Posted on 08/30/2010 8:47:44 PM PDT by La Lydia
Breaking ranks with fellow Republicans who have widely criticized President Obama’s First Amendment defense of the proposed Islamic center near ground zero, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch weighed in Monday:
HATCH: Let’s be honest about it, in the First Amendment, religious freedom, religious expression, that really express matters to the Constitution. So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so. The only question is are they being insensitive to those who suffered the loss of loved ones? We know there are Muslims killed on 9/11 too and we know it’s a great religion. … But as far as their right to build that mosque, they have that right.
I just think what’s made this country great is we have religious freedom. That’s not the only thing, but it’s one of the most important things in the Constitution. [...]
There’s a question of whether it’s too close to the 9/11 area, but it’s a few blocks away, it isn’t right there. … And here’s a huge, I think, lack of support throughout the country for Islam to build that mosque there, but that should not make a difference if they decide to do it. I’d be the first to stand up for their rights.
>> Hatch: “So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so.”
Nice try Hatch. Of course “should” renders your spin irrelevant. They DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to build the mosque!!!
They confuse cowardice with understanding. They can't tame the beast or appease it but they'll try. And get us killed in the trying.
We’re talking about appeasement monkeys on the left. Your logic would fail on them. We get it. They’re afraid to.
When are the people of Utah going to send this Ass-clown packing?
Hatch hasn’t had any integrity for 30 years.
“Anyone know where Mitt Romney stands on the mosque?”
As far from it as he can get.
Correct. And creeps like Orrin Hatch are in office because we don’t have term limits, so people are forced to vote for dopes like him as their only choice vs. a Demonrat communist (oops; I mean “progressive”). We need to get rid of all these career politicians, including the Republicans. No one should ever be in the Senate for more than 2 terms.
Correct. And creeps like Orrin Hatch are in office because we don’t have term limits, so people are forced to vote for dopes like him as their only choice vs. a Demonrat communist (oops; I mean “progressive”). We need to get rid of all these career politicians, including the Republicans. No one should ever be in the Senate for more than 2 terms.
Didn’t you notice how the Libs came out in force and defended Christians when the NY Museum of “Art” put sacreligous art on display? Thats funny, I didn’t either.
What we need ia a repeal of the 17th(?) Amendment and have Senators appointed by the States again. The popular election of Senators is one of the many curses Wilson left us with.
Wasn’t Hatch originally a Democrat who turned Republican because there was an open slot on the ticket?
Earth to Orrin: Tolerance is a Two-way Street. No tolerance for the intolerant.
When Christians can build churches in muslim countries then we'll talk about them building mosques in the U.S.
Gosharootie, Orrin. You mean, you would elbow your way ahead of Baraq Hussein 0bama, Obama bin Ladin, Ayman Zawahiri, and a host of sheikhs, imams, emirs, and other despots? Do you hope to be the next Caliph, Orrin?
Well, it certainly is NOT about religious freedom, but it’s also not about “showing respect”, or exhibiting some small modicum of ‘sensitivity’. These are just opening gambits and talking points in a stalled dialogue.
This is a chess game where these ‘memes’ are batted around
until both we are exhausted from using them, and the concepts themselves are replaced by something more germane to the argument. Why oh why, knowing the smooth Radical Stealth Jihadist Imam Rauf is, would we ever EXPECT any show of respect or sensitivity from him? They can actually go right ahead with impunity and with a straight face, and claim that they ARE showing sensitivity and that the Ground Zero location is an absolutely necessary and symbolic one
for the twin goals of ‘healing’ and bridge-building.
THis makes sense to these twisted minds.
Everyone who’s opposed to the Mosque, knows deep down that AT BEST there’s something overreachingly provocative, something cognitively dissonant about Rauf & Co. and their so far rigid adherence to this site above all others.
This is NOT a Mosque: this is a HEADQUARTERS and RECRUITMENT CENTER, masquerading as some elegant,glass and chrome, good-time Emporium. Too much is coming out now about Rauf and his developer El-Gamal, that is SO discrediting to them and their previous real estate efforts
(Rauf is a slumlord whose tenants hate him for the usual reasons tenants hate slumlords) , the other is way behind in tax payments, etc etc. , all the usual Tony Reszko stuff,
that their Fantasy Project just looks all the more ridiculous, because it is FAR FAR AWAY from a situation where it could be realized. Which makes me think that ultimately , all they REALLY wanted to get going at this point was a polarizing dialogue to pave the way into respectability for them, and help them fund-raise. They don’t stand a chance to proceed with this thing. And I’m saying that as someone who, 8 days ago, spent all day in the rain at the GZ Protest.
As if Al Qaeda didn’t kill Muslims every day, as if they weren’t responsible for killing thousands of Muslims who don’t share their version of Islam. And this building would not be to honor such people but to show the Muslim world what audacity can achieve.
Now, that is the essential comment? When is the primary???
Exactly what I would have expected from Hatch, a legalistic technocrat.
All RINOS have got to go, asap!
“just think what’s made this country great is we have religious freedom. That’s not the only thing, but it’s one of the most important things in the Constitution.”
The problem is, is it a good idea to build a mosque so close to the “ground zero” 911 site?
Even many Muslims agree that building the “ground zero mosque” would be provocative, confrontational, and insensitive.
Muslims Speak Out Against Ground Zero Mosque:
http://bigpeace.com/jmwaller/2010/08/24/more-muslims-speak-out-against-ground-zero-mosque/
STE=Q
It appears you are wrong on the facts concerning this significant issue.
...it’s a few blocks away, it isn’t right there.
According to published reports, the site sustained damage from debris and aircraft components. It is indeed “right there”; otherwise the Moslems would not be so determined.
As pointed out above, Islam is not a religion as you indicate, but an aggressive, competing form of government, and one whose tenets are incompatible with our Constitution.
Islamic history indicates the Cordoba Initiative is none other than a symbol of conquest that results from aggression.
It is unlikely the long-term goal for the mosque is that it be used to promote “interfaith tolerance”, as proclaimed by its supporters, since nowhere has Islam practiced such tolerance after gaining control over a society.
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.