Posted on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010 by Kevin Jackson
The Constitution of Racist Islamophobes, by Rachael Williams
You can call me a bigot for opposing the Ground Zero mosque, I don’t mind—I’ve already been branded a racist and a tea-bagger for opposing Obama’s far-left agenda. It seems that there’s an awful lot of racist, teabagging, Islamophobe bigots out there hiding amongst us, though—since Time is citing polls showing that 70% of Americans feel the Ground Zero mosque is “an insult to the victims of 9/11”.
If Park 51 is genuine in their desire to build bridges between Muslims and non-Islamic society, they need to just buy the world a Coke and call it a day, because the mosque isn’t going to help matters.
The pacifists on the left are cowering behind freedom of religion as a reason to allow a mosque to be built as a trophy for the greatest achievement of radical Islam on American soil. Liberals only like the Constitution when bastardizing it allows them get away with something that is ethically incorrect. Unfortunately for them, there is already a Supreme Court precedent that would allow us to prevent this martyr shrine from being built.
In 2004, the Supreme Court upheld a 50 year-old ban on cross burning, but only when there is intent of racial intimidation. Without evidence of intent to intimidate, it is still Constitutionally protected free speech under the First Amendment. I imagine Justice Clarence Thomas threw the rest of the justices a major side-eye before writing the dissenting opinion, which was pretty much just saying AW HELL NAW to the notion that burning a cross could be done as a “symbol of group solidarity” lacking intent to intimidate.
Personally, I’m inclined to agree. I don’t imagine anyone burning a cross just so they can roast marshmallows and sing Kum-bi-ya.
What it comes down to in a controversial argument regarding freedom of speech or freedom of religion is not about common sense and a literal interpretation of the Constitution. In the Kagan-era Supreme Court, it’s all about precedent—and in the case of the Ground Zero mosque, the intent to intimidate seems pretty darn clear.
Everything about this mosque is an in-your-face attempt to raise a memorial and shrine not to the 3,000 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11, but to the murderous martyrs who killed them. Even the originally planned name, “Cordoba House” reveals the mentality behind its construction.
Cordoba is a reference to the city in Spain where in the eighth century Islam dominated what had previously been a peaceful society with a mix of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens and forced to convert to Islam. Those who refused to denounce their faith died as martyrs, with several religious leaders boldly proclaiming with their last breaths:
“We abide by the same confession, O magistrate, that our most holy brothers Isaac and Sanctius professed. Now hand down...
the sentence, multiply your cruelty, be kindled with complete fury in vengeance for your prophet. We profess Christ to be truly God and your prophet to be a precursor of Antichrist and an author of profane doctrine.”
“Sexy Brilliance brings levity to the political discourse in this country. I put a comedic spin on what's happening in America, and showcases the ironies and hypocrisies of politics in America.”
The building was to be named after a multi-generational attempt to establish Islam as the only remaining religion by way of forced conversions and genocide, and yet the left still insists that the building of the mosque is Constitutionally protected. If you think this is really about freedom of religion, I’ve got a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate to sell you.
Apparently, there are a few supporters of the Ground Zero mosque who know that the freedom of religion argument is a losing one. The liberal rag Huffington Post featured an op-ed claiming that the Ground Zero mosque isn’t a mosque at all. Because the building will feature a culinary school, basketball courts, and a pool, it’s an “Islamic Community Center”. Even if we pretend that there is some dramatic difference between a mosque and a community center, the fact remains that there is a Supreme Court precedent to deny the existence of a religiously-oriented structure if the intent is intimidation.
There’s no grey area here. The plan to build a mosque here—especially when there are nearly a hundred mosques in NYC, 20 of them in Manhattan alone—is so incredulous, that non-American Muslims don’t actually believe that Muslims are behind Park 51. Prominent Sunni leader Al Masry Al Youm spoke of the “devious mentality” that could drive one to do such a thing when clearly it will do tremendous damage to interfaith relations. He speculated that the mosque was part of a “Zionist conspiracy” to “confirm a [fictitious] clear connection between the strikes of September [11] and Islam.”
While the “Jews did it!” meme doesn’t seem to be widespread, the international Muslim opposition to Park 51 is. The Middle East Media Research Institute featured an article last week explaining that the majority of Muslims don’t want or need a mosque near Ground Zero. The Al-Arabiya Director was quoted as saying “The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery.”
While American liberals are busy claiming the mosque must be built not in spite of such opposition but “precisely because of” it, the rest of the world sees that argument for the charade that it is. The 70% of Americans who oppose Park 51 aren’t Islamophobes or bigots—even Howard Dean agrees with that—and they have Constitutional precedent on their side in keeping it from being built.
The majority of the world’s Muslims who actually do want to practice their religion peacefully and sincerely desire to build bridges do not want a Ground Zero mosque built. If the mosque issue really centers around religious freedom, aren’t they the ones we should be listening to?
principlex says:
August 25, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I just don't think the government is doing its job of protecting our individual rights. If it were, it would give the Muslim mosques the go-ahead the minute they stop pushing Sharia Law, a system competitive with the laws of the United States. That is a non-starter.
http://principlex.blogspot.com/2010/08/has-islam-...