Property Rights

Republicans for Religous Freedom

Why the GOP should beware the dangers of putting religion at the mercy of government.

|

Ten years ago, Republicans in Congress passed a major law to protect the right of Muslims to establish mosques even where such a building might be unwelcome. Yes, they did. They just may not have thought of it quite that way at the time.

The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), was aimed at a common problem often ignored by the courts: local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.

It had the support of such groups as the Christian Legal Society and the Family Research Council. Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.), said it was aimed at "the well-documented and abusive treatment suffered by religious individuals and organizations in the land use context." Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), pushed it because, he said, "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."

Today, of course, that statute is a problem for anyone hoping that the city, state, or federal government would take action to block an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, commonly referred to as the Ground Zero mosque. Many of those opponents are happy to disregard both the law and the Constitution in their effort.

Not all critics of the plan endorse government intervention. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed the Cordoba Initiative has the right to build at that site if it chooses, while insisting that it should reconsider out of "sensitivity"—a trait rarely associated with him.

But other opponents are not so respectful of religious rights. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that permitting the construction of the center would show "weakness and submission" to our enemies.

Carl Paladino, who is running for governor of New York in the GOP primary, has vowed to seize the land. Pamela Geller, head of Stop Islamization of America, urged the city to give landmark status to the existing building to kill the proposal.

Among the citizens who turned out to protest the building at the Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting, there was no visible deference to the religious liberty of Muslims. When the commission voted to let the plan proceed, there were shouts of "Shame on you!" and "Disgrace!"

But had the city used its landmarking power to kill the project, it would have faced a court challenge. And thanks to the 2000 law, it would probably lose.

The law says, "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution," unless it meets very strict conditions. Nor may any government inflict a regulation that discriminates "on the basis of religion or religious denomination."

Before this law, cities usually got away with such behavior, because zoning authority gives them broad discretion to hinder religious groups in the outwardly neutral guise of architectural preservation or traffic control. It wasn't hard to discriminate without being obvious enough to get in trouble.

In passing the measure, Congress sided with unpopular minority sects that often found themselves blocked at every turn by local governments. So even if the opposition to the Cordoba plan were cloaked as an impartial effort to preserve the character of the neighborhood, it would run smack up against this law.

This case, though, is even simpler. Most of the time, when local authorities throw up roadblocks before unwanted religious groups, they do so in a way designed to conceal their real motive. Here, though, the critics object to the center precisely because it involves Muslims doing nothing more than practicing their religion.

There is nothing covert or subtle about the opponents' motives. To stop the building on the grounds that Islam has no place near Ground Zero would clearly defy the law's ban on religious discrimination.

That prohibition is a credit largely to conservatives who understood the dangers of putting religion at the mercy of government. The law was an effort by Republicans (and many Democrats) to protect the rights of believers—especially despised minorities.

The law recognized the importance of assuring the same freedom for them as for everyone else. That objective made sense 10 years ago, and it still does.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: Armed and Weird

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good morning reason!

    Chapman is still on vacation and this is one of his old stories, right?

    Today, of course, that statute is a problem for anyone hoping that the city, state, or federal government would take action to block an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, commonly referred to as the Ground Zero mosque. Many of those opponents are happy to disregard both the law and the Constitution in their effort.

    No, this may be somewhat new. Same disregard for anything real happening no matter what decade the story is from.

    Missing items: Union workers, in the heavily union leaning Manhattan, refusing to provide their labor at any wage to build the Mosque. There might be a Libertarian issue in there someplace. Individual right to do or refuse labor perhaps.

    Rehashing a ten year old law, that provides some protection to the property owner is pretty refreshing, especially from Chapman. Something currently relevant might be nice too. Oh, something like nobody in NYC or in the PA ever giving a damn about property rights to begin with, until the pet project of Hamas, the Green Party and Cosmotarians came along.

    YHou also forgot to mention that it is just a prayer room, not a Mosque, but the quiet room in the Pentagon is a Mosque. Add some more of that next time.

    1. Here’s a libertarian issue for you:

      Paladino vows ’eminent domain’ for ground zero-area mosque

      Republican gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino is upping the ante in the debate over the planned ground zero-area mosque, saying in a new statewide radio ad that he would use the governmental power of eminent domain to prevent the project from happening.

      “As governor I will use the power of eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country,” Paladino says in the spot.

      Looks like mosque opponents haven’t given up on the coercive “remedies” yet.

      1. It’ll be newsworthy when a serious candidate says it.

        1. Oh, something like nobody in NYC or in the PA ever giving a damn about property rights

          you’d think even a sockpuppet would have heard of develop don’t destroy, or be somewhat familiar with the community activism against eminent domain being used to destroy communities, going all the way back to the days of robert moses.

          or not.

          1. Good call. I guess cosmotarian-infested Reason’s reporting on the Atlantic Yards project and Columbia’s use of ED was just cover for them to foist Sharia on an unsuspecting populace when the time came.

            1. Reason has been a consistent defender of land rights. A couple of articles about the Islamic Center at Ground Zero is fine. We’re up to around a dozen posts by the Reason staff already.

              Also, as I noted earlier, those article on the ED abuse got fewer than 10 comments each. The articles on the Islamic Center at Ground Zero are getting over 300 comments each. I have much respect for the commentors who spoke up at the ED articles and also speak up here. I don’t have much respect for the johnny-come-latelies who only show up here to reproduce a trendy meme.

      2. Religion is for controlling people, like government.

        1. With a brush that broad you’ll get that house of cards painted in no time, wegie.

          1. Your reply is silly. What I say is true. Religious leaders use religion to control people and the “common” people use it as a crutch.

            1. Christianity is based on love, government is based on force.

              Both are bad and good in their respective ways, but if people need control, better off they go to church then back tyranny.

              Religion is just philosophy for the masses. Everyone needs a philosophy. That human beings are not perfectly rational beings is not news, and will not be changed no matter how many militant atheists whine and complain on the internet.

              I’m an atheist.

              1. “Christianity is based on love…”. That is just too god damn funny.

              2. “That human beings are not perfectly rational beings is not news, and will not be changed no matter how many militant atheists whine and complain on the internet.” that would apply to any subject…so why do you post here at all???

            2. Um all clergy do is talk to people. If that’s controlling them, then I’ve got one thing to say to you, Wegie:

              Stop oppressing. Stop! Stop! ‘elp. I’m being oppressed!

              1. Are you being silly or do you really believe religion does not try to control people?

                1. Religion: Do this for your own good.
                  Progressive Government: Do this for your own good, or else we’ll tax, fine, or incarcerate you.

                  See the difference ? (Of course, when you combine religion with government, you get the worst of both worlds, but that’s obvious to any libertarian.)

                  1. “Religion: Do this for your own good.” You just dream this shit up! Ask Michael Schiavo, the women being stoned in Iran or millions of others. How about stem cell research? I thought this was the Reason web site….what the fuck are you doing here???

                    1. Look, I’m really sorry that the priest touched you in the wrong way when you were little. It’s not Jesus’s fault.

                      You need to take atheist lessons from Vinny up there. You’ll at least sound intelligent and tolerable, not small, angry, and obstreperous.

                      Perhaps I should address your earlier question with a question: How does an idea (religion) demonstrate it’s own initiative and actions (control)? I’m pretty sure people do those things, and at that point all bets are off.

                    2. Wegie, this 4th of July, the Democrat candidates for County Freeholder marched in my town’s parade with a 15 foot sign that says they support our County Blue Laws. They would not be caught dead saying that we should outlaw shopping on Sundays to sanctify Jesus. They take the much more modern approach of outlawing shopping on Sunday to fight traffic. It’s the same tyranny in a new package.

                2. Wegie, I really believe that you are trying to control me. You are trying to get me to say things that I am not saying.

      3. To me? The Libertarian angle on this story was buried on the fourth page of the New York Times on Friday, that’s when I read this ditty…

        “Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the organizer of the planned Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan, arrived in Bahrain on Thursday to begin a three-country tour of the Persian Gulf sponsored by the United States State Department.”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…..;sq=mosque persian gulf imam&st=cse

        There’s something profoundly hypocritical (to my libertarian sensibilities) about saying the American people have no right to get in your business, so to speak, and then turning around and using the State Department of the USA to go on a tour of the Persian Gulf and promote yourself and your cause…

        I think they have a right to build what they want on their own property, but if they’re using taxpayer money to promote themselves? Then what they want to do really does become the taxpayer’s business.

        1. Rauf has been an envoy of the State Department since W. made him one.

          Also, via AP:

          “This [trip] was scheduled before the issue of the religious center in New York came up,” Crowley said. “He obviously volunteered to participate in this program. We value his participation.”

          1. What difference does that make?

            He isn’t a hypocrite because he’s been a hypocrite for a long time?

            Dude says we have no business interfering in his cause, but he uses our government to promote it–and has been for a long time?

            How does having been a hypocrite for a long time make someone not a hypocrite? Is that what I’m supposed to think?

            1. I’m sorry, but where does it say he’s promoting his cause on this trip? All evidence points to him promoting the US government position on East-West relations.

              1. This man needs $100 million to build.

                He’s already stated that he plans to solicit donations from that part of the Muslim world–You’ve read those links before.

                He’s touring the Persian Gulf to promote himself after he’s made headlines for what he’s done.

                You’re asking me to be more naive than I could ever possibly be.

                1. Yes, because it’s Imam Rauf who generated all this publicity before embarking on this trip (which was scheduled some time before all this happened) and NOT (certainly not) Pamela Gellar, Stupid Bint Extraordinaire and her merry band of hangers-on.

                  Soliciting donations from private individuals (BTW, donations that must be disclosed to the IRS per the group’s rules for organizing) is something different than soliciting donations from states or organizations hostile to the US.

                  1. But using the government to promote yourself?

                    For the moment, I don’t care where the money’s coming from as much as I care about the American taxpayers not paying for the dog and pony show.

                    And I’m not talking about the hypocrisy of the government here (at least not yet) so much as I’m talking about the hypocrisy of this Imam.

                    You cannot use the resources of a democracy and then turn around and say that what you’re doing is none of the people’s business–without being a hypocrite.

                    It goes back to taxation meaning representation–it’s even more basic than that. It speaks to fair play. People have a right to know what they’re paying for. It’s really that simple.

                    1. So you concede that you’re moving the goalposts?

        2. All religions take our taxpayer money…since they don’t pay taxes (but do use tax services) we all pay (more) to support them.

          1. If you can’t tell the difference between somebody taking money out of your paycheck and somebody not taking money out of your paycheck?

            Get a new meme just so you won’t look so silly.

          2. If the Catholic Church not paying taxes is the same things as using taxpayer money to finance the Catholic Church, then why not give the Catholic Church our tax money?

            Pilgrims of the 1620s understood the prohibition against establishment better than you.

            Sheesh.

            1. Well I suppose that the churches don’t use our tax funded roads to help people get there. I supposed they also donate as much as they can back to accomodate for the property tax revenue that is lost, which then forces the community to shoulder a larger burden. They may not take it directly but I pay more beacause they don’t pay anything, close enough for me.

              1. hrm, we don’t charge people income tax for using roads, we charge people income tax for making income. The people who drive to a temple pay the same gas tax as everyone else. I also see that you aren’t suggesting taxing Green Peace, another tax-exempted nonprofit. This leads me to conclude that you just have a grip over religions.

        3. +3 Ken Shultz

      4. I’m sure there’s some developer that could put it to better (and more lucrative) public use.

        1. Eminent domain on a property because you don’t agree with it’s use.

          Very Libertarian of you.

        2. Eminent domain on a property because you don’t agree with it’s use.

          Very Libertarian of you.

      5. If it is stopped by eminent domain, I will back that…

    2. Something currently relevant might be nice too. Oh, something like nobody in NYC or in the PA ever giving a damn about property rights to begin with, until the pet project of Hamas, the Green Party and Cosmotarians came along.

      Just because one side or the other chooses to be hypocritical about certain issues, does not mean that the underlying principles involved have changed.

      At the core of this “controversy” is the active goal of a vocal group to use the Force of Government to stop this project. Goals which violate any number of Libertarian principles of Property Rights, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, etc.

      For every “lefty” who (according to you) suddenly found religion in regards to property rights, there is a “righty” who suddenly found religion in regards to the oppressive power of Government to limit property rights.

      Whether you like it or not, most Libertarians would defend the right of any property owner to do with the land as they please. This doesn’t change suddenly because the usage or owner is unpopular or disliked.

      The only reason this particular property rights issue became national is because people who want Government Force to intervene made it a national issue to advance their agenda. Otherwise, most of us would never have known or heard of the issue.

      1. At the core of this “controversy” is the active goal of a vocal group to use the Force of Government to stop this project.

        Otherwise known as most of the country.

        What I found most salient was this item:

        Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the Political Class, however, favor building the mosque near Ground Zero. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Mainstream voters are opposed.”

        Strangely, I’ve noticed that on virtually every contentious issue, “libertarians” (at least the ones who frequent Reason) seem to take the side of the political class. Which is not a surprise – anybody who’s been reading this rag for any length of time should have figured out by now that the “anti-establishment” libertarians are the best friends the establishment ever had.

        1. The political class happens to be on the right side of the issue, though likely for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, there have been a number of the political class that seem to be espousing property rights arguments in regard to this controversy, which is both fleeting and surprising.

        2. Otherwise known as most of the country.

          Here is a small hint for you…

          I don’t really care what “most of the country” thinks.

          I don’t care if 99.99999% of the rest of the world was against this project, I still don’t think it is proper for the Government to use Force to restrict freedom.

          or to paraphrase mom…

          “If most of the country jumped off a bridge, would you?”

          Just because something is popular doesn’t make it right or good, take Lady GaGa for example…

          1. Can I borrow some of that straw? We have a woman in labor here, and we need to line this manger – STAT!

            1. How is it a strawman to rebut someone’s argument ad populi (which was the entire argument the aryan douche made)?

              1. I chalked it up to threaded comments and assumed the reply was to someone else…of course I could be wrong.

        3. “Tyranny of the Majority”

          Look it up.

        4. Oh, well if “most of the country” doesn’t support it…

          then what are human rights for, anyway? There’s no danger of banning *popular* speech or *popular* religions – the whole point of constitutional rights is to protect *unpopular* freedoms against democratic majorities who might turn against them!

        5. Oh, well if “most of the country” doesn’t support it…

          then what are human rights for, anyway? There’s no danger of banning *popular* speech or *popular* religions – the whole point of constitutional rights is to protect *unpopular* freedoms against democratic majorities who might turn against them!

      2. I run in republican circles for the most part, and I don’t know one of them that disagrees with the Imam’s right to build there. They simply believe it is in bad taste. They are free to express their disapproval of someone’s actions, even if they don’t dispute their legal right for that action.

        This is the ridiculous type of strawman argument and faux intellectualism that I expect from liberal statists. Libertarians will never be relevant until they can do better than that. We’re supposed to be the intelligent alternative, and for the most part are.

        1. Good for your circle of Republicans…

          You will notice that I specifically noted the individuals who made this a national issue are the same ones who are advocating for Government intervention.

          I never once mentioned a political party and only briefly mentioned left/right policy alignment.

          The only strawman is your assertion that your anecdotal circle of friends is whom I was talking about in my post. If you want to bitch about “faux intellectualism” at least take the time to actually read and comprehend what you are replying to.

    3. There are lots of projects that don’t use union labor….they’re the ones with the inflatable rats set up outside. As an aside, they are also the ones that come in under budget.

    4. Suki, I’m certain you’ve been told this before, but the statist lumpenconservatives you desperately suck up to are never going to accept your libertarian butt.

      The same goes for some of the Breitbart fanboys that have showed up here over this issue.

    5. Let’s review what you just said to see if it makes any sense whatsoever:

      “Rehashing a ten year old law, that provides some protection to the property owner is pretty refreshing, especially from Chapman.”

      So why don’t you just make a fuss next time someone rehashes any 200 plus year old law such as the 2nd amendment, because thats soooooo passe!

      “…nobody in NYC or in the PA ever giving a damn about property rights to begin with, until the pet project of Hamas, the Green Party and Cosmotarians came along.”

      What? Sounds like you have some Fox News on the brain. Kindly provide some facts to back up your assertion. Also, check out what Ron Paul has to say about Hamas: http://tiny.cc/aaqcw

      Ron Paul also has suggested that the United States interventionist policies where in some measure to blame for the 911 attacks.

      So Ron Paul won’t condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and he gives the US foreign policy its share of the blame for the 911 attacks; which of course, by Fox News logic, means he’s, possibly, we don’t know for sure but we’re going to say it anyway, cause you’ll believe it regardless, “Ron Paul is a terrorist!!!”

      “YHou also forgot to mention that it is just a prayer room, not a Mosque, but the quiet room in the Pentagon is a Mosque.”

      If you’re not be sarcastic here then your sadly misinformed. There is no Mosque inside the Pentagon. There is a multi-denominational place of worship.

      But the worst thing is that you entirely missed the point, “The law recognized the importance of assuring the same freedom for them as for everyone else.” Unless, of course, you believe that all Muslims are terrorists. But if the 911 attacks where really religious in nature, don’t you think a church or a synagogue would have been attacked rather than secular institutions?

      1. +1 Gay Communist Gun Club

  2. Many of those opponents are happy to disregard both the law and the Constitution in their effort.

    One of these days, someone will have to explain to me why Americans should still support the Constitution. More often than not, as in situations such as this one, it’s used as a blunt instrument to beat us over the head. By modern interpretations, it doesn’t protect the rights of anyone except perverts, parasites and foreign invaders, and does absolutely nothing to protect the rights of the majority of Americans. I doubt Madison himself would sign on to it today.

    1. If it weren’t for the Constitution you’d be in jail for criticizing Obama.

    2. It’s called “tyranny of the majority”. Look into it.

      1. Seems preferable to today’s tyranny of the minority.

        1. Explain which minority is acting tyrannically and how.

          1. Well, for starters, those nitwits in the political class like Nanny Bloomberg who say that thou shalt not eateth nor drinketh the trans fat, but this Burlington Terrorist Factory must! Must! MUST! be built. For freedoooooom YEAAARRRGGH!

            1. Unfortunately, nannyism in the political class is very majoritarian. However, using Bloomberg’s anti-fun policies is really only useful in pointing out his hypocrisy. A defining characteristic of hypocrites is that they are sometimes right.

              1. Maybe so, but the hypocrite is not right here, since his whole argument is, “Who gives a shit where the money is coming from? You’re a racist! Also, shut up!” Yes, yes, of course, the Mohammedans have the right to build whatever they like on their own property, but it’s quite obvious that Bloomberg is not merely defending their rights; he’s also demanding that the opposition silence itself.

                1. “he’s also demanding that the opposition silence itself”

                  That’s the purpose of accusing someone of bigotry.

                  It’s a great trick because it puts the accused on the defensive and switches the subject.

                  I’ve even seen lefty loons accuse gun control opponents of racism because of all the black kids killed in gang fueled violence.
                  Opposition to restrictive gun laws can only be motivated by a desire to see black people die in the streets, right?

                  “You’re a bigot” is the new Godwin.

                  1. I’ve seen lefty loons accuse people who want to pay less taxes of racism. “It’s not ‘spic’ and ‘nigger’ anymore,” said this one particular loon. “They say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.'”

                    That loon is now facing a trial before the House Ethics Committee for not paying his taxes.

                    1. “That loon is now facing a trial before the House Ethics Committee for not paying his taxes.”

                      I thought he and Waters were being picked on because of their race.

                2. I haven’t heard Bloomberg do this… can you source that claim?

                  Here’s one I find interesting for the “he wants to establish Sharia” crowd…

                  “Rauf told a newspaper in Bahrain that constitutionally-protected freedoms in the U.S. reflect true Islamic values better than in some Muslim countries.”

                  New York Daily News Sunday, August 22nd 2010

                    1. I do not hear a “demand” in that…particularly not one backed up with governmental force.

                3. I thought his argument was that they have the absolute right to build there, so STFU, and quit trying to intimidate them away.

                  1. So, by criticizing their choice of location, the opposition is intimidating them?

                    By this same logic, Bloomberg is intimidating the critics and thus depriving them of their First Amendment rights. Worse, he’s abusing his position of power to do so! Woe!

                    1. “You might hurt people who we don’t know’s FEEEEEEEELINGS if you put your mosque of undefined maximum size RIGHT THERE or anywhere within a non-specific distance from what may or may not be Ground Zero for an unspecified number of years since 9/11” = “nice mosque you got there; shame if anything happened to it”

                    2. You’re really reaching there.

                      And, anyway, if something does happen, it’s quite bigoted to blame all mosque opponents for the actions of a few extremists, since most mosque opponents are peaceful individuals. It would be totally cool of them to build a Mosque Opposition Cultural Center on top of the ruins of said mosque. You know, in order to promote healing.

                    3. Who’s blaming mosque opponents for WHAT actions?

                    4. Oh, my bad. I thought that when you insinuated just now that people who find the placement of the mosque to be insensitive are actually threatening the Cordoba House folks, you were insinuating that people who find the placement of the mosque to be insensitive are actually threatening the Cordoba House folks.

                    5. May as well join the party. All sorts of anti-mosqueteers have been insinuating shit since this all began and continue to do so.

                      But seriously, this “insensitivity” thing is a thin veneer that was only resorted to once the legal means were exhausted.

                    6. I don’t agree. I think it’s a remarkably stupid place to build an Islamic center if the motive behind it is to “build bridges”, but I’ve also opposed from the beginning the government stepping in and stopping it on the grounds that the project is seriously lacking in propriety.

                  2. I thought his argument was that they have the absolute right to build there, so STFU, and quit trying to intimidate them away.

                    Timon, please control your language. Your anger does not help the debate.

                4. I love how you folks always concede the “Freedom of Religion” point SO begrudgingly.

                  “Yeah yeah, we unfortunately have to tolerate the bad religions thanks to that stupid Bill of Rights….”

          2. Timon, people with a college degree make up only 25% of the population, yet they make up 100% of the Supreme Court and every Congress member and ex-President that I can think of.

    3. It probably has to do with the fact that many Americans are not racists assholes like you. Fuck off.

      1. Except that Islam is a religion not a race, retard.

        1. Well, to a Third Positionist fascist like Slap the Enlightened!, Islam and race are inseparable. But it seems you never checked out his blog, or maybe you did and didn’t care about his vile views (which wouldn’t surprise me as you’re a Breitbart fanboy).

          1. “Third Positionist fascist”

            Straight out of Wikipedia!

            You go Girl!

    4. Exactly the type of view on the Constitution I’d expect an actual fascist like yourself to take.

  3. I see Dumb and Dumber are up early.

  4. When you hear the call to prayer five times a day over the wreckage of the Twin Towers, we will have indeed won.

    Allahu Akbar!

    1. And ignorance takes the early lead.

      1. You will hear, repeated five times a day, the words cried by the heroes of 9/11 over the site of our great victory, and you will know that Allah is Great!

        1. I’d have thought taking up sheep-fucking would have a sign that Allah is Great.

          1. Why bother the sheep when there are nine year olds?

    2. Gosh, can we still retain the infidel custom of wiping our asses with something than other our hands?

      1. As you walk over ground containing remains of your dead and hear our call to prayer, you will know that which the heroes of 9/11 cried before sacrificing their lives – “Allahu Akbar, Allah is Greater!”

        1. So people will be walking over the landfills and graves in New York and New Jersey hearing the call to prayer?

          1. We will remind your firefighters and policemen, five times a day, at sight of our great triumph, that Allah is Greater!

            Even your president said call to prayer is “Prettiest Sounds on Earth”!

            He will come to the site of our great victory and hear “Prettiest Sounds on Earth”!

            1. Mullah, I think you’re mistaken. I mean, I know that as a Muslim a pretty sound for you is a satisfied grunt as you ejaculate into a goat’s anal cavity. Oh wait a second, that is the Muslim prayer call. How silly of me!

              1. Goooood…..let the hate flow through you…

      2. Jesus, just had a trapped in mirrors moment.

        Is this really an example of one sarcastic troll trolling a fellow sarcastic troll unwittingly?

        1. It’s trolls all the way down.

          1. This place needs a trollgate.

            1. Maybe we can contract out some troll roads, preferably one-way.

  5. What would Jesus build here?

    1. A Strip joint.

      1. Nah, a Rent-a-Boy office…

    2. Jesus builds everything. So if Jesus wants his flock to have a Mosque, there’s nothing we can do about it.

      1. But he’s not a member of the Union!

  6. I’d love to see the usual suspects come and explain why I should give a shit about the feelings and sensitivities of the pinheaded fucktard bigots out in force this weekend holding faux-bloody SHARIA signs, complaining about “building a mosque on the grave of America”, carrying Arab effigies attached to missiles, and making fairly explicit threats about what they plan to do if the mosque is built.

    1. You need to get some fresh air on weekends. Your vitamin D deficiency is getting worse.

      1. Another snappy insult from Sidd Finch, who considers himself a libertarian while being a GOP apologist.

    2. All religioun sucks.

      1. Should read ‘religion.’

    3. Do they really say “grave of America”? If America was really dead it would be rolling in its grave at the irony.

    4. Please explain why they should explain given they don’t give any more a rat’s ass about you than you give about them.

      1. I don’t have to. I’m not the one demanding that my sensitivities be respected.

    5. Tulpa, you display the very anger and prejudiced that you accuse others of having. Many of the people who opposed the Islamic Center at Ground Zero did so on historic preservation grounds. Remember, in New York City, historic preservation is a big movement. They even fought to preserve historic train tracks.

  7. If you don’t care about the feelings of some redneck pretending to be a Japanese girl, then you’re even more evil than I thought.

    1. What, are you going to break my leg like you did to that poor defenseless midfielder?

      1. I’m trying to think here…I don’t remember ever breaking any legs. There was a collarbone once, and a few bloody noses, and maybe a concussion, but no legs. Thanks for the goal, Concerny.

        1. Is that you, Dema Kovalenko?

  8. Wait, there’s a mosque being built at ground zero? When did this happen??

    1. 10 years from now.

    2. Not happening at all. “Two blocks from, and not even viewable from, Ground Zero” doesn’t sound as scandalous or sensationalistic. I swear, some of these people make it sound like they’re gonna put a mosque and secret terrorist headquarters right on the footprint of Tower 1.

  9. Here, though, the critics object to the center precisely because it involves Muslims doing nothing more than practicing their religion.

    Nothing is more pathetic than someone applying collective guilt while claiming to defend applying collective guilt.

    The shit-for-brains Chapman knows that all worshipers of the pedophile priest are innocent until individually found guilty, but any who question an obviously violent percentage of Mohamadeans isn’t worried about the mass murder committed around the globe in it’s name, they simply want to keep people from practicing their religion.

    When the ideology that wanted to dominate the globe was communism, people like Chapman were called “useful idiots”. Idiot is simply too generous of a word for Chapman.

    1. Whereas people like Marshall Gill are now known as “useless idiots”. Not sure if that’s any better than the useful kind.

      1. Considering that useful idiots seem to spend their time fellating whatever liberty-crushing ideology comes down the pike, and useless idiots seem to spend their time babbling and whining about how fellating liberty-crushing ideologies isn’t a good thing, one would think that it would be marginally better to be a useless idiot.

        You’re still an idiot, but you don’t have a mouthful of dick.

    2. That is just fucking stupid. Show me some evidence that the people building this thing support violence, and maybe you have a point. No one is fellating repressive islam here. No one is letting sharia law into the US and it is fucking absurd to suggest so.

      1. Sharia is threatening to oppress America at any moment. Don’t you read National Review?

    3. “Nothing is more pathetic than someone applying collective guilt while claiming to defend applying collective guilt.”

      Actually, what is more pathetic than that is a “conservative” who condemns playing the race/victim card while doing it himself (i.e. you). What is more pathetic than that a vile little fascist who claims to oppose “liberty-crushing ideologies” while supporting crushing liberty himself with no shred of irony (also you).

      You are precisely what you claim to hate, Internet tough guy.

      1. I guess coherence is optional?

  10. I enjoy reading about laws that actually restrict Government power and abuse. How on earth did they sneak something like that through congress and past the president?

    1. Woohoo. Laws against laws! I don’t care about free exercise of religion, to tell you the truth. I do care about the free exercise of commerce, however, and nothing in this law promotes that.

      1. And the New York Times is shocked that legal activities haven’t been made illegal yet. Lazy bastage Congresscritters screwing off again.

    2. Gingrich’s congress did all sorts of stuff like this. It is one of the reasons that conservative republicans are infinitely preferable to democrats.

  11. Jesus, the stupid is out early today.

    1. Timon, do you just hate “Jesus the stupid” or do you think that all Hispanics are stupid? I’m curious to see how deep your bigotry is.

  12. As far as local zoning laws go, if they’re going to be changed in a manner that gives Wal-Mart exactly the same right to build one of their stores anywhere that a church or Mosque would have the ability to build, then I’d be all for it. Otherwise no.

    There is nothing “special” about a religious bldg that gives it’s proponents extra special property rights that any other entity would not have to build anywhere they want.

    1. As far as local zoning laws go, I oppose them existing at all, as any libertarian should. Next.

      1. You’d be OK with a hog farmer as a neighbor?

        1. If it were me, I’d set up camp in a place that was very unlikely to be able to accommodate a hog farmer. Alternatively, I’d buy enough land to buffer myself from a potential hog farmer neighbor. Pretty simple, really.

          1. I’d set up camp in a place that was very unlikely to be able to accommodate a hog farmer

            You can smell a hog farm for miles and miles. Few if any residences have that kind of “buffer.” I can assure you that if somebody knocked down the house next to yours and put a pigpen on it, you’d be one unhappy “camper.”

            1. Then go back to my first and less expensive option – find a place to live that is unlikely to have a hog farmer move in.

              You can “what-if” this to death and you’re just going to sound like a jackass.

              1. Nuh-uh. You’re the jackass.
                But seriously, do you really not understand the meaning of “zoning” in this context?

                1. What part of “find a place that is unlikely to have a hog farm move in” is confusing you?

              2. Then go back to my first and less expensive option – find a place to live that is unlikely to have a hog farmer move in.

                The solution to this dilemma is really simple. Just buy your own island. Problem solved.

            2. Um, pig pen and hog farm are not the same thing. The ones you can smell for miles are basically large factories, which can’t just be plopped onto any residential lot for reasons other than zoning.

              1. Fight back with chickens. The stink is relative, and eventually you don’t notice, so the whole thing is moot, and sets the stage for a great Bar B Q

              2. The “pig-pen” I refer to would merely be a hog farm on a much smaller scale. It wouldn’t take a large number of squealing pigs and a stinking shit pond in somebody’s back yard to rightly piss off a whole lot of people. You’re being purposefully contrarian when you argue otherwise.

        2. I don’t think the hog farmer would be OK with me as a neighbor, if anything.

          1. Who would?

        3. Yep.

        4. You’d be OK with a hog farmer as a neighbor?

          Tort law worked well to protect people from a neighbor’s pollution during the 19th Century. If the hog farm caused pollution to end up on my property, I would have a tort case.

    2. Yeah, Gilbert, it does smell a little like ‘special circumstances’ that bring the death penalty in homicide cases.

    3. The law doesn’t give religious buildings extra special rights dipshit. What it does do is prevent local governments from fucking with people trying to build or expand their religious buildings. Last time I checked, religion was protected from the government fucking with it. Wal-Mart not so much.

      And again, this all came about because some dipshit zoning commission didn’t want the mormons or the Baha’i moving in and tried to prevent it with the club of government.

    4. +1 Gilbert

      I prefer making the zoning laws more libertarian rather than giving exemptions for religions. Otherwise the policy violates the establishment clause.

  13. Many people ask me, “What is religion?”

    1. (jumping and waving furiously)

      Can I start a religion?!

      1. Atheism is a religion!

        1. Religion is atheism…..with a twist!

          1. Atheists believe in non-belief, so they’re just hypocrites!

            1. But they don’t believe in hypocrisy, because that would be belief, and they believe in non-belief.

  14. I cannot say that I am an expert on the RLUIPA, but where in the Constitution is the authority for the Congress to regulate land use regulation by the States? If local bodies truly were “using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations,” that is a violation of the First Amendment and therefore unconstitutional — and should be attacked on those grounds. But what enumerated power allows Congress to place statutory restrictions on how and when states may exercise their legislative and regulatory powers on a given subject because that power might be abused (as opposed to the courts striking down actual abuses when they actually occur)?

    Of course, the RLUIPA begs the larger question whether land use regulation itself violates the rights of the property owners under the Fifth Amendment and the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Paragraph 1. Obviously neither of the two major parties has an interest in raising that issue…

    1. Who is Number 1?

    2. Commerce clause. Next!

      1. Remember to eat your vegetables, Tulpa.

    3. I cannot say that I am an expert on the RLUIPA, but where in the Constitution is the authority for the Congress to regulate land use regulation by the States?

      Probably some penumbra in the commerce clause.

  15. The Commerce Clause??? Opening a mosque in lower Manhattan, or anywhere else, affects interstate commerce???

    Oh I get it….if every landowner in America used their property for a mosque, the cumulative effect would affect the interstate flow of goods…

    Gee thanks, Mr. Wickard.

    1. It affects interstate traffic in prayer rugs and Korans. Next!

  16. I wonder who knows more about Islam, Tulpa and Chapman, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Who knows more about reporting the truth, Oriana Fallaci or Chapman?

    I suppose these women are simply oppressors to the useful idiots.

    1. Tulpa is a liberal elitist which means he knows more than any redneck bigot about any subject.

      Don’t make the mistake of judging what someone says based upon the content of what they say.

      Only the source matters.

      1. I’m pretty sure you don’t need to be a full-on liberal elitist in order to know more a redneck bigot on any subject, unless the subject happens to be sex with cloacae.

        1. Let me correct your statement.

          I’m pretty sure you don’t need to be a full-on liberal elitist in order to think you know more someone you have labeled as a redneck bigot on any subject, unless the subject happens to be sex with cloacae something practical like car repair or working for a living.

          1. sarcasmic: You revised your own statement more than mine. Now it is somebody merely “labeled” a redneck bigot, when that’s not what you said. Fine, make your convenient changes.

            …..and the neighbors said we lived like hicks, but they brung their cars for paw to fix, anyhow.

      2. I think your fucking wrong too. Does that make me a liberal?

        1. Wrong about what?

          Please find a quote where I have given my opinion on the subject of the mosque.

          I’m saying that the “you’re a bigot if you question the mosque, and the only way to prove you’re not a bigot is to not question the mosque” argument is a false dichotomy.

          According to that argument, the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON one could question the mosque is bigotry. That’s it. Question the mosque and you hate all Muslims and all Arabs.

          I am rejecting that argument.

          Why is that wrong?

          1. I’m saying that the “you’re a bigot if you question the mosque, and the only way to prove you’re not a bigot is to not question the mosque” argument is a false dichotomy.

            Someone’s making this argument?

            1. Yeah. Many people in the general population have made this argument. This morning I heard a radio report on the demonstrations that happened on Sunday at Ground Zero. The Islamic Center at Ground Zero supporters were chanting “2, 4, 6, 8, We don’t want your racist hate.” This begs the question, “What race are Muslims?” Of course, Muslims belong to all races, because Islam is a religion, not a race. The Islamic Center at Ground Zero supporters were ready to sacrifice truth to paint their opponents as bigots.

    2. I love the crutch that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is becoming for the asshole side. I’m pretty sure she’d be a little less than pleased that you’re invoking her name in your little exercises in getting the vapors about some Muslims building something somewhere.

      1. You’re pretty sure? How? Because you know a Muslim or two?

        1. Generally, people don’t like their names being invoked on one side of a very contentious issue that is ancillary to their reason for fame, especially by a bunch of dickbags who irrationally dislike a whole class of people. She spoke out against a particularly oppressive FORM of the religion and the culture in which it thrived (Somaila). This caused her renounce her religion, which is understandable in her circumstances.

          1. irrational dickbags!

            You take ad-hom to a new level!

            You go Girl!

            1. At this point, ad-hom is pretty much all the asshole side understands. The arguments have gone on for thousands of posts across many articles on Hit & Run. After a while, decorum stops mattering.

              1. “At this point, ad-hom is pretty much all the asshole side understands.”

                Because they’re doopid!
                You go Girl!

                1. What else would you call a mass abandonment of rationality?

                  1. “What else would you call a mass abandonment of rationality?”

                    progressivism

                    1. Lucky, then, that pretty much everyone here arguing the anti- anti-mosqueteer side aren’t progressives.

                    2. You had me fooled!

                    3. Fooling the foolish isn’t usually that hard.

                    4. Now I’m “foolish”!
                      Keep the ad-homs coming!
                      You go Girl!

                    5. Keep acting like you have the moral high ground, Snookums.

                    6. Your use of arrogance and haughtiness may fool some into believing your fallacies, but not everyone is fooled.

                      You go Girl!

                    7. sarcasmic, why don’t you crawl back to one of Breitbart’s Internet hovels and stop trolling at a libertarian site?

                    8. Why don’t you crawl back to one of the DailyKos’s Internet hovels and stop trolling at a libertarian site?

                    9. calling you foolish isn’t an ad-hominum you fucking retard.

          2. Who dislikes a whole class of people here? I’ve totally missed this.

      2. That’s right!
        Judge the person, not their words!
        Those on the “asshole side” are wrong because they’re assholes!
        Who cares what they say?
        They’re assholes.

        1. Not quite. The wrongness and asshole-ness are intertwined in such a way that it is impossible to determine which causes which.

          1. That’s right!
            Once you’ve got a person pegged as an asshole, presumably because they disagreed with you about something, then that means that they’re wrong about EVERYTHING!

            Judge the man, not his words or actions!

        2. How about hypocrite? Can I call them that? Because I think that includes call them an asshole with the added implication that they support the very concept that defeats their argument.

          1. Haven’t there been a million posts in the last week or so explaining why these people are dick bags? How about an abbreviation for “please see the million fucking links, dick bag”? PSTMFLDB. I’m open to suggestions here.

            1. Sounds about right.

            2. We thank you for your attacks against the infidels!
              By discrediting them and calling them names you have brought us a step closer to our monument to 9/11!
              For your aid in this battle you will be rewarded in the afterlife!

              Allahu Akbar! Allah is Greater!

              1. Mullah: How does this afterlife work? Is it like Christmas? Do I sit on your lap and ask for stuff while roosting in the stench of Mad Dog and egg salad?

                1. You who help us put a place of worship so close to the site of our great victory against the infidels will be greatly rewarded in the afterlife!

                  You who know Islam know it is more than a religion, but a way of life!
                  Islam holds the keys to daily life, government and economics!

                  True Islam can only exist in an Islamic State, and while this place of worship will not take us closer to our goal the symbolism will be used as a rally cry!

                  Allahu Akbar! Allah is Greater!

                  1. “and while this place of worship will not take us closer to our goal”

                    Argument over.

          2. Somebody’s missing.

      3. Timon, please release your anger before you start typing. Your cursing brings down the debate.

  17. I fully agree that the state has no more authority to deny the C.I. the right to build their center any more than the Port Authority has the right to seize land from the Greek Orthodox and deny them the ability to rebuild St. Nicholas Church.

    Let the C.I. build their center, and let the Port Authority stop violating congressional law and let St. Nicholas church be rebuilt. Freedom of religion for one means freedom of religion for all.

  18. To followers of Christ on this issue:
    what would Jesus do?

    1. Correction: What will Jesus do.

  19. The subject of religion in this country is a big red ‘stupid’ button, without a safety guard. Whenever it get pushed, almost everyone automatically goes stupid. Full retard stupid. Mosquerbation is the epitome.

    It doesn’t make it any easier dealing with the religion of Islam, and the inextricable linkage of the theology to the surrounding concepts of ordering the secular society, quite a lot of which is completely antithetical to Western classical liberal concepts – the entire concept of ‘submission’ being on a direct ideological collision course with ‘individual liberty’.

    The resulting free for all, creating the condition such that almost three quarters of the country can be flailed for bigotry, property, zoning and use restrictions or considerations can be used like a tire iron, both ways, and otherwise sane and rational people are reduced to hurling epithets past each other while engaging in the broad brush generalizations they accuse each other of committing, to the media’s sheer delight, pretty well sums that up.

    Top that with a parade of straw men, on dead straw horses, ready for beating, by the right, by the left, and even here at Reason, and it’s enough to make one wish to engage in a bit of ‘let’s drink what’s under the sink’ if one took it too seriously.

    Instead of that, I think I’ll just sit back, point, and laugh. It doesn’t get much funnier than hard core Jihadis considering the idea so galactically stupid as to be convinced it’s a Zionist Plot, or finding that oh, so hilarious thread where an indignant soul rakes someone over the coals for bigotry in the same sentence they refer to the followers of Islam as “muzzies”.

    Then again, maybe I’m just crabby at the stunning lack of class exhibited by the Braves in their treatment of a Lou Piniella, forced into early retirement to care for his ailing mother.

    1. Too bad Jim Hendry’s mother isn’t dying.

  20. There is nothing “special” about a religious bldg that gives it’s proponents extra special property rights that any other entity would not have to build anywhere they want.

    Indeed. Zoning laws that favored (or disfavored) religious buildings would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    1. + 5 R C Dean

  21. Another example of be careful what you wish for when you use political influence to advance a religious issue, and more evidence that the Christian Right has more faith in Washington, DC than in God.

    When will they learn? They trusted marriage to the state and now are in a twist over same-sex rights. Now they are shocked to learn that religious freedoms might also extend to faiths they find odious?

  22. Seriously, who is really wanting Govt. to prohibit the Mosque? I do not know anyone of any importance/power who wants that.

    I am opposed to the Mosque being built there and I am opposed to the Govt. prohibiting it based solely on religion. Lots and lots of people and groups use social pressure to get things done (or not done as the case may be). However, we are at war. Whether you want to admit it or not, whether we want to be or not, we are at war with Islam because Islam is at war with us. Islam is not simply a religion, it is a religious form of Government. It cannot exist without Sharia Law. Islam is spread by force, coercion, and deception. Muslims are open about using our laws and freedoms to destroy us. And we are too hung up on being politically correct, tolerant, and sensitive to realize [admit] that we are at war and who are enemy really is.

    To be sure there are many Muslims who are not at war with the U.S., however, they need to show that, because their Koran states that they are.

    Simply put, no matter how you look at it, no matter how legal it is, how much of a right there is too it, no matter what, it is a really bad idea to put that mosque there. It is insulting and deliberately so. If the Imam was truly wanting to build bridges he would have responded to the controversy and worked towards a solution. Instead the Imam is fanning the flames in hopes that the media and the apologists in the U.S. will hop on the bandwagon as well.

    So if any other enemy of the U.S. declares itself to be a religion tit could build places of worship (recruitment/training) in the U.S.. or even next to sights of their attacks on the U.S.?

    This has become ridiculous.

    1. Mommy, I can’t sleep! There are muslims in my closet!

    2. However, we are at war. Whether you want to admit it or not, whether we want to be or not, we are at war with Islam because Islam is at war with us.

      Strange, then, that all US-based Muslim congregations haven’t taken action against the US, nor vice versa.

      George Fucking W. Bush explicitly stated that we were not at war with Islam.

      It cannot exist without Sharia Law.

      It’s existed for the better part of the history of this republic without Sharia. It exists in most of Europe without it. It exists in Australia without it. It has spread in all those places EXPLICITLY without force (in modern times).

      To be sure there are many Muslims who are not at war with the U.S., however, they need to show that, because their Koran states that they are.

      Curious. The Koran also commands Muslims living in non-Islamic lands to observe the laws of their hosts.

      If the Imam was truly wanting to build bridges he would have cowed himself to reactionary, ill-informed and frothing nitwits who all-to-easily have their feelings hurt and moved his project to some undefined “OK for Mosques!” area.

      Fixed.

      1. “George Fucking W. Bush explicitly stated that we were not at war with Islam.”

        Your point is what exactly? Am I supposed to just automatically agree with President Bush on everything?

        Regardless, Islam has declared war on the west – so whether or not you or I or “George Fucking Bush” or Barack His Holiness Obama say we are or not makes no difference. Perhaps if we simply refused to acknowledge Japan or Germany as an enemy, that whole World War II thing could have gone away?

        Part of the problem is that too many people are worried about offending someone by actually naming the enemy. Islam declared itself to be at war with non-believers, not the other way around. This has been going on for a lot longer than any of us have been around.

        Before writing me off as “reactionary, ill-informed and frothing nitwit” you should study the Qur’an. I am not reactionary or ill-informed, nor are my feeling hurt.

        Qur’an (18:26) – “How clear of sight is [Allah] and keen of hearing! They have no protecting friend beside Him, and He maketh none to share in His government.”

        (4:141) “Those who wait upon occasion in regard to you and, if a victory cometh unto you from Allah, say: Are we not with you? and if the disbelievers meet with a success say: Had we not the mastery of you, and did we not protect you from the believers? – Allah will judge between you at the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will not give the disbelievers any way (of success) against the believers.”

        (3:28) “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.”

        (28:17) – “O my Lord! For that Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace on me, never shall I be a help to those who sin!” (of course your mere existence is a sin if you are a ???? k?fir [infidel, non-believer])

        (5:51) “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

        Additionally, from the Hadith (Islam is not complete without this text either, as much of the Qur’an includes such by reference):

        Bukhari (53:392) While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews.” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

        Muslim (19:4294) – “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them”

        I could go on with this for days. But pardon me for taking the Holy al-Qur’an seriously when it mentions such things. According to Islam and every Muslim I have ever met, al-Qur’an is the perfect and infallible word of Allah and cannot under any circumstances be refuted. In fact, to even attempt so is a sin.

        Islam considers there to be 3 worlds (houses):

        Dar al-Islam [???? ???????? literally house of Islam] also Dar as-Salam, house of Peace; see (10.25 an 6.127)
        Dar al-Salam refers to predominately Muslim lands where Sharia has been fully implemented. If this is tnot the case Jihad is permitted to “remedy” the situation.

        Which brings us to Dar al-Harb (??? ????? “house of war” or Dar al-Garb “house of the West” referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force. For much of Islamic history, the preferred term used to describe non-Islamic societies has been dar al-Harb, emphasizing Islamic countries’ aspirations to conquer such territories and render them part of dar al-Islam.

        Dar al-Kufr (??? ?????, “house of disbelief”) is a term used for a land of non-believers prior to Islam conquest to “reclaim” it. Muhammad referred to the Quraish-dominated society of Mecca between his flight to Medina and his triumphant return.

        An inscription of 1462 A.D.at Jami Masjid at Malan, in Banaskantha District of Gujarat states: The Jami Masjid was built by Khan-I-Azam Ulugh Khan, who suppressed the wretched infidels. He eradicated the idolatrous houses and mine of infidelity, along with the idols with the edge of the sword, and made ready this edifice. He made its walls and doors out of the idols; the back of every stone became the place for prostration of the believer.

        Mughal Emperor Jahangir wrote in his Tujuk-i-Jahangiri: I am here led to relate that at the city of Banaras a temple had been erected by Rajah Maun Sing, which cost him the sum of nearly thirty-six laks of five methkaly ashrefies. …I made it my plea for throwing down the temple which was the scene of this imposture; and on the spot, with the very same materials, I erected the great mosque, because the very name of Islam was proscribed at Banaras, and with God’s blessing it is my design, if I live, to fill it full with true believers.

        In October 2000, during the Al-Aqsa intifada, the tomb of the Hebrew patriarch Joseph, and the yeshiva inside Od Yosef Chai, in Nablus, was damaged by a Palestinian mob. During Palestinian Authority-organized repairs, the dome was painted green, prompting international protests and objections.

        If I have erred on material facts, please let me know.

        1. Fuck you.

          And I hope you befriend a Muslim someday.

    3. Your president Barack HUSSEIN Obama say call to prayer “Prettiest Sounds on Earth”!

      He will hear call to prayer at site of our great triumph over infidel nation!

      Allahu Akbar! Allah is Greater!

    4. Malagent. Wow, if you believe it Islam against us, you must have really been appalled with the Bush administrations use of American life in an attempt to give them a better life in the world. You must think Bush is a traitor for supporting them, and you must have agreed that with the looney left that believes Bush is a terrorist. Only a terrorist would support those Islams, right? America has thousands of troops fighting on behalf of those who put faith in the Koran right now. Does that bother you?

      1. No. I disagree with appeasement no matter the source. Again, it does not matter what I believe – it matters what al-Qur’an says, what Imams teach and what Muslim’s believe.

        There are many Muslims who do not believe what I have stated or do not admit as much. Perhaps they, like many Christians and Jews are believes who have not come to fully understand their text, or perhaps they rely upon a religious leader for all their information. In such cases their beliefs would vary widely.

    5. I am opposed to the Govt. prohibiting it based solely on religion.

      Meaning that you are in favor of the Govt. prohibiting it for some other reason?

      1. @Neu Mejican, I mean exactly what I stated.
        “I am opposed to the Govt. prohibiting it based solely on religion.”

        Islam is not a religion, it is a religious form of government. One which has declared its intention to dominate the world by force. Time and time again many Muslims have shown with their intentions to do just that, with tremendous body counts along the way.

    6. To be sure there are many Muslims who are not at war with the U.S., however, they need to show that, because their Koran states that they are.

      And of course all Muslims interpret the Koran in exactly the same way, just as everyone of any other religion interprets their preferred texts in exactly the same way. You should realize by now the imagination and creativity people have it comes to the interpretation of what someone else wrote or said.

      1. Qur’an (8:15-16) – “O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!”

        (3:169-170) – “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them in bliss, the Martyrs glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they cause to grieve.”

        (2:191-193) “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

        So who am I to challenge th eternal, unchanging word of Allah?

    7. Yeah, these peaceful Muslim Americans who don’t endorse terrorism just need to be more sensitive toward idiot bigots who think muslim = terrorist.

  23. This has become ridiculous.

    You’re quite correct.

    FWIW, Islam itself qualifies as a “criminal enterprise” under RICO laws. (It’s not worth anything as long as Muslims are left’s special pets).

    1. I’m looking forward to RICO being struck down on 1st amendment grounds then.

    2. Let’s see, the mosque opponents have thus far tried to convince this heavily libertarian audience using appeals to union rights, zoning laws, and ridiculously overbroad federal legislation in the form of RICO.

      Look up libertarian on Wikipedia before mounting your gentle persuasion campaign next time, folks.

      1. We thank you for defending us against infidels!

        You will be invited to our first call to prayer!

        You may come worship with us and celebrate our great victory!

        Allahu Akbar! Allah is Greater!

      2. I note that Tulpa has been called “a full-on liberal elitist” on this thread.

        I am pretty sure they don’t mean “classical liberal” when they say that.

        Funny stuff.

        1. I am all things to all people.

          1. You sure aren’t Alvin the Chipmunk to me, pal.

  24. These Mus-lamewads are total dicks. Why don’t they build there stoopid church outside of America?

  25. So, Reason, are you starting to regret associating with an un-libertarian phony creep like Andrew Breitbart now? It’s made Hit & Run even worse than it already had been.

    1. Reason changed the second Obama was elected.

      1. Proof positive that they’re all a bunch of racists, right?

      2. Wasn’t Lamar the limp wristed faggot on Revenge of the Nerds.

        1. Yes, but he also played that little hard case Tasty-Taste in Fear of a Black Hat, so watch yourself.

          1. I missed it.
            Was it any good?

            1. It’s approximately the best movie ever.

        2. “Wasn’t Lamar the limp wristed faggot on Revenge of the Nerds.”

          LOL! I hadn’t thought of that! I hadn’t thought of Lamer either. And Flamar…never thought of it. Keep the good stuff coming! Ha! That was a double entendre! You are so funny!

    2. There’s nothing wrong with associating with a rat bastard on an issue where he happens to be right.

      1. There’s nothing wrong with associating with Rat Bastard for any reason…unless you believe in Guilt by Association.

  26. Wow.
    I caught a bit of Hannity’s silly rant on this issue last night and thought the arguments had sunk to a new low. Apparently I was wrong.

    The interesting thing to me about Hannity’s piece: he’d show “proof” that Rauf was not the moderate he said he was by playing out of context quotes that even out of context came across as fairly reasonable and moderate…followed with the phrase “that doesn’t sound moderate to me.” This was followed by “outrageous” behavior by the “mainstream media.”

    Truly surreal.

    1. Hannity is a cock.

      1. He is a cock, but that’s a reference to his vanity.

        1. He’s nothing but a cock tease at Roosterama.

    2. I vomited myself to sleep last night after defending Obama’s position to a liberal acquaintance of mine.

      1. Did that go something along the lines of “sure, he probably shouldn’t have stepped in doody, but he did it just right”

    3. …that Rauf was not the moderate he said he was by playing out of context quotes that even out of context came across as fairly reasonable and moderate…followed with the phrase “that doesn’t sound moderate to me.”

      I’ve heard that kind of thing, too. (Not from Hannity, which I never watch and is only for the cerebrally challenged.) 1) label the person as X and 2) since the person is X, anything he says is evidence he is X. It can be surreal (and disappointing) at times.

    4. I guess Hannity doesn’t know the close connection between Rauf and the Bush admin.

      1. Think he really cares?

    5. Hannity is a damned Republican shill. Always has been and always will be. He may as well be the press secretary for Newt Gingrich, who just blew any goodwill I had towards him permanently.

    1. Hey, leave the facts out of this.

    2. Hey, leave the facts out of this.

      1. Infidel server squirrels and their polygamous postings.

      2. “”Hey, leave the facts out of this.””

        I refuse to be like everyone else. 😉

    3. He’s just another Bushie neocon warmongerer trying to exploit 9/11.

  27. Religious freedom is good….building a triumphant mosque on the site where Muslims, in the proper observance of their religion, murdered 3000 people,,,the importance to Islam is that the mosque be built on THAT particular site which, since it was wrecked by the debris from the crash, makes it PART of Ground Zero in their eyes…. its not about religious tolerance, its about Islamic supremacy…that’s why ts a bad idea…

    1. where Muslims, in the proper observance of their religion, murdered 3000 people

      Ignoramuses say that “Muslims” murdered 3000 people “in the proper observance of their religion” as if there is one “proper observance” of Islam. You are an ignoramus.

      the importance to Islam is that the mosque be built on THAT particular site which, since it was wrecked by the debris from the crash, makes it PART of Ground Zero in their eyes.

      1. the importance to Islam is that the mosque be built on THAT particular site which, since it was wrecked by the debris from the crash, makes it PART of Ground Zero in their eyes.

        Islam places a universal importance on this place? All of the Islamic monolith believes it to be connected to Ground Zero and that’s the only POSSIBLE reason they want to build a community center there? It’s not because they currently use it for prayer and it’s a piece of shit and the Lower Manhattan community is out of room? Fucking douchenozzle.

        1. Timon, I’ve asked you before, and I’ll ask you again. Please refrain from cursing. If you can’t read an oposing view without getting angry, perhaps you should take a break from the debate.

          1. Fuck off jtf, you fucking cunt. If you can’t handle the language used on this forum, go fuck yourself,

            1. Oh I can handle it. I think I handled it quite nicely by politely asking Timmon to watch his language. Why are you so full of hate, Bob?

              1. jtuf, STFU.

      2. It is indeed proper observance of the religion, and yet somehow, pointing that out is considered hateful or ignorant?

        Stating a fact, no matter how unsavory, is not hateful or ignorant. Contact CAIR, have them mail you a copy of the Qur’an, brush up on your Arabic and start reading. Or you could get a kafir version that has been translated.

  28. Here is a great analysis of Obama’s stance on the Islamic Center at Ground Zero.

  29. The majority of those opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque believe it is legal, but are exercising their freedom of speech and religion to indicate they disapprove.

    As for the law, on the one hand I approve of private property rights, on the other, I have to question why the government is giving people more rights for Godly purposes than for secular and private purposes. Special privileges for the Godly – what is just about that?

  30. The majority of those opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque believe it is legal, but are exercising their freedom of speech and religion to indicate they disapprove.

    As for the law, on the one hand I approve of private property rights, on the other, I have to question why the government is giving people more rights for Godly purposes than for secular and private purposes. Special privileges for the Godly – what is just about that?

  31. Religious leaders use religion to control people and the “common” people use it as a crutch.

  32. Think he really cares?

  33. Hey, leave the facts out of this.

  34. Basically, what I’ve learned from all of this, is that if you say you’re a religion, then your group can get away with anything!

    Good idea.

  35. here are nice quality burberry scarf for you.

  36. our burberry scarf is your best choice,they are nice quality at a good discount,great welcome everyone order from us.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.