and get down to the nitty gritty.
For the sake of trying to express (mainly to Aron, who thoroughly enjoys playing devil's advocate) how I stand with the mosque issue, I will write this highly opinionated blog (which much like my spoken opinion, is loud, proud and not going anywhere.)
I was reading the local newspaper this morning and as usual I take a peak at the "big" arguement in the editorials. Today, it is a battle of the mosque.
The left side wants to portray those not supporting the erection of the mosque so close to the site of 9/11 as a crime of religious intolerance. This editorial reads as a freedom of religion lecture, cleverly using the constitution as ammo to throw back in the constitutionalists' faces. Thanks guys, I love being called names such as an "Islamaphobe."
Then you look at the right side column and it reads "Confusion over Obama's Muslim roots." It poses a question that the Americans feel should be answered. Does that make the right wing-ers religiously intolerant of the Muslims? No.
Perhaps, there is a much larger issue at hand than Americans are willing to acknowledge.
To gain the office of the Presidency, you campaign. What is the purpose of campaigning? You go all across the country to shake hands with the people, kiss babies and tell them that once elected you will personally address their specific problem first and foremost because you are their greatest priority. More importantly, they introduce themselves to you, fully understanding that they hold THE most public office and their lives become general knowledge.
Yet when the American people ask questions such as "Hey, Obama. Are you Muslim?" and the answers we receive are vague, empty and never complete, does that not smell fishy? It is a yes or no question and I don't want to hear about "Muslim roots," just answer the question! If you are (which ding ding ding I highly suspect) then, great! We were a country formed by people who left England to be able to practice whatever religion they chose! I wouldn't be angry at your choice of religion, however, it annoys a good bit of the population that you won't admit it. Being a closet Muslim is not being a good President not because of the religion in question but because you are lying. If you lie about your religion, then what else are you lying about? Perhaps the People want to know why he went overseas to tell foreign leaders that we are a primarily Muslim country (I didn't know that .08% of the country means "primarily") and then later on approve government spending on a mosque to be built right next door to Ground Zero. Isn't it funny how liberals want to sing songs about seperating church and state but they support this cause.
Let's talk about the Cordoba Project. It is a Muslim shrine to honor the conquest of Spain. Just like in many other countries, they build where a defeated church has been. Just as I have expressed before, it is a war trophy. Hey Imam, do you bite your thumb, sir?
Masking a mosque in the disguise of it be a community center, "hoping to heal the relationship between Islam and the West" is the perfect answer one would get from a politician.
One of the programs in this initiative is called the Shariah project. Shariah, as defined by Wikipedia, is an non-specific, generic, and ever-altering law followed by all Muslims as God's law. I want to point out that the government is funding a project with an initiative to impose religious law as law. So for the same reason they are argueing for freedom of religion, they are also approving a project where the People will be governed by a religion, defeating the whole purpose of seperating from the Church of England.
How about the proposed "Civil Society Dialogues?" This is where they want people from all different backgrounds to sit at a round table to discuss topics such as "the role of religion and the media in a public arena" and "the challenge of adapting principles of participatory self-governance and democratic capitalism to specific cultures." Please keep in mind this is BYOTAC (bring your own tea and crumpets.)
Let us not forget the MLT (Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow) or wait, is it the Muslim Leaders of Today?
And although the website focuses on programs, lectures and discussions to unite the worlds of the West and the Muslims, it is still a mosque. You can paint it, have community sports teams like the YMCA and at the end of the day, you are still building a mosque.
The left side wants to call us ultra sensitive but show me any respectful, proud American that wouldn't be slightly offended at this gesture. In case they have forgotten, we still have men and women of our military fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is the people of these primarily Muslim countries (Afghanistan - 99.7%, Iraq- 99%, and Pakistan 96.3%) that viciously attacked the Twin Towers. And the liberals think its completely kosher to use government money to build a mosque shrine of this religion so close to the hallow grounds of Ground Zero where we lost so many men and women. So yeah, Imam, it is too soon.
This isn't a religion card, liberals because we don't enjoy playing games. If the majority of the population has a problem with this mosque being built so close to where Muslim countries hired suicide bombers to kill innocent people, then isn't causing an uproar the exact opposite of peace? And isn't peace what this project is promoting? Isn't freedom of religion not imposing it on a community that doesn't want it actually not freedom at all? If your largest arguement is "Who cares where we build this center. The point is that we build it," then why not build in Ithica. I heard its lovely there. Imam, you might as well open your mouth and insert your foot.
No comments:
Post a Comment