted for. Say the Pledge in whatever way you want, but people need to stop telling others they need to like it or leave.

KSL
187190
Points
KSL 08/08/10 - 10:51 pm
0
0
James Madison, EVA. Go there.

James Madison, EVA. Go there.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 08:28 am
0
0
Eva....the 1st Amendment was

Eva....the 1st Amendment was enacted to give you freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Like it or leave it.

momster59
0
Points
momster59 08/09/10 - 08:48 am
0
0
Freedom of religion means she

Freedom of religion means she has the Constitutionally given right to believe or not believe as she chooses. So if she chooses to be free from religion, aka atheist, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. Not believing as you do does not make her any less of a productive or patriotic AMERICAN CITIZEN. Peddle your "christian" taliban elsewhere. True Christians this does not apply to you.

Tigger - you are the one who claimed that states have the right to establish religions and that state right supersedes federal. Take a ninth grade civics class and actually learn what the Constitution says.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 09:07 am
0
0
So it would be ok to restrict

So it would be ok to restrict someone else's practice of religion to keep someone else from being exposed to it. I get it momster....only the atheist is truly protected.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 09:09 am
0
0
And momster....you have yet

And momster....you have yet to show me in the Constitution where a state DOESN'T have that right. I'm fully aware what the Constitution says....YOU show me where it says they can't.....or it's back to ninth grade for you.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 09:13 am
0
0
I never said states right

I never said states right supersede federal...but the tenth amendment states that powers NOT delegated to the federal government ARE delegated to the states and the people. Therefore since CONGRESS can't establish a religion, the states and people CAN. I'm simply stating what is written in the Constitution....NOT decisions of the Court, which can be easily changed.

momster59
0
Points
momster59 08/09/10 - 09:18 am
0
0
Tigger - someone not wanting

Tigger - someone not wanting to include words to the pledge added in 1954 is not infringing on your religious rights. I am thoroughly versed in what the Constitution states, and trust me, states do not have a right to infringe on any of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. So long as they uphold the Constitution, states may make laws that are not federal laws, such as when stores can be open, licensing laws, penalties for various crimes. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution apply to ALL 50 STATES that's why it is called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Basic high school civics. So no, a state cannot endorse a particular religious belief, nor infringe on the religious beliefs of anyone else.
However, the Constitution allows you to show the world how little you know about its contents all you want. So, have a field day.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 09:33 am
0
0
Momster.....When did I say

Momster.....When did I say not saying "under God" is infringing on my rights? I'm simply saying that it is not infringing on anyone's rights if it IS included.

Now.... Tell us where in the Constitution where is says a STATE can't establish a religion. It clearly says CONGRESS can't....then goes on in the tenth to state that powers that congress doesn't have, the States do. How hard is that to understand?

And Even Congress can ENDORSE a religion as long as they don't establish it. You seem to be injecting words that clearly are not there.

momster59
0
Points
momster59 08/09/10 - 09:47 am
0
0
Tigger - you don't seem to

Tigger - you don't seem to get it. NO state can do anything prohibited or deny any rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. That's why all people of all color can vote, people can marry outside their race, and why I can live freely in this country and not be a christian. This is set up in the body of the Constitution and not in the Ammendments:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
You cannot deny me as a citizen something that is guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution. You cannot endorse, promote, establish or deny any religion above all others. This is the basis for the SCOTUS overturning the gun bans which were voted in some states. When you begin to promote one religion over another you are stepping on very dangerous ground and are turning into a theocracy, which the US is not. The religious freedom you deny today could be the religious freedom you are denied tomorrow. The ideas you set forth that a state can endorse one religious belief over another is akin to taliban ideology and is very dangerous. I have no problem with you having your religious faith, and my religious expression is in no way affecting you.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 09:57 am
0
0
Momster....clearly you

Momster....clearly you haven't read what the first Amendment says. It's pointless to discuss this further until you do. It doesn't say "you have the right to religious freedom." It says CONGRESS shall pass no laws regarding the establishment of a religion. Are you aware that for many years after ratifying the Constitution, that several states still had established official religions, until they did away with them on their own? Probably not.

momster59
0
Points
momster59 08/09/10 - 10:04 am
0
0
Tigger - from the BODY of the

Tigger - from the BODY of the Constitution
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I'm not the one who doesn't get it. The Constitution states that government cannot promote one religion over another. Sorry you can't have it your way. I do not discuss politics, like Rep. vs. Dem., but I will go to battle for any Constitutional given right even if I don't like it. I'm not particularly pleased that racists spout their hatred, but the free speech clause gives them that right. I abhor Westboro Church, but the freedom of religion clause gives them that right.
Here's an idea, why don't you contact a lawyer that deals with Civic Law and maybe you'll believe them.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 10:12 am
0
0
I'm well aware of that

I'm well aware of that momster....and I'm aware of what the Constitution says as a whole....which you seem to be missing. I keep telling you the actual words....and you keep telling me words that aren't in there. No since discussing with you if you won't even acknowledge the actual words.

momster59
0
Points
momster59 08/09/10 - 10:24 am
0
0
Tigger - it is not my fault

Tigger - it is not my fault if no one ever taught you basic civics. The states that previously endorsed Christianity did not decide to drop them on their own, but were forced to due to their responsibility to the Constitution. TALK to ANY lawyer, civics teacher/professor, or even your senator or congressman. You are the ONLY person making the claim that a state can endorse one religion over another. NOT going to happen, against the Constitution.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 10:26 am
0
0
I give you quotes...you

I give you quotes...you retort with emotion. Go figure.

You keep saying that it's against the Constitution. Give me the quote from the Constitution that says a state can't do it. I'll be waiting.......but I'm sure you will just AGAIN say ...... you can't do it.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 10:28 am
0
0
And personal attacks with

And personal attacks with your assumption of my education are a typical liberal tactic when you disagree......

momster59
0
Points
momster59 08/09/10 - 10:35 am
0
0
Tigger - I've made no

Tigger - I've made no personal attacks concerning your education. I gave you the words straight out of the Constitution. STRAIGHT from the Constitution. It is you who is unable/unwilling to read the words from the document itself. Telling you to seek your answers from someone else is not emotion. I'm not the one insulting you, you seem to be bent on insulting yourself by admitting you don't understand what is written in the document itself. If you still don't believe that a state can't "endorse" one religion over another, then again I will suggest that you confer with an attorney, a civics teacher/professor, your senator or your congressman.

Tigger_The_Tiger
0
Points
Tigger_The_Tiger 08/09/10 - 10:41 am
0
0
"Tigger - it is not my fault

"Tigger - it is not my fault if no one ever taught you basic civics. " Personal attack.

Never mind.....not even worth my time if you can't recognize a personal attack when you make one. I will discuss it no further.

JusticeForEva
0
Points
JusticeForEva 08/09/10 - 12:22 pm
0
0
Momster don't bother with

Momster don't bother with Tigger. You're basically arguing with a wall :-/

TheFederalist
1
Points
TheFederalist 08/09/10 - 02:00 pm
0
0
I see that now it appears the

I see that now it appears the developers for the, "cordoba initiative", (mosque at ground zero), do not actually own the entire property. Turns out that Con Ed owns half, and that the public utility must vote to sell it to the developers for the project to continue. Funny isn't it, that there always seems to be, "the rest of the story". LoL

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs