Tearing Down That Which No One Believes-The Left and the Ground Zero Mosque

This line of defense for a building that was hit with debris and body parts is telling. The Left sets up non-sequiturs and straw-men and tears them down. Not to mention their seemingly un-liberal or feminist ways. NewsBusters h/t:

Charles Kruthammer and some Islamic columnists as well as Dennis Prager show this idea of hallowed ground in action Here are Muslim’s Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah:

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?


That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign…

…Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero….


However, even after these erudite ideas founded in common sense, logic, and history, you still have people responding like the video att he top and this response to me from a FaceBook friend:

The “hallowed ground” of which you speak is home to a strip club and an OTB…sounds like you’re full of…non-sequiturs.


At this sites link you can see these pictures (and more):

I responded in two separate posts thusly:

Those were in place before 9/11, plus, 19 strippers didn’t fly planes into the Towers. (Non-sequitur: you proved my point, guys carrying Qur’ans not whips and chains or cherry flavored undies attacked us.) 3,000 people were killed by people doing it in the name of Islam. In fact, part of the reason they attacked was because of these gentlemen clubs, so I would rather have more of those and less of mosques to foment radical religion. So there should be — like other places where tragic events happen — a buffer zone for sensibilities. That building (besides being funded by “funny money” and being headed up by an Imam that said we were partly responsible for 9/11. There are other places for him to build a Mosque and for conservatives to bury Dems by their support of him as more quotes and radical positions come out. But a building where parts of human remains and pieces of jet were found, is unsupportable. Hell, even Howard Stern gets it. But I love it…. Dems are dying on this:



B[y] the way, two more moderate Muslim’s have come out against the Ground-Zero Mosque. I have posted a few of their comments here:

[I] recommend their entire article. You have a choice. Support moderate (reformational) Muslims like you did during the Iranian disputes, or support a more radical version thereof. NO ONE (not Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, or the like) has said Muslim’s do not have the right to practice there religion freely. To say any different is a red-herring. To say people are trying to restrict Constitutional rights is a non-sequitur. I suggest you and others here support these moderate Muslims. These are the voices of bridges and peace, not this mega-mosque Imam.

These pictures prove nothing in the face of such refined arguments. As I already said, 19 strippers didn’t perform these acts. The Hamburgler and Ronald McDonald didn’t plan these attacks in the name of burger wars. Nor did 19 drunk Irish-men kill 3,000 on 9/11. There are no connections with those pictures nor the argument at hand. There is no Constitutional premise under attack… whatsoever. You can see this play out between a Democrat and Bill O’Reilly (the entire exchange if you wish can be found HERE):

Clarity in thought should be the highest principle. As usual, it doesn’t come from across the fence (and as a fellow blogger aptly points out, a  few on our side as well).