By embracing the mosque at Ground Zero, President Obama made it his own. And as his own, it will be an albatross around his neck. At a glittering White House dinner marking the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, Mr. Obama made a strong appeal for religious liberty and tolerance.
Religious liberty for whom? Is there one region in the world -- even one -- with a Muslim majority where religious liberty is enjoyed by anyone? Right after 9/11, Michigan political science professor Muktedar Khan confronted his fellow Muslims. He said they all knew that the U.S. was the best country in the world in which to practice Islam. If they doubted that, he challenged his fellow believers to accept his offer of a one-way air fare to the Muslim-majority country of their choice. He got no takers.
Religious liberty in California? When 5,836,072 Californians voted -- including millions of Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons and Lutherans -- to uphold marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, President Obama opposed them. He did not think they should express their religious convictions in this way. When a single federal judge overruled those millions of voters, President Obama did not step forward to defend religion and democracy.
Religious liberty for Jews? When American Jews showed their deep concern over the right of Jews in East Jerusalem to build apartment houses for their fellow Jews, Obama stiff-armed their concerns. He did not call it a "local issue." He jumped into the controversy against the Jews building homes for Jews in a Jewish state.
Religious liberty for Catholics? President Obama's administration received urgent appeals from the nation's Catholic Bishops. Please, they said, pass national health care but don't force us to subsidize abortion, don't force Catholic practitioners to compromise their consciences. Did President Obama yield an inch to the Bishops? Not one.
Religious liberty for Evangelicals? When the Hastings Law Center kicked the Evangelical Christian Legal Society off campus at Berkeley, California, did President Obama stand up for those Evangelicals' religious liberty? Did he support their freedom of association? Not at all.
What we see in this administration is the most selective defense of religious liberty in our history. Only Muslims' religious liberty is being protected. Only their beliefs are respected by President Obama.
What about the deeply held convictions of tens of millions of Americans? President Obama claims to understand the "feelings" of Americans who have suffered "trauma" as the result of 9/11.
There you have it: Muslims have religious principles and beliefs which we are all called upon to respect. But the rest of us have only emotions, feelings. We are, in short, not being reasonable.
Professor Obama appears to be ever-so-reasonable. He constantly looks for ways to lecture us about our constitutional obligations.
Justice Robert Jackson did not agree. The Constitution, Justice Jackson famously wrote, is not a suicide pact. Apparently, Mr. Obama thinks it is.
To allow a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero is to allow a triumphal arch for our jihadist enemies. It will be a recruiting poster for jihadists worldwide.
Imam Rauf is not the "moderate" Muslim he pretends to be. Even now, as he tours the Mideast on a junket paid for by our State Department, he is seeking funds for his Ground Zero mosque from some of the same sources that have incubated jihadism.
Imam Rauf has named the 13-story, $100 million Islamic "cultural center" he wants to build Cordoba House. That should be a hint. Cordoba was the capital of Moorish Spain. For seven hundred years, Spanish Christians lived under the Muslim yoke. For seven centuries they were mere dhimmis, lacking all religious, civil, and economic rights. Could we have a clearer indication of what Imam Rauf wants here?
Do we want sharia law here? That's the law they have in Saudi Arabia. If Imam Rauf succeeds in his life quest, Americans will lose every liberty -- starting with our religious liberty.
No, Americans have every right to object strenuously to using religious liberty as a cloak to destroy religious liberty. No, they do not have a right to build their Cordoba House near Ground Zero.
Every candidate for the House and Senate, every candidate for state and local office, should be required to take a stand on this critical issue. If you are willing to bring Cordoba House to Ground Zero, there is no place in America that is safe from sharia law.
http://www.SunflowerPipes.com
In no particular order, the list of Muslim majority states that are secular:
Bangladesh
Turkey
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Niger
Burkina Faso
Mali
Senegal
Guinea
Azerbaijan
Tajikistan
Kyrgyzstan
Turkmenistan
Chad
Kosovo
Gambia
Djibouti
And even if the count was 0, that does not mean that the US should therefor abandon secularism.
And of the list of complaints in this article that the author proports are violations of religious freedom, 0 are violations of religious freedom.
Religions are not free to vote away the civil rights of Californians.
Religions are not free to seize land in occupied territories.
Religions are not free to interfere in abortions.
Religions are not free to demand subsidies from universities.
Except, of course, in the countries where there is not religious freedom, and fortunately, the US is not on that list of countries.
The Left never says anything about building a church, except when they come out against it because it will not be paying any property tax and that will create a burdon on the police and fire departments. Especially if the church has multiple floors.
But now, the Left is actively supporting the construction of a church. Why is that? What is it about this church that makes the Left so interested in defending it?
What is it about this church . . . . .oh, yeah.
Case closed.
Obama had no problem ignoring the constitution to ask (demand) $20 billion from BP.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
Obama felt he could make BP come to him and give him what he wants.
Why can't he have the NY Muslims come to the Oval Office and ask (demand) that they build on another sight that would be less controversial?
BP likewise had no obligation to pay, or agree to anything. There's nothing unconstitutional about an agreement between a private company and the govt. in terms of redress for damages. Not a thing.
"Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere"
Again, they AGREED to pay it. That's not confiscation.
As always, the right wing constantly butchers the facts.
BP leases the areas they drill in from the federal government, you do know that right? The federal government owns those waters, not BP.
So, as BP's landlord, the federal government has the right to ask them to cover damages from their malfeasance, incompetence and negligence...just as any property owner would. And Obama did not "demand" BP pay something, this was a negotiation between their lawyers and the government's.
Believe you me, the United States Government had the legal right to sue BP for a heck of a lot more than 20 billion dollars. BP jumped at the chance to negotiate a settlement that is 1/5 of their yearly profits.
Your analogy here is one big FAIL.
Once again, Ken Blackwell tramples on others' Constitutional rights when those others don't share his increasingly fringe-y beliefs. Of course, he is best known for doing this to voters in Ohio in 2004, but even he couldn't steal his own election to Governor.
I challenge HuffPo to live up to a higher standard. This man belongs in JAIL, not on these pages. DUMP HIM NOW!
jp
If there really is a God, he/she/it has got to be fed up with these folks who claim to speak for him/her/it.
-Blackwell
Dear Mr. Blackwell,
Are you even trying to make sense with your position or do you not know what has been happening the last 20 years?
As i am sure you are aware the adminstration's position on a two state solution is the same as the President's predessor, G.W. Bush ( you know the guy you stole an election for in Ohio ) and the President before him too ( you know back when the world liked us ).
You cite building in east Jerusalem like it is just some quaint construction project, it is not.
The Palistenians are wanting east Jerusalem for a capitol of their new state, and this has become an issue of contention between the two sides. So it is not some local issue, that you try to pawn it off as. FACT: The west bank has now 42% of its land mass OCCUPIED by illegal jewish settlements. Which beggs the question, just where is the new Palestinian state going to be if the westbank becomes Jewish and even east Jerusalem (which houses the arab and non-jewish population of the city) is not to be part of the two state deal?
FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FREEDOM TO DENY OTHER CITIZENS THEIR RIGHTS. FULL STOP.
Expressing your religious belief does not give you the right to deny gays and lesbians the legal benefits available to all other married citizens. It does not give you the right to impose a religious litmus test to join an organization using public property and public funds.
The fact that you think so, though, makes pretty clear why you're so terrified of "Sharia Law" (somethign Sufi muslims aren't advocating here or anywhere else). You want to be able to impose your own form of Sharia law on the US -- and you know that if you're allowed to do it, some other group might be able to do the same thing.
The rest of us prefer to stick to American laws and ideals -- first and foremost the freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. That's what makes us different -- and better -- than the countries you apparently want us to lower ourselves to the level of.