You’re Only A Religious Bigot If You Criticize Islam
Meanwhile the rest of the left is in a panic to defend the Victory mosque at ground zero. It’s as though if a Conservative says “green” they must, of course, say “red.” They are so hell-bent on appeasing Radical Islam and so incredibly afraid of offending them that they are jumping into this debate without considering what is more important, the memory of those who died in the name of Islam just 2 blocks away.
It is true that the attacks upon the World Trade Center did not represent the wishes of millions of Muslims around the world. However, they did represent the wishes and thrilled millions of Muslims throughout the Middle East. It is on this ground that I oppose the location, not the existence of the New York mosque. The proximity to Ground Zero makes it appear to be a victory monument — whether it is or not.
Imam Rauf may be called a moderate and perhaps he is, however, to say he is building this mosque to engender warm fuzzies between Christians, Jews, and Muslims is absurd. Imam Rauf speaking in Arabic told an Islamic website, “I do not believe in religious dialogue.”
That hardly sounds like he’s looking for religious harmony. But I don’t criticize him for that comment. He is a committed Muslim and why should he compromise his religion? I would not. Reading the Imam’s comments in context I find nothing that seems as radical as Newt, Hannity, and Beck have cast him. Sure he said, “I wouldn’t say the United States deserved what happened on 9-11, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” but that statement, while being poorly timed, is not a condemnation of the nation as a whole.
If the United States were attacked today, would it not be a fair comment to say that U.S. policies were partially to blame? Policies on border security? Current appeasement policies? Our policies toward Iran that have allowed it to obtain nuclear weapons?
Come on Conservatives. We are the Constitutionalists in this nation. He has and had a right to blame policies for what goes on in this country. It’s free speech. It is deeds that matter.
Building a mosque near Ground Zero is offensive and if the Imam truly wanted to build a bridge he would be smarter than to fight for his right to offend people. Rauf might have given us a hint at his true motives. The NYT quoted Rauf on Dec. 8 of last year, saying, “New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic.” The NYT went on to write, “A presence so close to the World Trade Center, ‘where a piece of the wreckage fell,’ Imam Feisal added, ‘sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.’ ” — The first statement has since been deleted from the article.
UPDATE: While this article was being written New York Gov. David Patterson (D) had to suspend land-swap talks with the mosque project manager because the manager had travel plans. This prompted Sean Hannity to conclude, on his radio program yesterday afternoon, that the Imam was refusing to move the proposed mosque site. A conclusion refuted by the governor’s office which says talks should resume soon. My question is, why have talks been going on for days? If the Imam is so interested in peace and harmony why resist? Why not accept the swap in principle and then negotiate the location?
I found a couple of excerpts on Ron James’ blog. I liked them so much I wanted to repost them here. I will state I don’t necessarily agree with everything these people say but it sheds light on why those who oppose this mosque do so.excerpt from “When Rights Make Wrongs” by Ralph Peters
excerpt from “Why Is It ‘Bigoted’ to Criticize Religion?” by David Harsanyi
…Social peace requires reciprocity. Each day, each one of us chooses not to do many things that would be legal but offensive to those around us. Even in our permissive society, restraint keeps the peace.
Imam Rauf is not being a good citizen. He is not “building bridges,” but exploiting the arrogance of our cultural elite toward their fellow citizens. He is an exuberantly divisive figure, not a healer.
The glaring failure of our media has been their unwillingness to question the Cordoba Initiative with the same rigor they apply to the mosque’s opponents: Who will fund the mosque complex? Why should so grandiose a project be built so far from the center of mass of New York’s Muslim communities? Why scorn out of hand Governor Patterson’s remarkably generous offer of free state land elsewhere in New York City?
The key to unlocking the Cordoba Initiative’s secrets may lie in the funding. Why should Imam Rauf-so vocal in other regards-play coy about who will pay the center’s bills (estimated at a minimum of a $100 million)?
The money probably will come, directly or indirectly, from Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states. If that’s the case, it suggests divisive purposes. From Africa through Asia, I’ve seen Wahhabi “charity” at work. Invariably, the Saudi purpose in funding religious schools and mosques abroad (including in the US) has been to prevent Muslims from integrating into majority non-Muslim societies…
Even the use of the name “Cordoba” is brilliantly cynical. To Atlantis-will-rise-again! Leftists, medieval Cordoba, in Spain, is a fairy-tale example of Muslims, Christians and Jews living together amicably in a social compact called the convivencia.
What’s left out of the fable is that Christian and Jews were distinctly second-class members of society heavily taxed for their faiths and subject to the whims of Muslim rulers. After a brief cultural flowering, Cordoba’s rulers for centuries were Islamist fanatics from North Africa.
One cannot help but suspect that Imam Rauf and his backers are mocking us, gleefully turning our Constitution against us, and exploiting a media terrified of being accused of bigotry…
…There are those who continue to make the facile claim that any protest over [the GZM] is a display in un-American intolerance and contempt for the Constitution. This position treats criticism of faith — religious institutions and symbols included — as tantamount to “bigotry.”
Given that there remains overwhelming opposition to the ground zero mosque, this viewpoint would mean that 70 percent of Americans are impulsively hostile to freedom of religion and irrationally narrow-minded.
Could be. Or maybe a few of these folks believe the First Amendment features more than one clause. Even a newfound reverence for religious liberty on the left does not negate our right to protest and criticize the philosophical disposition of others. And applying public pressure in an effort to shut down a project is as American as protesting the arrival of a new Walmart. Religious institutions, as far as I can tell, are not exempted from these disputes.
In 2008, thousands of gay rights activists protested the Mormon temple in Westwood, Calif., for its role in passing Proposition 8 — the ban on same-sex marriage. This grew into a national protest to undermine the influence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — even though not every Mormon was involved.
I don’t recall anti-Mormon protesters being referred to as bigots for targeting religion; it appeared to be just the opposite, in fact. And if I am offended by aspects of Mormon theology, why not voice those concerns? Put it this way: If Mormons proposed the erection of a 13-story community center in West Hollywood or the West Village, I would be happy to join the outcry of protest.
Though only a fraction of Catholic priests are pedophiles, the entire Roman Catholic Church is routinely broad-brushed as corrupt and depraved. I’ve not heard those who make generalizations about Catholicism referred to as bigots in Time magazine. Nor have I heard those who regularly disparage evangelicals called intolerant…
…Prospectively speaking, unlike many other faiths, ideological Islam has a poor track record of compatibility with liberal ideals. Surely, that’s worth a discussion in a free society. Or is it a case of intolerance to bring it up?
I’ve read numerous columns claiming that “allowing” a mosque to be built near ground zero is proof of our tolerant goodness. To be certain. But surely our ability to conduct a peaceful debate over the meaning of institutions, including religious ones, is also a reflection of that greatness.