Posted on 08/23/2010 10:50:15 AM PDT by DBCJR
...
Either Muslims have the right to practice their religion or they do not. Raising questions about the "appropriateness" of the project or its "wisdom" are indirect ways to infringe on the freedom of religion.
Is the First Amendment sacrosanct or is it subject to a popularity contest? Our Founding Fathers anticipated this conundrum and laid out clear markers that we should use to guide our views.
George Washington, ... "a government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance - but generously affording to all liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship."
In 1784, Washington ... "If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe. They may be Muslims, Jews, or Christian of any sect - or they may be atheists."
Ben Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
Thomas Jefferson, ... "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."
Park51 has a right to pursue the building of this mosque. Its proximity to Ground Zero does not provide any rational reason to pull back.
...
If Park51 were to relocate the project, will the opponents then turn their energy to support the other mosque projects around the country that are facing bigoted opposition?
Will opponents repudiate the church in Florida that is planning to burn the Quran on the 2010 anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001? ...
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
The First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The extent of it pertains to Congress, first, and the action prohibited is the making of a law that either establishes religion or prohibits the free exercise thereof. Congress is NOT involved in this case.
Furthermore, our Founding Fathers were innately ruled by a sense of common decency that would have prohibited even the consideration of building a mosque to Allah where 3,000 were surprised attacked and slaughtered without provocation or warning, in the name of that same Allah. Such a matter would have been totally repugnant.
Ahmed cites the Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. That doctrine is a synthesis of the First Amendment, no where mentioned in it. That doctrine clearly overstates the First Amendment right and protection.
Thomas Jefferson referred to a wall of separation between church and state in a letter one time. Much later, the Supreme Court used the phrase to determine that law superseded religious conviction:
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory.
The “Separation of Church and State” metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous.
The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, “this is a Christian nation.” John Quincy Adams said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians.
This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:
Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words “In God We Trust.”
The Supreme Court building built in the 1930’s has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior’s birth for centuries.
Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning. The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president. Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, “So help me God.”
Our national anthem mentions God.
The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.
So if the Nazis had told America it was a religion...
ping
for the UNknowing...
This is not a multicultural issue....its far greater
Here in this issue, we get to see the power of Sharia. Cash coming in from Iran, Saudiland etc etc even Pakistan.
When the founding fathers thought of America, their little baby, the last thing they wanted was an invasive force to stifle, smother it, and then overwhelm it and kill it.
Most people do not recognize that what happens in a mosque is sedition. Pure and simple. Islam is not just a “religion”, it is a cult. Larger than that though, it is a political system, it is it’s own government, a economic system (which includes funding new mosque construction), its judicial...all wrapped up in the word sharia. This is inclusive of its military (jihadis) all rolled into one with one intent ...and that is to rule wherever they take root. It is a invasive, systemic infection looking to take over the host once it has quantum.
This is not just a “religion”, but something that cloaks itself in those terms so it should not be given the same treatment contemplated under the first amendment. The Korans Sharia rules are to consume whatever government there is wherever it goes.
Islam is political, and it’s goal is to supplant and replace. Globally.
When the founding fathers thought of America, their little baby, the last thing they wanted was an invasive force to stifle, smother it, and then overwhelm it and kill it.
The sooner America learns this , the better.
Obama? Obama and Company? Should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soils. He is doing nothing to protect America as per his oath. Also, as a Muslim, he knows this, he know far better, he knows sharia, but is looking to deceive America.
For all interested...Wanna learn more?
On Sharia
http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-against-shariah/#more-5392
this,
Three things about Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded
and a little Bill Whittle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_iDPRud_c
Lets keep America, America!
Obama? Obama and Company? Should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soils. As a Muslim, he knows this, he knows sharia, but is looking to deceive America.
The other nations suffer the similar problems....
Easy. If a bunch of twelfth-century, blood-thirsty muslim killers had flown an airplane into Independence Hall, they would have arrested every muslim in America and shot them. Told you it was easy.
The founding fathers would have never attempted nation building in the middle east.
The few survivors in Afghanistan, would to this day be huddled in terror of the devils who came from across the sea after 9/11.
An excellent suggestion!
precisely
+1
So far, the government (Bloomberg, 0bama) is supporting the damn thing.
The founding fathers rejected tyranny.
Islam does not coexist with government.
Islam does not coexist with freedom.
Islam must position itself as the ultimate authority over governments to fulfill its requirements.
Islam is tyranny to its core.
Precisely! Nazis and their Middle eastern buddies (ever studied the relationship between the Nazis and Middle eartern countries?) love to pervert and twist that which is true and right.
PROPAGANDA
.................
Parvez Ahmed
Jacksonville, Florida USA
Dr. Parvez Ahmed is an Associate Professor of Finance at the Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida. His research work has appeared in several major finance journals, and is the co-author, with Seth Anderson, of the book “Mutual Funds: Fifty Years of Research Findings” (Springer 2005). His articles have been published in several leading newspapers including the Orlando Sentinel, Miami Herald, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, New York Newsday, Seattle Times, Florida Times Union, Charlotte Observer and many others. Dr. Ahmed served as an at-large board member for the Florida ACLU and is the former chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Currently he serves as a board member for OneJax, formerly the Jacksonville chapter of National Conference on Community and Justice. You can read his articles on his blog as well as the Huffington Post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMREuwhVYvg
Our Founders would not view this matter as a constitutional matter or a religious freedom matter. They would look at it as a property rights issue. Ownership is 9/10 ths of the law.
Who in fact owns the parcel of land where they want to build the mosque? Is it the imam? If so, what is his source of funding? I say follow the money. That usually leads to the truth.
They would arrest them and try them for Treason.
“If a bunch of twelfth-century, blood-thirsty muslim killers had flown an airplane into Independence Hall, they would have arrested every muslim in America and shot them. Told you it was easy.”
Totally works for me......too bad there’s no “men” left in Washington.
Criticizing American citizens for expressing their opinions on its "appropriateness" or "wisdom" are indirect ways to infringe on the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is also in the First Amendment. So you’re saying that as long as Congress isn’t involved, a State or other citizens can deny your freedom of speech, and you have no right to free speech?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.