Propriety
By Mitch Berg
It is my right, under the First Amendment, to walk into a biker bar and tell them that leather chaps look like gay S and M wear.
Just because it’s my right doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Billy Joe Tubb, writing in South Carolina Traditional Values blog, takes on the real reasons for not building the Ground Zero Ground Zero Debris Field mosque:
The fact is that building a mosque next to the site of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, which were destroyed during the 11 September attacks, is a strange story. This is because the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!
That is the interesting part; the actual Muslims are hardly party of the discussions.
Neither did the Muslims ask for a single building, nor do the angry Muslims want the mosque. This is one of the few times when the two opposing sides are in agreement. Nevertheless, the dispute has escalated, and has reached the front pages of the press and the major television programs, demonstrations have been staged in the streets, and large posters have been hung on buses roaming the streets of New York calling for preventing the building of the mosque and reminding the people of the 11 September crime. It really is a strange battle!
I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district. Is there a side that is committed to this mosque? The fact is that in the news reports there are names linked to this project that costs 100 million dollars!
The building used to be a Burlington Coat Factory…
Tubb follows the money:
The sides enthusiastic for building the mosque might be building companies, architect houses, or politicized groups that want suitable investments?! I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.
…and cuts to the important point:
What the US citizens do not understand is that the battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle, and not theirs, and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam. This is what has started to happen now; they claim that there is a mosque being built over the corpses of 3,000 killed US citizens, who were buried alive by people chanting God is great, which is the same call that will be heard from the mosque.
Worth a read.
CORRECTION: I mistakenly identified the author as Billy Joe Tubb. the actual author is; Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed writing in Al Sharq Al-Awsat:
I regret any confusion.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:25 am
That’s why Obama’s hectoring was so annoying. Nobody says you can’t have a mosque, we just say you can’t have it here. That’s well-established law, same as any other zoning decision, whether you want to open a butcher shop, hog farm or gun store. And it’s precisely the same as any other First Amendment claim such as freedom of expression, which opens up the whole panoply of strip club cases.
First the cops acted stupidly, now the zoning officials are acting stupidly. When will this guy realize that he’s not the Mayor, he’s the President? If he wanted to run the day-to-day details of local people’s lives, he should have run for Daley’s job.
.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:47 am
In related news, Nancy Pelosi is calling for an investigation of how the opposition to the mosque is being funded.
What a patriot.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:24 am
I think that an investigation into who is funding her botox treatments would be more appropriate!
August 18th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Kermit….seriously? No, she can’t be that stupid. If that is true…..are the Democrats criminalizing descent? Look at what happened to liberal Target when they gave a relatively small amount of cash to a pro-business group. Or what happened to those in California who supported Prop 8. Or Tom Delay…..turns out none of the allegations were valid.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:51 am
The mosque at ground zero is intended by its builders to be as intrusive and offensive a cultural icon of triumph in the US as the al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock are in Jerusalem.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Chuck;
Not to be flip here, but are you really surprised by Piglosi’s most recent idiocy? After all, she has repeatedly exhibited that she is dumber than a bag of hammers!
August 18th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
That, sir, is a terrible insult!
(To a bag of hammers.)
August 18th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Kermit….seriously? No, she can’t be that stupid. If that is true…..are the Democrats criminalizing descent?
No, I would say they have institutionalized descent. I don’t see how they could sink any lower.
Dissent, on the other hand, they want to crush ruthlessly.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
It is your absolute 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm, as long as it is a 1-shot .22. After all, there are some victims of gun violence who are still hurt by the idea of guns out in public.
That’s reasonable, right?
August 18th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
After all, there are some victims of gun violence who are still hurt by the idea they didn’t have a gun to protect themselves from criminals when they needed one.
That’s reasonable, right?
“It is your absolute 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm, as long as it is a 1-shot .22.”
Obviously you’ve read the Heller and McDonald decisions….sheesh
August 18th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
That’s reasonable, right?
“Reasonable” meaning you will bow down to the state and the aristocracy. Did it take long to break in those jack boots, Stooj?
August 18th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
It is your absolute 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm, as long as it is a 1-shot .22.
And it is your absolute 1st Amendment right to free speech, as long you use a moveable type hand-press to print your opinions.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
I’m just using your argument in a way that you don’t like to make a point. I’m firmly for gun rights.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
DiscordianStooj: is your point “the free exercise of religion is abridged if you cannot build your church in any location you could possibly want”? Something along the lines of “only a right without any limitation is a real right”?
August 20th, 2010 at 3:33 am
No, I’m saying “It makes me feel bad” isn’t a compelling reason to deny a church being built.
New York can pass a zoning law on where churches are built. But it can’t be specific to one religion, and it can’t be retro-active to this case.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Pretty choosy about what is “compelling reason” and what is not for a warmie. 😉
“retro-active”? Is it built, or even started, already?
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
“Hi, I’d like to open a bar on my land.”
“Sorry, we’ve just now decided to pass a law that says you can’t build a bar right where your land is.”
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 pm
What? Why pass a law?
Simply find an endangered cricket on the property or something, right?