Monday, August 09, 2010

Muslim Raheel Raza Speaks Out Against Ground Zero Mosque


At 8/09/2010 9:02 PM, Blogger Brad16all said...

This smacks of the absurd "right to not be offended".

What would Thomas Jefferson say? Was he so concerned about sensitivity and hurt feelings, or did liberty and freedom of expression come first?

It's a private building - if they want to build their mosque, let them. It's the American way, and what makes us the city on the hill.

At 8/09/2010 9:30 PM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

"What would Thomas Jefferson say?" Let us revisit Jefferson's response to the Barbary Pirates and the first U.S. confrontation with the Islamic Movement.

At 8/09/2010 9:50 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"It's a private building - if they want to build their mosque, let them. It's the American way, and what makes us the city on the hill"...

Hmmm, sniveling political correctness rears its ugly head again...

You obviously know nothing of the Religion of Peace...

Wrap your head around this philosophy...

At 8/09/2010 10:51 PM, Blogger Jim Egnor said...

Brad16all---I suppose there are various interpretations of sensitivities, etc. Personally, I find the idea that a mosque be planned so close to the towers to be abhorrent. I, on the other hand, have no problem with a Quaker school or Amish barnraising close to the location so don't think that I'm not anti-religious. Curiously enough, neither Quaker nor Amish brethren have been linked to many (if at all) acts of violence toward a society. Yes..I am aware that a percentage of Muslims have distanced themselves for the radical elements so don't paint me as "one of those pro-American, pro- Israeli, anti-foreigner nuts" On the other hand, from a historical perspective, you are aware that mosques have been raised at sites of Muslim victories during war? So, if the latter statement is historically true...what message do you think the notoriety of this mosque brings to the "ummah"?

At 8/09/2010 11:06 PM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

"What would Jefferson say?"

The U.S. first encountered the Islamic Movement fighting the Barbary pirates with frigates and not giving in to demands for tribute. This was Jefferson's response to Muslim demands as a right of passage on the Meditteranean.

At 8/09/2010 11:26 PM, Blogger JamesD'Troy said...

Buddy, you brought up the issue I had wanted to before I had the chance. It would also be interesting to see if Jefferson would have given the Quran the same editing treatment he gave his own 'Jefferson' bible. No one knows what the results might have looked like but I suspect there wouldn't be much left in the Quran after a Jeffersonian editing treatment.

Also, Hugh Hewitt made a really good point in that there are limits to freedom of speech and even religion when it comes to 'sacred secular' spaces like Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, and GZ. Disney and other businesses were rightly turned down when they tried to build malls and entertainment centers adjacent to the Civil War battlefield. Here's some background material:

Having lived in the UK until recently, I've seen this Islamosupremacist nonsense before with the London Mega-mosque. I also highly recommend the Channel 4 documentaries, 'Undercover Mosque' and its sequel, 'Undercover Mosque: The Return' to get a sense of what's really being said and promoted in a significant portion of mosques.

At 8/10/2010 6:26 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

I defend the right of them to build this Mosque, as long as they agree to allow, and to financially and legally support this suggestion to be followed, as well.

THEN they will be in clear and full support of private property rights, and that's what IS important, here... right?

At 8/10/2010 11:20 AM, Blogger morganovich said...


the explicit purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular speech and prevent any adjudication by the government about who gets to speak.

the price of freedoms is allowing the freedom of others.

the same arguments you make could be levied against white men building federal buildings or missionary churches near indian reservations.

once you open this can of worms, it's bottomless.

it's always tempting to try to "make an exception" and abridge someone's rights to speech because you don't like what they have to say or their right to purchase property and practice religion, but frankly, what "message" they send you DOES NOT MATTER. if they actively incite violence, that's another matter, but i have heard of no plans to do so.

what message do you think banning a project because it is muslim sends not only to the rest of the world but to our own populace about the veracity of american claims about liberty, freedom, and tolerance? i'd rather take the high road and be a beacon. you seem to prefer that we emulate those you purport to abhor.

the builders either have a right to speech, property, and religious practice, or none of us do.

the fact that you are OK with a quaker house but not a mosque indicates that you do not believe in rights. if you did, you'd see that they apply to all.

i get my rights but you don't get yours is how tyranny starts.


At 8/10/2010 11:34 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Let's see, the Congressional Budget Office estmates the cost of the Iraqistan wars at $3 trillion--that is $3 trillion sucked out of the private, job-creating sector. All of it borrowed money, taken for war instead of building up private enterprises.

We should be worried about a mosque? One mosque?

When even econ-blogs become obsessed with the trivial....oh, why not. Let's talk about Lindsey Lohan--she is so stuck-up, no? You think Elvis is really still alive?

At 8/12/2010 11:11 PM, Blogger Brad16all said...

Buddy, Juandos, et al, you don't have a right to not be offended, sorry. The Cordoba House (which I realize now is not actually a mosque) offends you because it's near a 'secular sacred space' (whatever that means)? Deal with it - this is what happens when you live in a relatively free society.

The military actions taken by Mr Jefferson against pirate threats to US economic interests are irrelevant to the issue. Your interpretation of the Barbary Issue as a religious one is wrong. It was a matter of protecting US shipping, not of defending a Christiandom that Jefferson would barely consider himself a part of.

For those commenters who seem to prefer the Iron Hand of the state prevent a private Islamic community center being built on private land, I would direct you first to the codified views on religious pluralism held by Mr Jefferson (who, like me, seemed to hold believers in some measure of disdain):

Second, I would ask you consider that 'private property' means you cannot coerce me into not building something just because it might hurt your feelings. Simply put, hurt feelings don't supersede the Bill of Rights.

At 8/15/2010 5:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems obvious the imam and his followers have the right to build the mosque wherever they want within legal bounds.
However, the 1st Amendment does not prohibit the rest of us from raising holy hell in any we choose, within the bounds of the law.
That too seems obvious. So we can complain, lobby, protest, express outrage, boycott the mosque, write articles and op-ed pieces etc. In no way am I obligated to make it easy for these clowns to build this insult.
To me, it is just typical islamic warfare by another means. They know many spineless politicians will pander to them. BO could have said "its legal but obnoxious and insult to victims and citizens." they call it the bully pulpit. Instead, true to his anti-american ways, in effect endorsed the mosque.

A pox on his and their house.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home