Freedom of Religion

Religious Liberty Under Fire

The conflict is over a mosque, not cakes or birth control.

|

Spend any time surfing conservative websites and you cannot help being impressed by the degree to which they seem to care about religious liberty. One day they are defending nuns from birth control mandates; another, they are sticking up for businesses that don't want to endorse gay pride or gay marriage.

So you would think they would be outraged that Culpeper, Virginia, has denied a permit that would let a small group of the faithful build a house of worship. On that score, unfortunately, you would be wrong.

Conservative organs such as National Review, The Daily Caller and The Daily Signal have published scads of commentaries about Hobby Lobby, the Little Sisters of the Poor, wedding-cake makers and so on. But they have not said word one about the Islamic Center of Culpeper (ICC). The fight is now the subject of a federal lawsuit brought by the Justice Department.

The ICC has a legitimate beef. Its members have been without a permanent worship site for a long time. They looked around for a place to put one, and eventually bought a plot of land where they could build a small mosque. It is not ideal, but it is what they could manage.

The land does not have water and sewer service. The ground will not accommodate a septic system. So the only option left is a pump-and-haul system, in which sewage is occasionally pumped out of storage tanks and hauled away. You need a permit for that.

Over the past quarter-century Culpeper has considered 26 pump-and-haul permits. Nine of them were for churches. The county approved every single one.

Then in February, ICC director Mohammad Nawabe asked for one. First, the county delayed a hearing on the matter. The county attorney said she needed to study the issue—even though she had not needed to study any of the preceding cases. Residents of Culpeper started calling their county supervisors, urging them to reject the application.

"The majority of the calls and emails I had was because of the religion, not because it's a pump-and-haul or environmental reasons," says Supervisor Sue Hansohn. The Justice Department's complaint notes that "much of the opposition… made references to terrorism and the 9/11 attacks."

A crowd showed up to the next meeting, in April, when the board of supervisors voted on the ICC's permit. Supervisor Bill Chase made a motion to deny the permit. The audience cheered. The motion passed, 4-3. No permit for the ICC.

If this looks like blatant religious discrimination, that's because it is—despite the tissue-thin excuses county officials have offered. They claim, for instance, that they simply don't want to issue a pump-and-haul permit for a building that hasn't been built yet. But "the Board previously approved requests for pump-and-haul operations where the applicant presented circumstances that were similar, if not identical, to the ICC's," says the Justice Department, "including circumstances where an applicant did not yet own the property and in which there was not an existing structure. The Board considered 26 applications and never denied a pump-and-haul permit to a commercial or religious use prior to the ICC."

Justice is bringing suit under RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. RLUIPA says government cannot use land-use restrictions to impose a substantial burden on a religious body unless the restrictions serve a compelling governmental interest and are the least restrictive means of doing so. Congress passed the law 16 years ago, chiefly because of complaints from Christian megachurches.

Some of those churches had met opposition from local governments because of neighborhood concerns about traffic and noise. (When a thousand or more worshipers leave the parking lot at the same time, it can create a bit of a snarl.) Congress said, in effect, too bad: Your claim to a traffic-free residential street does not trump the religious liberty of people who want to go to church.

It's painfully clear that Culpeper is going to lose this case badly. Concerns about traffic and noise are neutral, legitimate considerations that qualify as governmental interests, albeit not compelling ones. Bigotry against Muslims is not neutral, not legitimate, and certainly no kind of a governmental interest. It's animosity toward a particular religion, full stop.

Yet so far, conservatives seem not to care. All of which makes you wonder about their devotion to the religious liberty of nuns and cake designers: Is it sincere—or just a handy weapon in the perpetual war between the Red Team and the Blue? Nuns and cake designers have a defensible argument that they should be allowed to exercise their faith even outside a house of worship. But it is certainly no stronger than the argument of Muslims who simply want to exercise their faith within one.

This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Second Amendment claim of felon with 25-year-old false statements conviction may go forward

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. Re Headline, it is “Culpeper’. Only 2 “p”s in the word.

    1. Hinkle spelled it right when he published it in Richmond, but the writers here barely know that Virginia exists outside of Charlottesville, Richmond, and Nova. At least they didn’t call it “Culpeeper.”

      Also, why the hell does Culpeper need an Islamic center? They can go over to the university if they need a dose of radical ideology.

      1. Culpeper doesn’t “need” any Christian churches either. It’s the adherents of a religion, whatever that religion happens to be, that need (want) a center of their own to worship at. There is *no* justification for basing approval for a septic system on what religion that is.

    2. I prefer Culper.

  2. “Yet so far, conservatives seem not to care. All of which makes you wonder about their devotion to the religious liberty of nuns and cake designers: Is it sincere?or just a handy weapon in the perpetual war between the Red Team and the Blue?”

    Agreed that the Right is being hypocritical on this issue, but the same could be said for the current administration. It has gone to bat for religious liberty when certain denominations are aggrieved, and then oppressed other faiths for expediency. No doubt there are hypocrites on all sides.

    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, though, which has defended all faiths remains non-hypocritical. It would be nice to see an article about an actual civil liberties group that does not advance a political agenda, such as the Becket Fund.

    1. I see you anticipated my point.

      1. All of this hand-wringing is illogical and emotional; about “religion”, which doesn’t even have a clear daffynition!

        What we need to do is to move disputes such as this one, into the realm of logic, science, and reason. To wit: We need a study, involving many-many taxpayer-funded scientists and lawyers and judges, to study the following factually-based, empirical question: Just HOW MUCH MORE does Muslim poop stink, compared to Christian poop? Does it stink enough more, that it is sufficiently an “environmental hazard”, to justify prohibiting “pump and haul” of Muslim poop? I do NOT think that this has been studied scientifically, or even legally! And just THINK of all the “economic stimulus” that would come about, from funding studies on this topic!

        1. I for one call for the follow up study that also performs the same tests for Jewish adherents. The point being I would love to know if waving hands over to bless food prior to consumption and preparation (halal and kosher) does actually have a benefit. Maybe empirical proof of God?

          1. Blessed food leads to Blessed poop… An interesting hypothesis that CLEARLY needs tested! Let’s not forget $cientology… Does a “cleared” body make “cleared” poop? That, too, needs tested!

            1. Holy shit!

    2. Do the things you’re referring to not also apply to Muslims, most of whom would tend to line up with conservative Christians on those views? I think those are more a matter of the left thinking freedom of religion only applies to houses of worship than giving favorable treatment to Muslims.

    3. It would be nice to see an article about an actual civil liberties group that does not advance a political agenda, such as the Becket Fund.

      Pick one:
      https://reason.com/search?q=Bec…..us+Liberty

    4. Ah, whataboutery…

  3. Oh, you pulled a bait and switch with that headline. Not very Christian thing to do.

  4. But they have not said word one about the Islamic Center of Culpeper (ICC).

    Are they aware of it? Because I hadn’t heard about it until just now. That being said, this is obvious religious discrimination and hopefully it gets smacked down hard.

    1. WTF, how about you move to that neighborhood and put a sign on your lawn advocating your undying support for their right to build a moosque. You may just get that hard smack down for which you are so hopeful.

      I would not want people who preach a doctrine encouraging/demanding violent hostility toward me to be able to build an office next door to spread that hostility. This is simply a preemptive strike toward public safety. I would rather have Satanists who at least have the discipline to limit their child sacrifices.

      1. I would not want people who preach a doctrine encouraging/demanding violent hostility toward me to be able to build an office next door to spread that hostility.

        Citation needed.

        Not every mosque is a safe refuge for terrorism, just like every Christian church is not the Westboro Baptist church.

        1. Look in the Koran, you obtuse a-hole.

          1. Here is another one for you. Andrew C. McCarthy, of course prosecutor of the Blind Sheik, author of Willful Blindness. He read the Koran before prosecuting the Blind Sheik in order to find out who he was dealing with. Enjoy.

            1. Abusus non tollit usum.

              Most of my ‘terps in Iraq were Muslim, and all of them were good people, and none of them tried to kill me.

              1. Islam is a death cult. The fact that some members aren’t explicitly trying to kill you at any given time doesn’t change what the cult does when there are more of them than there are of you.

                All of our interpreters in Afghanistan were Muslim. You’d expect that by association they’d be the most comfortable with Western values, if not fully accepting of them.

                One day we asked one of ours what he thought about homosexuals. Considering his reaction I’m not surprised that they throw gays off of buildings in the Middle East.

                1. So you actually directly deny Abusus non tollit usum.

                  Good to know. You deserve all the gun bans, drug wars, and various other governmental-interest men-with-guns oppression you get.

                  Want to talk about a “death cult”? How about the organization the above commenter would like to stop “those bad muslims”?

                  You do know that a lot of those “muslims” call themselves such because they have to in order to survive, right?

        2. Westboro Baptist Church blow anyone up lately? False equivalency.

          1. Does the instruction “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” ring any bells?

            1. They’re not Jewish, you know.

            2. Non Sequitur, that only applied to the land God claimed, and only to the tenants he gave it to (the Hebrews) per Leviticus 25:23 and Deuteronomy 12:1.

              Basically, they made a contract to live according to the owner’s laws as long as they lived on his property. This command only applied to those people and on that land.

            3. it reminds me of a Firefly episode.

        3. EVERY mosque collects zakat,and by law,1/8 of the zakat MUST go to jihad. the mosque’s Imam decides who gets it and how much.

      2. Christ what an asshole

        1. What a witty response from such a deep thinker. Hate God much?

          1. Don’t know. Haven’t met him/her. Keeping my opinion to myself until then.

        2. by Grabthar’s hammer, what an asshole!

      3. I would rather have Satanists who at least have the discipline to limit their child sacrifices.

        I’m not a Satanist, but that is not what they believe. They also don’t believe that Satan literally existed either (they’re atheists of a sort). The ones who say they do are mistaken about what LaVey actually said. The worst that Satanists will do to you is act cruelly towards you if you act cruelly towards them. That’s not really that different from most people of pretty much any faith. Satanism is more like an organized philosophy than a religion. They put emphasis on individualism, hedonism, etc.

        The choice of the name was specifically to attract attention, even the wrong kind. They don’t seem to mind it, for whatever reason.

        1. I will attempt to sharpen my sarc saber. It was my attempt to make a reference to mooslim willingness to sacrifice children and use women and children as human shields in the name of allah.

          Seems pretty foolish for them to affiliate with Satan if they do not understand Satan and his mission. Seems like something children would do for shock value.

          1. In a way, you were right about one thing. If a Church of Satan opened up next door to you, there would be no reason at all to worry about them. They’re more likely to be assholes than average, but within normal bounds of assholery. I’d much rather have a Church of Satan nearby than a biker bar, for example. One group of jerks is more likely than the other to do property damage or harm innocent people.

            That said, you’re also blowing things way out of proportion. You might as well worry about being struck by lightning than end up a victim of Islamic terrorism. I don’t like their faith, but I don’t like anyone’s faith, so that doesn’t say much. I will concede that it objectively worse than most faiths in outcomes in the modern era. Technically I should have more to fear from them as an atheist than you should. Many of them do believe in protecting “people of the book” (that includes Jews and Christians), but that does not at all extend to non-believers. I am the true infidel, after all.

          2. I’m going to make this easy for you. Would you be upset if you were told your Christian church couldn’t get a necessary function fulfilled by the city that many other institutions of a different faith in the same municipality successfully lobbied/applied for? If your answer is yes then you are wrong, dear sir.

            1. If my church were appropriately associated with evil, danger and anti-Americanism then I may be upset but I would understand why.

              1. You know of a church that isn’t? Pray, tell us which one. Wait… the swingers church doesn’t count, as they are in favor of individual rights, but I am still looking for another one as benign.

      4. Lol Satanists. Actual Satanists don’t perform human sacrifice. You’re thinking of the derogatory Christian epithet that was unfairly levied against those that practiced religions other than Cristianity in order to persecute and dehumanize them. That’s some mighty fine ignorance you’re displaying here.

      5. It seems to me that if you put that sign on your lawn, all you will prove is that the locals are bigoted and possibly violent. That doesn’t prove anything about the Muslims looking to build a place of worship.

        Statistically, acts of terrorist violence are rare compared to violent acts by, say, random males of a certain age, or black people. Of course, violent males and violent blacks are also rare; most males, and most blacks, do not engage in violence. Are you out there campaigning to keep black males out of your neighborhood? That seems enlightened.

        Maybe you should stop wetting your pants about who your neighbors are and how scary they might be. “Public safety” is not discriminating against a large group of people because a very small fraction of them have engaged in violent acts. And if you want to play the “the Koran inspires violence” card, as someone who’s taught out of the Bible for many years, I can point to plenty of violent biblical passages, and plenty of “Christians” who have done violent things in the name of Jehovah, as opposed to Muslims who have committed violent acts in the name of Allah.

      6. Quit being a worthless punk-ass.

  5. The left are also inconsistent on religious liberty. I’ll be convinced they aren’t when they force Muslims to bake gay cakes. Where’s the outrage because Muslims won’t bake a gay cake?

    1. Have any gay activists tried to force Muslims to bake them cakes?

      1. Gay activists know their place in the stack.

        1. As Log Cabin Republicans threatening to defect en masse to the LP unless conservatives quit rolling queers? Who says spoiler votes don’t change laws?

      2. The closest I’ve seen is an internet comedian with a hidden camera going around politely asking.

    2. The left are also inconsistent on religious liberty.

      Well, that pretty much goes without saying.

      1. Actually they’re quite consistant – They oppose Jews and Christians. The impression of inconsistancy is the presumption that the other parties being examined take a stance vis-a-vie religeous liberty in of itself rather than using it as a tool for other ends.

        1. I don’t know if that’s really it. There are a lot of leftist Christians and Jews out there. The damn Pope is a commie and several of the old mainline Protestant denominations and many Anglican churches are pretty far to the left too.

          There certainly is some kind of block on criticizing Mulims, though, who have all the same icky beliefs as conservative Christians, only worse.

          1. Conservative christians generally don’t behead you or firebomb your house or shoot up your place of business for criticizing them though, which might be a lot of the difference.

            1. Conservative Christians in Germany in the 1940s did exactly those things until made to stretch ropes in Nurenberg. Ask Sophie Scholl’s family about Christian National Socialist beheadings.

          2. Right usually describes mystical looters, and left applies to looter laymen and statolaters.

        2. rather than using it as a tool for other ends

          All Lefist arguments are rationalizations for power, to be contradicted the moment they no longer further Leftist power.

    3. This “they do it too” attitude doesn’t help anything.

    4. Where’s the outrage because Muslims won’t bake a gay cake?

      The outrage would probably be about the same if they didn’t also fear retribution from crazies in a religion that kills you if you draw a cartoon of Muhammed. There are apparently limits to how stupid even the proggies are willing to be, and poking something that pokes back much harder is probably a bad idea.

      1. This is the “violent fascist asshole” veto, yes…

  6. “The Justice Department’s complaint notes that “much of the opposition… made references to terrorism and the 9/11 attacks.”

    Example that the terrorists won?

    1. Y’all give them Muslims a pump and haul permit, the next thing you know skyscrapers are blowing up!

      1. Well, they would have the ability to store quite a large amount of fertilizer.

  7. You might have put in a call to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. They are a “religious-right” group if I ever saw one.

    They represented the Muslim prisoner who fought up to the Supreme Court for his right to wear a beard – and they won.

    They’re also big fans of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the applicable federal statute in this case.

    So before saying they’re indifferent to the rights of Muslims, you might want to pick up the phone and talk to someone at the Becket Fund.

    1. (thought this case may be so discriminatory that the RLUIPA wouldn’t even be needed)

    2. Hinkle did specify the conservatives he was talking about. And I didn’t see him particularly targeting religious conservatives, so much as movement conservatives.

      1. See below, and also – Hinkle says specifically: “Yet so far, conservatives seem not to care.”

        1. Every sentence must be taken absolutely literally.

          1. So to sum up, by “conservatives” Hinkle meant “conservatives other than the Becket Fund, National Review, the Daily Caller and the Family Research Council.”

            1. Nothing you’ve copied and pasted has had anything to do with the Culpepper case, which is what the quote is referencing. I really don’t see how Hinkle is wrong that conservatives, thus far, have not said much about this case. You’ve provided no evidence to the contrary. I don’t think all conservatives are against religious freedom for Muslims but I do think this case would be getting a lot more attention from them if it was a liberal town trying to prevent a conservative Christian church from operating.

              1. I really don’t see how Hinkle is wrong that conservatives, thus far, have not said much about this case

                Could it be that *gasp* most people haven’t heard of it?

                1. How do you think people hear of these cases? They get talked about and highlighted in the media, on the Internet, etc. Your comment might be valid for Average Joe Conservative, but it’s not really a justification for media outlets. Again, do you think this case would have gotten this little attention by conservatives if it was a liberal town trying to prevent a conservative Christian church from opening?

                  I don’t think Hinkle’s premise should be shocking to anyone. A lot of conservatives supported government action to shut down the Ground Zero Mosque not too long ago. This case is also far from the only example of localities in conservative areas trying to shut down or unfairly hinder mosques, with support from many in the local population. Look through comment threads on almost any conservative website and you can find much more extreme attitudes towards Islam than that easily. I know Internet boards do tend to exaggerate representation of extreme views compared to real life, but I do think it points to these views being commonplace if they’re common on virtually every board for a given ideology. Just as while left-wing sites might exaggerate the prevalence of extremist ideas in areas like economics or attitudes toward political opponents, they still represent commonly-held sentiments among these groups in real life. Some people here have no problem making broad generalizations about the left but are really sensitive to anyone doing the same thing to the right.

                2. Could it be that *gasp* most people haven’t heard of it?

                  Maybe, but if I allowed that possibility, I wouldn’t get all the feelz from bashing them and laughing at their hypocrisy.

      2. Yeah, he specified “Conservative organs such as National Review [which, as one commenter here has pointed out, ‘praised the Supreme Court’s Muslim-beard decision as “good news for the cause of religious freedom”‘], The Daily Caller [which ran an article entitled ‘Reminder: Religious Liberty Laws Also Protect Muslims’] and The Daily Signal [which ran this article supporting Muslims’ religious freedom: http://dailysignal.com/2015/04…..muslims/].” But Hinkle has to jump all over them, because they haven’t yet spoken up about the problems of *this* particular mosque in Culpeper that no one has heard about, because their silence on that issue proves that they’re really no better than a bunch of hypocrites.

    3. They represented the Muslim prisoner who fought up to the Supreme Court for his right to wear a beard – and they won.

      Special rights for the religious are not religious liberty, they are religious privilege.

  8. Not a bad article from Hinkle. I knew he had it in him.

    Needless to say, yeah, what these guys are doing does look pretty crappy (pardon the pun). And conservatives are foolish if they don’t think the restrictions on Muslims that they’re happy to turn a blind eye to today won’t get used by progressives on them at some future point.

    1. They do it for the same reasons the left is willing to accept restrictions on speech — their religion, their speech, is good. It’s the other guy’s religion, the other guy’s speech, that’s bad. And nobody will ever come into power that disagrees with that and turns it around on them.

  9. Brings to mind an Iron Law: you today, me tomorrow.

    But statists–of whatever stripe–deny the existence of iron.

    1. Tomorrow does not come if you get blowed up. Just sayin.

  10. Incidentally, National Review praised the Supreme Court’s Muslim-beard decision as “good news for the cause of religious freedom.”

    1. Stop ruining the narrative! How are cosmos suppose to sellout on religious liberty if they can’t just dismiss it as another ‘culture war’. Can’t wait to find out what other portion of the Bill of Rights will soon be dismissed as just another ‘culture war’. Libertarian moment!

  11. And there’s this from The Daily Caller in defense of religious-freedom laws (like Indiana’s) –

    Reminder: Religious Liberty Laws Also Protect Muslims

    One of the examples the notes approvingly is this: “In Irshad Learning Center v. City of Dupage (2013), a Muslim group was denied a conditional use permit, arguing their facilities weren’t zoned for religious and educational purposes. A judge found that this “did violate [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act’s] substantial burden provision, and offered no compelling interest for the denial of the application.””

    Hinkle really needs to do a bit more research before saying that conservatives don’t care about the rights of Muslims.

    1. one of the examples the *article* notes approvingly

  12. So, conservatives are unprincipled?

    *shocked face*

    1. Sure, conservatives other than the Becket Fund, National Review, the Daily Caller and (cover your eyes) the Family Research Center, which defended the Supreme Court’s Muslim-beard decision:

      “this case is significant for another reason: It affirms our belief that religious liberty is intricately connected to and flows from our inherent human dignity. It cannot be taken away from us, even if we are imprisoned. While prisons have legitimate interests of their own, incarceration does not eliminate the fundamental human right of freedom of religion.”

      1. Family research Council, not center

        1. Reading down this thread, I feel like you are talking mostly to yourself. It seems many commentors here are also perfectly willing to ignoring facts that lie outside their preferred narrative.

    2. They’re principled when it comes to the freedoms they like. Not so much on the freedoms they don’t like.

      1. And the freedoms they like just happen to be the ones their unprincipled primary political opponents don’t like.

        It’s almost like they choose positions on issues based upon doing the opposite of their political opponents rather than applying consistent logic.

        1. Absolutely. If they’re for it, we gotta be agin it. Damn hipppy dopers!

  13. As far as Conservatives go with this ‘liberty’ stuff, and I mean liberty of any kind, they’re overall just about as statist as the left, just in different ways. They’ll defend your right to have a gun or to not be robbed blind by government, but if you want to smoke a plant, they’ll see you off the gulags without a 2nd thought.

    1. Conservatives like Dana Rohrabacher?

      1. Don’t see anything on his website about drug war. But my general experience having talked to a lot of self described conservatives on the issue is that most of them are very pro-drug war. And if you try to corner them on it and have a logical debate, they’ll end that with one of the following:

        1. Well, I have children…

        2. You aren’t one them dopers are you? Then why do you care about them dopers?

        1. I’ve heard pro-drug-war remarks from progs too, even with dope, and I expect if you get beyond dope their tolerance (so to speak) goes down.

        2. “Don’t see anything on his website about drug war.”

          How about Wikipedia – Rohrabacher?Farr medical marijuana amendment

          1. (Yes, I admit I’ve seen lots of drug-warriorism among conservatives, I hope I haven’t tried to cover that up – they will sometimes conflate “legalizing dope” with “endorsing the hippie stoner lifestyle”).

        3. The MIL had O’Reilly on last night and he and a couple of guests were working themselves into apoplexy over Obama commuting sentences for several drug convicts.

        4. Conservatives are generally pro drug war. That is why Republican politicians are generally awful on the drug war. Liberals talk a better game but they never vote on the issue so Democrats end up being just as bad. The drug war exists because a lot of people like it and not just cops.

    2. And “libertarians” vote for them.

      1. I don’t, unless they have some libertarian leaning to them.

    3. but if you want to smoke a plant, they’ll see you off the gulags without a 2nd thought

      The war on drugs started with progressivism, and both parties have their drug warriors.

  14. I guess no amount of links contradicting the narrative are going to derail the Two-Minute Hate.

    “Conservatives don’t care about the religious freedom of Muslims…I know it because I *feel* it very strongly! Don’t try to distract me with your petit-bourgeois, racist ‘facts.'”

    1. I think that you’ve shown this article to be poorly researched (very poorly). The narrative has fallen apart. Now Reason can go back to ignoring religious liberty except for those random articles written by Stephanie Slade (does she still write?).

      1. She writes about couple articles a month.

        If you’re a subscriber, there’s an enticing headline from February 2017 issue: Obama’s Betrayal of Believers.

      2. None of the examples he’s posted have had anything to do with this case. No one has provided any evidence against Hinkle’s claim that conservatives have been silent about the Culpepper case. The argument that “well they once published an article about a completely different case involving Muslims so what are you talking about” is a terrible rebuttal.

        You could find articles from the last 8 years from liberals who criticized Obama over drones or civil liberties violations, but that’s hardly proof that liberals weren’t largely silent about it, especially in comparison to how they would have acted under a Republican president (and that precise point has been made here countless times during Obama’s presidency, with rightfully little disagreement from anyone here just because you could find a couple of counterexamples).

        1. No one has provided any evidence against Hinkle’s claim that conservatives have been silent about the Culpepper case.

          What if they have been? It is one thing if they are actively supporting the city. But why do conservatives owe Muslims their active support anymore than anyone else? Are people not allowed to pick their causes?

          Moreover, to whine about conservatives being silent on this is pretty fucking rich coming from a magazine that has barely fucking covered the attacks on Christians over the gay laws yet claims to be Libertarian. The conservatives are not libertarian and don’t claim to be. Why are they obligated to support every cause?

          And that doesn’t even discuss the false equivalence going on here. it is a single community center in a small town in Virginia. They could build it ten miles up the road if they wanted to. Why does their religious freedom depend building it in that town and nowhere else? Gee conservatives are more worried about Christians being forced to act against their consciences as a price of being in business of having a job than they are about a single Mosque having to be built in the next town over. The monsters!!

          1. “What if they have been? It is one thing if they are actively supporting the city. But why do conservatives owe Muslims their active support anymore than anyone else? Are people not allowed to pick their causes?”

            It’s indicative of hypocrisy regarding their claimed principled support for freedom of religion. And in this city itself, exactly what political group do you think are the people supporting this? The liberals there?

            “Moreover, to whine about conservatives being silent on this is pretty fucking rich coming from a magazine that has barely fucking covered the attacks on Christians over the gay laws yet claims to be Libertarian. The conservatives are not libertarian and don’t claim to be. Why are they obligated to support every cause?”

            They may not write about it as much as you want them to, but I think it’s laughable to suggest they’ve been silent on it. Just search “wedding cakes” or “Hobby lobby” etc. and you can find dozens of articles over the course of years about it. Also, I’m not sure why conservatives not being libertarians is relevant here. How is this a specifically-libertarian issue? Don’t conservatives claim to be principled supporters of freedom of religion? Is that not supposedly a core conservative value in this country? Isn’t that the whole point here?

            1. It’s indicative of hypocrisy regarding their claimed principled support for freedom of religion. And in this city itself, exactly what political group do you think are the people supporting this? The liberals there?

              No it is indicative of their priorities. Not saying something is not he same as supporting it and you know that. Stop pretending it is. By your logic, you are a hypocrite if you don’t actively speak out about every single instance of things you claim to object to. That is absurd. Hypocrisy is supporting the city. And there is no evidence they are doing that.

              . They may not write about it as much as you want them to, but I think it’s laughable to suggest they’ve been silent on it.

              I have read every one of them. And reason has never once done anything but say well I wish people wouldn’t do that or make any kind of strong principled defense of religious freedom. They don’t give a shit. And that is fine but they makes it very hypocritical of them to claim conservatives are hypocrites because they are not doing enough to ensure there is a Mosque in every community in America, which is really all this case is about.

              1. “No it is indicative of their priorities. Not saying something is not he same as supporting it and you know that. Stop pretending it is. By your logic, you are a hypocrite if you don’t actively speak out about every single instance of things you claim to object to. That is absurd.”

                If your cause is supposedly principled support for religious freedom, and you base whether or not you say something based on the religion of the people involved, then that is hypocritical (I never said it was the same thing as supporting it). If someone’s honest and says that their priority is to protect Christian religious practices, then I wouldn’t consider them a hypocrite even if I disagree with them.

                “Hypocrisy is supporting the city. And there is no evidence they are doing that.”

                I agree with regards to conservatives nationally, but who exactly (especially in a county that voted 60% for Trump) do you think is supporting the city in this town? The progressives there? I’m not saying all or even most conservatives would have a hypocritical position here, but there’s a large contingent of them, more prominent in some areas than others, who will support these kinds of actions as long as it’s anti-Islam.

                1. If your cause is supposedly principled support for religious freedom, and you base whether or not you say something based on the religion of the people involved, then that is hypocritical (I never said it was the same thing as supporting it

                  Hinkle never shows they don’t support it. All he can say is “they haven’t come out and said so”. That begs the question, why do they have to come out and say so? Do you comment on every single instance of violation of freedom? No. No one can. They only have so many resources and so much of the public’s attention. Not saying something about this doesn’t make them hypocrites. And you would never apply such an absurd standard in other contexts.

                  agree with regards to conservatives nationally, but who exactly (especially in a county that voted 60% for Trump) do you think is supporting the city in this town?

                  That is a good question. Perhaps Hinkle should have gone down and done some reporting and gotten their side of the story instead of just slandering them as bigots because it is reason and the Muslim is always right.

                2. In other words, your contention is this micro disproves the macro. This one particular case is weighted so heavily that any other example is moot by default.

                  Nice logic you’ve got there Calidissident. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

                  I could fault sites like National Review for not talking about this one particular case. I could. But then I would need to also admit that they have indeed taken a principled stand on larger cases that are in this exact same vein of reasoning.

                  So sure, fault Conservative websites for not defending every single last religion freedom issue everywhere in America. But don’t pretend that missing one particular case negates all the times they’ve done exactly what you seem to think they should do.

                  Deal? Or is that too reasonable?

            2. National Review has now explicitly called this a “threat to religious freedom”: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..der-attack Satisfied now?

          2. “And that doesn’t even discuss the false equivalence going on here. it is a single community center in a small town in Virginia. They could build it ten miles up the road if they wanted to. Why does their religious freedom depend building it in that town and nowhere else? Gee conservatives are more worried about Christians being forced to act against their consciences as a price of being in business of having a job than they are about a single Mosque having to be built in the next town over. The monsters!!”

            Talk about a false equivalence. Religious freedom isn’t really at play as long it’s a locality doing it? So when cities pass laws prohibiting Christian bakers from refusing to serve gay weddings, that’s not a violation of their freedom because they can just open a bakery in the next town over? Come on John this is a horseshit argument and you know it. And what if the next town over says the same thing? And the next one? Do you even know if they can build it ten miles over or are you talking out of your ass? Also, you can easily find similar cases in other cities through a simple Google search. This is far from the first time conservative municipalities have tried to throw a wrench into plans for mosque construction.

            1. So when cities pass laws prohibiting Christian bakers from refusing to serve gay weddings, that’s not a violation of their freedom because they can just open a bakery in the next town over?

              If I remember right, courts said that indeed, that’s not a violation of their freedom. And while it’s lovely to know deep down they were wrong, it’s better not to have to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to aggrieved parties. So yes, city laws can fuck your religious ass and there’s nothing you can do about it.
              Well there is, but it ends with you dead and the only question is how many you take with you.

              1. I’m talking about John’s opinion on the matter, not what the law says.

                1. Not to put words in John’s mouth, but since his side lost and was told to get fucked, why shouldn’t they use the law the same way? If it’s good enough to fuck him, it’s good enough to fuck his enemies.

                  “We bombed Coventry and you whined. Your bombing of Berlin is thus height of hypocrisy and you must stop it.”

                  1. Because to people like Hinkle and many of the posters on this board, Muslims are sacred. The rules can never be applied to them.

            2. So when cities pass laws prohibiting Christian bakers from refusing to serve gay weddings, that’s not a violation of their freedom because they can just open a bakery in the next town over?

              Yes because it means a Christian can’t own a business in that town. That is not the same thing as saying “you can be a Muslim but you have to go the next town over to go to a Mosque”. Can’t you see the difference there? One is regulating the private behavior of the person and the other is about where they can build a place of mass gathering.

              You are not normally this stupid. You just let this topic make you that way because God damn it Muslims are always right and Christians are always wrong.

              And what if the next town over says the same thing?

              It becomes a bigger issue. But there is no evidence they are. That doesn’t make this right. It just means it isn’t that big of a deal and certainly not as big of a problem as what is going on with public accommodation laws for gays.

              1. So prohibiting Muslims from owning a house of worship is fundamentally different from Christians owning a business (which is a stretched claim itself)? Also, none of the laws you speak of single out Christians. They apply to anyone of any religious denomination with those beliefs, or even non-religious people who hold them. That’s different than singling out a religion and preventing them from worshiping in your town. And regardless of the comparison to other laws, I just fundamentally disagree with you that it’s no big deal as long as it’s just a local thing.

                1. So prohibiting Muslims from owning a house of worship is fundamentally different from Christians owning a business (which is a stretched claim itself)?

                  That is not what is going on here. They are prohibited from building a house of worship in this spot not entirely. Just fucking stop it. I get it. Muslims are always right and Christians are always wrong. Any slight to a Muslim is by definition more outrageous and evil than the worst oppression of Christians. That is the reason party line. It is just not all of us toe it.

              2. Let me first be clear that I do not agree “anti-discrimination” laws that prohibit any baker or any other businessperson, Christian, Muslim or Martian, from refusing service to anyone they want, and I also do not approve of discrimination against this group of Muslims seeking to build a place of worship.

                That said, the two things are not equivalent. First, there are many Christians who do not believe that their faith would prevent them from baking a cake for a gay wedding. Second, a law requiring such a cake to be baked would be just as onerous for a conservative Muslim baker as a conservative Christian baker.

                Rights are rights, and exercising your rights should not require that you move to the next town/state/country over to do so without restriction.

          3. For the same reasons any other religion wants a house of worship in a given place. It’s convenient to where they live and can afford to build.

        2. And have the leaders of this Mosque done anything to support other religions rights to free exercise? If not, then why are you not calling them hypocrites?

          1. I don’t know. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Either way, they have a right to free exercise. My complaint also isn’t with random conservatives who have never heard of this case and many of whom would support the mosque if they heard it about it. It’s with the people of the town trying to block it and conservative media outlets that haven’t talked about it but would be screaming from the rooftops if this case involved an evangelical church in a liberal community.

            1. I don’t know. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Either way, they have a right to free exercise.

              You are so concerned about whether conservatives and Christians are. Why do you not care about Muslims? Shouldn’t an article calling out conservatives for actively supporting the Mosque expect the Mosque to do the same thing for conservatives or at least ask the question?

              Of course not. It is reason. Do me a favor, go find a single article reason has ever published that is in any way critical of Muslims. I have never seen one. If you can find one, i would love to see it. If you can’t, then explain to me why a magazine that is as often critical of religions and religious repression as reason is, has not gotten around to being critical of one of the largest and the most oppressive religion on earth? Why is that?

              1. “You are so concerned about whether conservatives and Christians are.”

                You missed the point of the second half of my post. I’m not concerned with whether Joe Christian has or hasn’t spoken out. I’ve criticized the people in the town supporting this, and conservative media that would cover it if it involved a group they like more. If there’s a media outlet run by Muslims that claims to broadly support freedom of religion for all groups but ignores those issues when they don’t involve Muslims, then yes I think they’re being hypocritical. Forget the US, those people are super common in the Middle East and other Muslim areas and they’re hypocrites and often totally reprehensible.

                “Of course not. It is reason. Do me a favor, go find a single article reason has ever published that is in any way critical of Muslims.”

                Here’s a few that criticize Islam, practices by (some) Muslims, and/or refusal to criticize Islam:

                https://reason.com/blog/2016/10…..mp-clinton

                https://reason.com/archives/201…..s-to-blame

                1. The first one is an interview with an author. That is not the magazine. That is just them interviewing someone whose views they may or may not endorse.

                  The second one doesn’t criticize Islam. It criticizes PC culture. It says

                  The real problem in Europe today is not so much Islamophobia, though anti-Muslim sentiment certainly exists; it’s Charliephobia, if we take this term to mean the fear of letting a magazine, or anyone else for that matter, dissent from PC orthodoxy, reject relativism, and engage in robust discussion about any worldview they choose. It’s this culture of worshipping self-censorship over freedom of thought and frankness of debate that is damaging public life and brewing communal tension and in some cases violence. Indeed, I would say that the campaign against Islamophobia has done more to foster awkwardness and bitterness in 21st-century Europe than Islamophobia has.

                  Thanks for finding a perfect example of what I mean. Reason can’t bring itself to blame Islam even after radical Muslims murder the staff of a satire magazine. No, the problem is PC culture. That is sadly typical of the appalling bullshit reason puts out on this subject.

                2. Has reason written about any of these things? Other than a whole lot equivocation by Shackford about the baker case, they have not to my knowledge written a single word about the other six examples given in this article.

                  http://townhall.com/columnists…..a-n1701966

                  Doesn’t that make Reason hypocrites by Hinkle’s standards?

              2. https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..dical-isla

                https://reason.com/archives/201…..-as-islamo

                Also, is it really surprising that Reason runs more articles about conservatives than Muslims when it’s a US-focused website and the former group is about 30-40x as large as the latter?

                1. The first one is a factual account of Obama blaming guns and not Islam for Orlando. Nowhere in that piece can I see where Robby ever says Islam is to blame. He just says that Obama says its guns.

                  The second one says that we should stop calling critics of Islam bigots. Nowhere in the article does the author actually criticize Islam or endorse any criticism of Islam. He just says people who criticize Islam should not always be called bigots.

                  IS that the best you got? If so, thanks for proving my point. Reason is incapable of being mildly critical of Islam or Muslims and yet is often harshly critical of Christianity and Christians. The double standard is sickening.

        3. Calidissident,

          Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible to see this as a zoning issue and not a threat to religious freedom? You can not give a shit about this and even side with the city without necessarily objecting to religious freedom or the sacred Muslims.

          1. Did you even read the article? Hinkle specifically addressed this. If it’s a zoning issue, it’s one that hasn’t been applied to any of the previous applicants for the permit, including nine churches. And the complaints about it from the community have not been primarily about zoning or environment reasons. That’s bullshit and you know it, and the only reason you’re saying it is to defend conservatives. That’s it. If this was a liberal town doing it to an evangelical church, you would not have this reaction and you know it.

            1. If it’s a zoning issue, it’s one that hasn’t been applied to any of the previous applicants for the permit, including nine churches

              Yes, I did read the article and it showed that Hinkle is a fucking moron. Just because churches have been allowed in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that every church must be approved now. The circumstances may have changed such that the city is okay with saying “no more churches in town”. Just because you allow one or even ten churches doesn’t mean that you are forever prevented from saying no to any church no matter how large or how much circumstances have changed.

              Hinkle never looks into the actual circumstances because he is lazy and dishonest. He sees Muslims and that is all he needs to know/. You might try being a little smarter than that.

              1. You have no problem connecting the dots when it involves liberals, but you’ll bend over backwards with excuses that nobody buys for conservatives. Not only were the other ones approved, but they weren’t even studied. But now that was necessary? And the supervisor and Justice department are lying about the outrage mostly being about Islam and Muslims, I assume? And the cheering crowd was just totally thrilled about preserving their environment? Seriously John you yourself don’t even believe that.

                1. You have no problem connecting the dots when it involves liberals, but you’ll bend over backwards with excuses that nobody buys for conservatives.

                  Sure. That is because I have a bias towards conservatives. We all have our biases. I am just calling you out on yours against conservatives and for Muslims.

                  Not only were the other ones approved, but they weren’t even studied. But now that was necessary?

                  I don’t know. Maybe they are wrong. I am not saying they are right. I am saying that Hinkle offers no evidence other than assertions and that even if they are wrong, this is one small town and hardly a national emergency that makes anyone who doesn’t speak out about it a hypocrite as Hinkle claims.

              2. My question, reading the article, is whether the zoning of the specific site plays a heavier hand than Hinkle wants the reader to believe. I consider the failed attempts by both my parish church and neighboring JCC to expand their properties onto some adjacent land, stymied by a combination of NJ Green Acres laws and requirements to leave thruways available for ambulances to the neighboring diocesan nursing home (there’s also a nunnery by there ? busy religious corner!). Yet, our sister parish down the road was able to do the same sort of planned expansions because it’s simply next to a mini-mall.

        4. “None of the examples he’s posted have had anything to do with this case.”

          My examples have everything to do with this part of Hinkle’s post:

          “All of which makes you wonder about their devotion to the religious liberty of nuns and cake designers: Is it sincere?or just a handy weapon in the perpetual war between the Red Team and the Blue?”

          *Of course* I undercut Hinkle’s claims when I show conservatives – including two of the publications he cited as Not Caring – supporting religious freedom for Muslims, including the right to wear beards in prison.

          I also cited an article in which the Daily Caller pointed out how religious freedom benefits Muslims, and this in the context of a land-use case” In Irshad Learning Center v. City of Dupage (2013), a Muslim group was denied a conditional use permit, arguing their facilities weren’t zoned for religious and educational purposes. A judge found that this “did violate [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act’s] substantial burden provision, and offered no compelling interest for the denial of the application.””

          1. That’s fair with regards to that claim, I agree, though I don’t think it’s all that convincing (I don’t think those outlets don’t care at all, but I think they’d clearly be more inclined to comment in cases involving Christians). But regarding the central case the articles about, his point stands that there’s been little to no talk about it by them.

            1. The whole thrust of this article is “look, this case shows that conservatives only care about nuns and cakes, those hypocrites!”

              As to getting comments on that specific dispute, he could pick up the phone and call the Becket Fund, Family Research Council, National Review, Daily Caller, etc.

              Was he concerned that they might not give the answer he wanted?

              1. Of course he was. And he didn’t call the people wanting to build this center either and try and hold them to the same standard he is holding conservatives to.

        5. No one has provided any evidence against Hinkle’s claim that conservatives have been silent about the Culpepper case.

          Oh, no. They haven’t yet spoken up about *this* case. That sounds like the complaint by the California constituent of a congresscritter whom JFK quoted in the preface to his (or Ted Sorensen’s) “Profiles in Courage”: “One of the constant drawbacks of being in Congress is that I am compelled to receive letters from a jackass like you in which you complain that I promised to have the Sierra Madre Mountains reforested and that I’ve been in Congress four months now and haven’t done it. Will you please take two running jumps and go to Hell.”

          And learn to spell “Culpeper.”

  15. One of the reasons I’m libertarian is that I believe in principles, period.

    One thing that comes up again and again, from both the left and the right, is that they are really about principals, not principles. With them, religious freedom is important — as long as its religions they like. Opposing war is great as long as it’s not their team in charge of fighting the war. Free speech is wonderful as long as they agree with the controversial speech, otherwise it must be silenced.

    Sorry, but no. Fuck them. Either you stand on principle, even when it’s not so convenient, or you don’t.

    1. “Conservatives don’t care about the religious freedom of Muslims!”

      “Here are some counterexamples”

      “Does not compute…Conservatives don’t care about the religious freedom of Muslims!”

      1. If at least two conservatives don’t care, the sentence is technically correct (best kind of correct). What more do you want?

    2. “Principles” versus “principals” — Haven’t seen this juxtaposition before. I love it!

  16. I just ordered our Christmas ham from a place in Culpepper-I wonder if they will now be required to provide a ham to the mosque?

    1. Atlanta-area Publix supermarkets caught Hell when they ran a Passover ham sale.

      1. “Look, we messed up when we stocked up, we know now the Jews aren’t buying them, so we’ve marked them down to clear the shelf space, okay?”

        1. There’s this too:
          http://www.nydailynews.com/lif…..e-1.271779

          Guess ham for Jewish holidays is not so uncommon

          1. My family eats Jewish apple kugel with ham for Easter dinner each year. Our Hebrew brethren don’t know what they’re missing!

        2. Jews offended!? Who likes a bargain more than the Jews?

  17. The problem with broad generalizations is that they’re broad generalizations, but I know the sort of “conservatives” who only stand on Principle? when it’s convenient. Like the legislators in Loosiana who argued that school vouchers that could be applied to religious schools didn’t implicate the separation of church and state – right up until the Muslim madrasas started applying to the program. Then they got religion, so to speak, on the issue of no public money going to religious organizations.

    1. OK, but Hinkle mentioned National Review and the Daily Caller, which even I could confirm, from a quick Google search, supported religious freedom for a Muslim prisoner – a convicted felon no less!

      1. They only did it to reinforce “Muslim = felon” connection in the mind of their audience.

    2. You know some conservatives who only stand on principle when it’s convenient? What a coincidence! I also was conscious during the 2016 presidential campaign.

  18. Sorry but saying you can’t build a community center in a town is a zoning issue. It is not like they couldn’t build it anywhere. Beyond that, a town saying Muslims can’t build a community center there is orders of magnitude less of an infringement on religious freedom than government telling individual Muslims they must give up practicing their faith as they see it if they want to run a business or if their church or mosque wants to provide charitable services or let anyone outside its congregation use its facilities. The latter is happening all over the country with regard to Christians and gays. Worse, it is being selectively enforced. Muslims object much more harshly to gays that Christians yet I have yet to hear of a single Muslim running afoul of these laws.

    1. Reason at best sends Shackford out to equivocate and say what a shame it is that everyone can’t just get along and the government is stomping on Christians who object to homosexuality. We all know they shouldn’t do that but it is a real shame that Christians have created this problem by objecting to gay marriage in the first place is pretty much the reason attitude. But let a small town in Virginia say they don’t want Mosque and that is different. Reason is going to the mattresses over that. And reason will damn sure make it clear how the actions of one town in Virginia makes the entire Christian right hypocrite and conveniently by implication makes their objections to the much more onerous restrictions to their religious freedom and outright coercion somehow less concerning.

      I understand why reason doesn’t like this. Its concern, however, rings hollow.

    2. + 1 call to prayer broadcast 5 fucking times a day

      1. They are doing that in Deerborn Michigan. Can you imagine the fucking kittens Hinkle or the rest of them would have if some redneck church were broadcasting bible versus at 100 decibels five times a day? They would all suddenly see the value in violent police raids.

        1. Was it not Hinkle who thinks Dearborn is deepest, darkest Trump country?

        2. I’ll see you your Call to Prayer and raise you our Angelus Bells!

    3. Yes, and pulling over a black guy because of a “busted taillight,” then getting him out of his car, searching it and verbally harassing him is a traffic safety issue. In this case, it appears to be discrimination based on religion because places of worship for Christians have been approved, and lots of people contacted the local government asking them to deny the permit–not because of circumstances that would normally affect a waste disposal permit, but because of 9/11 and terrorists and basic bigoted cowardice.

  19. Some of those churches had met opposition from local governments because of neighborhood concerns about traffic and noise. (When a thousand or more worshipers leave the parking lot at the same time, it can create a bit of a snarl.) Congress said, in effect, too bad: Your claim to a traffic-free residential street does not trump the religious liberty of people who want to go to church.

    It’s painfully clear that Culpeper is going to lose this case badly. Concerns about traffic and noise are neutral, legitimate considerations that qualify as governmental interests, albeit not compelling ones. Bigotry against Muslims is not neutral, not legitimate, and certainly no kind of a governmental interest. It’s animosity toward a particular religion, full stop.

    First, it sounds like the Mosque is being treated just like every other church. The other churches had the same problem. So where is the bigotry here?

    1. Second, wanting to build a religious center does not exempt you from zoning laws. Hinkle seems to think that just because it is a religious building that cities can’t enforce any zoning laws on it. That is bullshit. If your church or Mosque or voodoo village or whatever it is your building is in a place that isn’t zoned for large gathering places and the local city decides its streets can’t take the crowds, you can’t build it there full stop. You are only going to win on 1st Amendment grounds if you can show those laws are being selectively enforced, have no rational relationship to a legitimate government end or were somehow drafted just to apply to you.

      I don’t know that Culpepper is going to lose this case. How big is this place? How have the zoning laws been applied before? The article doesn’t answer that. Hinkle just assumed the town will lose because MOOSLUMS!! And as I often say Muslims are a sacred class to reason libertarians.

      1. Come on, John, it’s in the article. The particular zoning issue is a non-starter:

        Over the past quarter-century Culpeper has considered 26 pump-and-haul permits. Nine of them were for churches. The county approved every single one.

        If it approved every application but the mosque one, it’s fairly clearly a case of FYTW. And when it comes to FYTW, federal overrides local. Since Feds are keen on showing that Muslims are oppressed and southerners racist, it’s a fairly slam-dunk case.

        1. So what if they did? Maybe those were smaller places. Maybe they were approved years ago when the addition of another church wasn’t any problem but growth and congestion have made it a problem now?

          I don’t know. And neither does Hinkle. The problem is Hinkle is an idiot and doesn’t even know or bother to ask the question.

          1. John, if the allegations are true this is straight-up religious discrimination even under Scalia’s narrow definition of religious freedom.

            And even if it wasn’t conscious discrimination, RLUIPA requires efforts at making accommodations, and maybe accommodations are desirable in this case.

            1. If the allegations are true. How do you know they are? Hinkle sure as hell didn’t do any investigation to determine that. He just assumed they were.

              1. I don’t know if they’re true, which I suppose is a key point to establish before demanding conservatives support the plaintiff.

                1. You would think so, yes. But forget it Jake, its reason.

          2. Why would issuing the 27th pump and haul permit create more issues than the other 26? The permit that needs to be issued has zero to do with traffic or anything else. It has to do with removing sewage from the property. Are you anticipating a non-stop stream of tanker trucks from this giant super-mosque that you’re imagining, and that they choke traffic to a standstill? Because that sounds kind of…not smart.

  20. So are any conservative politicians or organizations or publications supporting the actions of the county? Because, you know, the Obama administration may be suing for the righrs of the mosque but they are the ones who attempted to deny liberty to Hobby Lobby and the nuns. I think we may have a false equivalency here.

    1. If they were actively supporting the city, they might be hypocrites depending on the facts. Hinkle apparently thinks that anything short of open and active support makes them so. That is complete fucking bullshit and a standard Hinkle would never apply to anyone else. Have the leaders of this Mosque done anything to support Christian religious freedom causes? If not, then why isn’t Hinkle calling them hypocrites? Wow, reason applies a double standard in favor of Muslims. Let me get my surprised face.

      1. Maybe it has to do with Islamophilia on the part of Hinkle, but I think it more to with playing “gotcha” with conservatives. Tactics that the staff have had conniptions over when it has been applied to themselves or someone they like, such as Gary Johnson, but all seems fair when trying to criticize the heretics.

      2. Who do you think has been writing all those letters demanding that the permit be denied because 9/11? They can’t all be from Rudy Giuliani.

        1. They very well could be. He doesn’t look like he ever sleeps.

  21. And you have to love the timing of this. This fight has been going on for years. Reason suddenly decides to write on it after another terrorist attack in Europe. A group of fanatics intent on terrorizing the public into adopting its culture is not something reason considers important. But my God a small town in Virginia not wanting a Mosque is a threat to all that is right and good. Lunatics running over Christmas markets in trucks is just one of those things that we will never really understand or know why happened. A small town claiming to not want traffic and crowds is the dark night of fascism falling on America. Reason never fails to live down to its critics worst stereotypes.

    1. The permit has to do with waste disposal, not traffic or crowds. And the letters asking that the permit not be issued had nothing to do with waste disposal, traffic or crowds. They had to do with the unreasonable fear, leading to hatred, of Muslims.

  22. Culpeper is still fairly isolated-about 2 hrs from DC-but the NoVa exurbs, which have lots of Muslims, are starting to encroach on it, which might be why the town denied them the permit. They get DC yuppies who come on weekends to go antique shopping and if they see a mosque there, they might think Culpeper isn’t so special anymore.

    1. Look Nick, it is the people in that town’s duty to go broke and lose money so that Muslims may be free.

  23. Also a bit of context:

    From 1990 – the time of the awful *Smith* decision – until a few years ago, both the left and right were largely supportive of RFRA laws. In the case of the Right, this required rejecting Scalia’s opinion in Smith and endorsing a more robust interpretation of religious freedom.

    Sure, a few objectors were against giving “special privileges” to bleevers, but these objectors were either radical left-wing secularists or fanatical libertarians. Mostly, the mainstream left and the religious right supported RFRA and RLUIPA, that is the effort to protect religious freedom even when the Supreme Court wouldn’t.

    Then, a few years ago, something changed. The progs realized that religious freedom, at least in the robust form represented by RFRA and RLUIPA, was an obstacle to Gay Rights and Free Birth Control. So they denounced RFRA with “we’ve always been at war with Eastsasia” style articles.

    The right, meanwhile, continued to support RFRA and RLUIPA and wanted more such laws passed, which had been their position since 1990.

    The religious right supported RFRA even when they knew that the peyote Indians and the Rastafarians would claim its benefits.

    The left abandoned RFRA once they realize that it was an obstacle to them getting their pony.

    But, yes, let’s focus on the supposed inconsistency of the right.

    1. The right doesn’t really support religious freedom because they were silent when a small town in Virginia decided they didn’t want a mosque. The fact that the left is actively trying to eliminate the right to free exercise from the BOR is not something that Hinkle bothers to consider. its those damn conservatives who are the problem. They just aren’t doing enough the bastards.

      This article is so stereotypical reason.

    2. Smith and Raich v. Ashcroft are, by far, Scalia’s worst decisions. He basically violated his own principles in both decisions all for the sake of the drug warriors (both cases had to do with drugs). He could have gone down as one of the most principled justices (for better or worse) in the history of the Court if it was not for those two decisions. Both decisions are terrible garbage.

      1. I know where he was coming from in each case, but he was wrong each time.

        Raich was clinging too closely to precedent – the infamous one-way ratchet by which conservative justices respect lefty precedents but lefty justices discard conservative precedents at will.

        Smith was simply based on a fear that adjudicating religious freedom cases on a case-by-case basis opened the door to judicial arbitrariness – so he sought to avoid judicial arbitrariness and subjectivism at the cost of letting religious freedom be trampled.

        1. So, sure, he had reasons for his decisions and expressed them, and these reasons are consistent with his concerns about limiting judicial authority. I simply don’t agree with how he did things in those cases.

          1. I would say that his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was his shining moment and one that he doesn’t receive enough credit for. That dissent alone should make him a hero to anyone that believes that the government cannot hold you indefinitely at its own whim.

            1. That is a very good dissent. Scalia’s problem was he trusted power a bit too much and he valued stability too much. He would stick to precedent and or affirm the power of government in the name of stability and consistency in cases his principles demanded otherwise.

  24. Culpepper said you cannot build in a certain spot, not that they could not build. They probably were looking for a reason to say no, but it is true the Muslims have multiple daily calls to prayer and Churches have meetings 1 time a week usually. It does change the sewage situation.

    1. Gee it is almost like there might be two sides to the story or something. That can’t be. This is reason. The Muslim is always right.

    2. Churches have meetings 1 time a week usually.

      Not quite that simple. While some churches have one formal service per week, many have two Sunday services. Additionally, many (generally Baptist, at least in my area) churches also have Wednesday evening services. And that doesn’t count all the committee meetings, and uses of the facility by other groups: AA, scout troops, etc. Catholics have daily mass (poorly attended, but still there) a number of obligatory Holy Days throughout the year, plus Saturday evening Mass (acceptable alternative to Sunday Morning services, so moderately attended). Plus weddings and funerals for all of those denominations (I think…do Muslims do that as a Mosque thing?).

    3. Churches have meetings 1 time a week usually

      You haven’t been to any Catholic churches recently, I see. Like this one, just to pick one at random: http://catholicmasstime.org/ch…..lood/7003/

  25. I hate the “Methinks thou doest not protest enough” line of argumentation. Not that I’m immune from deploying it myself, sometimes. It’s an emotionally satisfying way to stick one to the bad guy. But, if I’m being calm and rational and notice that I’m about to launch such an attack, I stop myself.

    We can see who the Reason Staff considers the enemy.

  26. I really don’t see Methodists and Baptists driving trucks through Christmas villages, I’m just sayin’.

    1. Now if the Puritans were still around, however…

      1. they are, but they’re called SJWs

    2. I’m sure that preventing Muslims from getting pump and haul permits could have stopped those attacks.

      The vast majority of Muslims are not violent, just like the vast majority of males and blacks are not violent, even though a higher percentage of crimes are committed by males and blacks.

      1. Besides, Christians aren’t going to drive trucks through villages celebrating the birth of Christ. They’re far more likely to drone Muslim weddings.

        1. That was Obama.

          The man who believes that the future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.

          He’s not a Muslim.

  27. If you are a politically-correct bliss-ninny with a coexist bumper sticker slapped on the back of your Subaru, and you don’t have the slightest clue what the following ten words mean, then this essay is not meant for you. You are excused.

    dawah, dhimmi, hijra, jizya, kafir, shaheed, shariah, takfir, taqiyya, ummah

    But if you are a national security professional, senior military officer or political leader involved in any aspect of the “Global War On Terror,” AKA “Countering Violent Extremism,” these are ten words that should already be a part of your working vocabulary. If you can’t readily discuss their meaning, significance, and relationships, then you are worse than a fool, you are disgrace to your office and a danger to your country.

    http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/…..essionals/

    1. And if you aren’t on board with this, then you are not serious about the problem.

      http://pedestrianinfidel.blogs…..dment.html

    2. Cancer is a far bigger enemy to humanity than Islam. Quit being a coward and stand up for the Bill of Rights, why are you on a libertarian site if you don’t respect the Bill of Rights and freedom of religion?

  28. Islam: Not Just a Religion –

    Most Americans support the commonsense solution of differentiating between radical Muslims and those Muslims who can accept the Constitution instead of sharia law. Liberals, however, are causing controversy by condemning Christians for crimes of the ancient past while ignoring real issues with Islam.
    While liberals are right when they say that declaring that all Muslims, especially all American Muslims, are evil is playing into the hands of extremists, it’s also wrong to simply ignore the links between Islam and terrorism and the fundamentally different natures of Christianity and Islam. We can’t be safe if we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the root cause of Islamic terrorism.

    http://www.americanthinker.com…..igion.html

  29. Culpepper made the right move,Islam is no religion,it is an evil way of life.

    1. It can be both, can’t it?

  30. Helping law abiding normal Muslim to go about their life is the best way to convince those on the line of radicalism that the classical liberal values of western worlds are superior to Sharia and Islam first notions of their own religion.

    The mosque merely wants a sewage pump permit, by denying them that these people are treating Muslims precisely in same fashion as Saudi Arabia treats their minorities. Albeit a bit worse because in Saudi the government at least openly makes it clear what to expect.

    1. Exactly right!

  31. All zoning is anti-Liberty and demeans property rights, next?

  32. Since Islam is a political movement dedicated to the obliteration of Infidels masquerading as a religion, such a refusal is understandable, and one of self preservation.

    1. If people who are already Muslims and are already living in your community would like to organize, just maybe peacefully, and worship together, and you deny that, does that actually help to stop violent Muslims? And if they are actually radical Muslims who want to get together and plan terror attacks, do you really think that preventing them from getting a waste removal permit will stop them? If only we’d thought to resort to aggressive anti-Muslim zoning before 9/11, we could have saved so many lives!

    2. Unfortunately, yes, this is addressing a symptom, not the problem.

      Need to get rid of Islam in the US, period. Here’s how you do it.

      http://pedestrianinfidel.blogs…..dment.html

    3. Unfortunately, yes, this is addressing a symptom, not the problem.

      Need to get rid of Islam in the US, period. Here’s how you do it.

      http://pedestrianinfidel.blogs…..dment.html

  33. Please bear in mind that islam, as currently practiced, is not a “religion” but a comprehsneive system of social, economic, political, ethical, ,military, civil, legal codes and practices all rolled into one tamale and foisted off onto unsuspecting folks as “religion”.

    Furthe,r bear in mind that mosques, as extablished these days, are not centres of “worship” but community, political, economic, military, centres.. go and read about what the French government have been finding as they have searched mosques in that nation…. in the first month or so after the Paris nightclub attack, over two hundred mosques were closed down and seized, they being huge arsenals, centres for illegal activity, fomenting and operating further such assaults…. in short, redoubts of mayhem masquerading as, you guessed it, “houses of worship” Remember too the assault planned on Garland Texas some time back? The two perps were members of the same mosque in Arizona or New Mexico, can’t recall… If I recall, that property is four acres, the first centre to be built is smallish, but they DO have plans to construct a HUGE one as their “faithful” grow….

    1. According to islamthreat.com (I know), there were over 3,000 mosques in the U.S. as of 2015. Apparently we’re already doomed!

      Perhaps the fact that our country isn’t in flames what with 3,000 “military centres” scattered around, you might consider that conditions for Muslims in Paris are a bit different than conditions in the U.S., and that discriminating against Muslims might be a way to make things worse instead of better. Or you could just panic and run around in circles in your back yard screaming about how scary Muslims are. It’s a free country, do what you want.

    2. You are wrong. You’re just being wordy, but your case has no logical support. Sure there are theocratic Muslim countries, but that is neither here nor there. There are laws in the States concerning hate speech and plotting against the common good to take care of that. Quit being a chicken, we aren’t sheep headed for slaughter unless we become cowards and start rescinding the bill of rights because a few idiots feel threatened.

  34. It’s very simple. The first amendment says congress shall make no law affecting the free exercise of religion. Exceptions are only granted in the case of that free exercise impinging on existing limits the state has a genuine interest in controlling. One example is that a religion that demands human sacrifice would run afoul of the states interest in prosecuting murderers. Another might be building a structure on land that is protected for some reason. If the county and city governments are really just discriminating against moslems, the courts will order the building to go forward. If there is truly a good reason not to build on the land, the courts will find for the state.

  35. If the permit is not given, how is the FBI/CIA/NSA going to know where to monitor and infiltrate the group?
    Come on guys, get with the program. Make them come to a known location so we can photograph and bug them, and get on with the war.
    Issue the permit already!

  36. The conflict is over a mosque, not cakes or birth control.

    So libertarians are allowed to take the side of the religious.

    1. What libertarians? There are, like, six, seven tops. Including two of the reason.com writers.

      Most of the rest are libtard-hating Republicans posing as libertarians.

  37. It’s conservative’s fault because they are more concerned about their own churches then about others?

    Did Barton Hinkle attack Muslims for not standing up for the Little Sisters of the Poor?

    Did he accuse US Muslims of hypocrisy for failing to publish articles in support of the New Mexico bakers?

    Does he really just hate Christians and conservatives?

    1. Did he accuse US Muslims of hypocrisy for failing to publish articles in support of the New Mexico bakers?

      Of course not. Muslims aren’t hypocrites when they fail to uphold the religious freedom of non-Muslims, because Muslims don’t make a big deal about supporting religious freedom (except in the Alinskyite way of making their opponents live up to their own rules).

  38. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  39. The trouble is Islam isn’t a “religion”, it is a VIOLENT political ideology of conquest.

    Or, an ideology of VIOLENT political conquest. Either way it is violent.

    If you stand on a street corner and incite violence against someone(s) that is a crime and you’ll be arrested (or should be).

    But that is what Islam preaches all the time, in their “sermons”, in their “holy” books, in their published admonitions to wage jihad against the “un-believers” around the world.

    That’s what Islam is – the conquest by conversion, enslavement, or death, of non-Muslims (and other less “good” Muslims too of course, religious impurity is always a handy excuse for theft, rape, and murder).

    If you want to call that a “religion” then you are insane.

    Tolerating an “intolerant” religion that wants you dead is suicide.

    And Europe is slowing waking up to that fact.

    Are all Muslims violent, of course not. But the violent Muslims (the ones who are actively following their “religion”) swim in a sea of so-called “moderate” Muslims who in the main share the violent Muslims goad (of Islam covering the Earth) and who in the main won’t lift a finger to stop the violent Muslims much less make a serious effort to “re-form” their “religion”.

    Well I penned this solution to the problem of Islam in the US back in 2007.

    http://pedestrianinfidel.blogs…..dment.html

    It is more obvious today that it is the only solution.

    1. The trouble is Islam isn’t a “religion”, it is a VIOLENT political ideology of conquest.

      I don’t see why it can’t be both. Where does the definition of “religion” say anything about not being violent or about avoiding political conquest?

      Or should I be looking at the “no true Scotsman” definition of “religion”?

      1. Call it whatever you want, my point is it wants you dead, converted, or enslaved.

        That’s reality.

        If you think the 1st Amendment should protect the “religious” freedom of those that want you dead, converted, or enslaved is a good idea then you’ll have to deal with that reality eventually.

        If Catholics or Southern Baptists had the same idea, and were doing the same things, as Islam I wouldn’t accord them the protection of “religious freedom” either.

        I think it is insane, and suicidal, to tolerate a movement that wants me dead, converted, or enslaved.

        So if we quit giving Islam the PC protection as a religion we can deal with it as the enemy that it is.

        1. If Catholics or Southern Baptists had the same idea, and were doing the same things, as Islam I wouldn’t accord them the protection of “religious freedom” either.

          They used to. The only reason they don’t anymore is because civil, secular society put a stop to it. Maybe that’s a solution for Islam as well, I don’t know.

          1. Well I’m not sure that Southern Baptists ever even got close to the Catholics, and as bad as they were even in the inquisition I’m not so sure I would try to compare them with Islam today.

            But, they seem to have reformed themselves. Maybe because Christianity really is compatible with secular society.

            But I don’t see Islam doing that. Nor do I see Islam as compatible with secular society.

            Indeed, for those that fear a theocratic state it looks like Islam is the only “religion” that is serious about establishing it.

        2. Communists used to want us dead, converted, or enslaved as well. I still would have objected if a municipality had relied on that fact to discriminate against a local CPUSA group that wanted a permit for a pump-and-haul service so it could continue to use a building it owned.

          1. I should have made a clearer point that denying permits is a silly way to combat the problem.

        3. If you think the 1st Amendment should protect the “religious” freedom of those that want you dead, converted, or enslaved is a good idea then you’ll have to deal with that reality eventually.

          You mean the way the 1st Amendment protected the free-speech and free-press rights of Communists who wanted me dead, converted, or enslaved?

          1. Oh, so communism is a “religion” now?

            But Islam isn’t a political movement?

            It seems you’ll contort yourself in order to not address the problem.

            We wouldn’t have allowed Nazi’s to hold rallies in WWII.

            That and communism were different problems.

            If you want to ignore Islam you’ll eventually pay the price for it.

            1. Did I say that communism was a religion? No, I said that Communists had free-speech and free-press rights, under the same First Amendment that gives Muslims religious-freedom rights.

              And what if Islam is a political movement? Members of political movements have First Amendment rights.

              We wouldn’t have allowed Nazi’s to hold rallies in WWII.

              No, but we allowed Communists to hold rallies during the Cold War, and even to wave the Viet Cong flag during the Vietnam War. And our record of civil liberties during World War II was nothing to celebrate. The 1944 trial of 33 isolationists and pro-fascists for violations of the Smith Act, not for any actions they had taken but solely for the views they held and expressed, was a particularly despicable episode.

              1. People always quote WWII and the Civil War, and things that were done during them, as justifications for present day abuses. Because since those were the unambiguously “moral” wars, anything done then is also OK, and therefore can be done again.

        4. so do some Christian sects. There are hundreds of millions of peaceful muslims in the world. If you don’t like freedom of religion you are free to move to another country, but here it will be defended.

          1. As I point out “defending” the rights of people to advocate your own death seems to me to be a suicidal act.

            Your mileage may vary.

            Just remember, nowhere in the world is Islam defending YOUR right to freedom of religion, or anything else popular in our pluralistic culture.

            Or put it in really simple terms, would you rather be a Muslim living in the US, or a Christian living in Pakistan (or any one of a number of others)?

          2. It is always so STUPID to say things “like so do SOME Christian sects”.

            When you can show me some comparable atrocities (in severity AND scale) then we can talk about that threat.

            Until thing silly moral equivalence is the cowards way out of addressing the issue.

    2. Shinto, as practiced in Japan before it was defanged following World War II, was also a “VIOLENT political ideology of conquest.” As well as a religion.

      1. And as I recall we didn’t pretend that Japan wasn’t waging war on us either.

        We pretend that Islam isn’t at war with us because not every Muslim is violent.

        But not every Japanese was violent either.

        We didn’t accept Japanese violence because of their Shinto “religion”.

        We dealt with reality then.

        But political correctness is going to kill us now.

        1. “Islam” isn’t at war with us, just as “Shinto” wasn’t at war with us between 1941 and 1945. Not even all Japanese were at war with us. (Notably, a bunch of those we interned at Mazanar and elsewhere, including a lot of Shintoists, weren’t at war with us.) *Japan* was at war with us, just as certain Muslims are at war with us now.

          All of which has nothing to do with whether Islam is a religion. It is.

          1. Then do you have a solution to Islamic violence in Europe and US? Bear in mind that it is increasing and seems (to be obviously) tied to an increase in Muslims.

            Or, are we just to accept that as the new normal.

            Just curious.

          2. Then do you have a solution to Islamic violence in Europe and US? Bear in mind that it is increasing and seems (to be obviously) tied to an increase in Muslims.

            Or, are we just to accept that as the new normal.

            Just curious.

          3. Then do you have a solution to Islamic violence in Europe and US? Bear in mind that it is increasing and seems (to be obviously) tied to an increase in Muslims.

            Or, are we just to accept that as the new normal.

            Just curious.

  40. The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

    A Lincoln.

    Will we disenthrall ourselves?

    1. You seem to have a gun. Disenthrall yourself all you have.

      1. oh, too witty for me.

    2. The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present.

      Holy fucking shit.

      We survived:

      – Rebelling against the world’s largest empire.
      – The country splitting in half and becoming embroiled in a war that killed 2% of everyone alive at the time.
      – Fighting both the Nazis and Japanese empire at the same time, directing almost all the industrial production of the country towards warfare.
      – The ascendant Soviet/Chinese Communists and their nuclear arsenals, with the attendant risk of total annihilation.

      How the hell is Islam an unprecedented threat, or even just a comparable one? If push came to shove we could turn the entire middle east into an uninhabitable parking lot, and they probably wouldn’t be able to inflict even 100,000 casualties in retaliation, but somehow this is the greatest risk we’ve ever faced? How?

      1. Just because we’ve survived in past doesn’t mean we will survive today.

        “If push comes to shove”?

        I’d rather it not come to that.

        But people Seamus here seem to think that living with increasing amounts of Islamic violence is the new normal.

        Do you?

        1. And AZ Gunowner seems to think that tolerating Islam is tantamount to living with increasing amounts of Islamic violence. I’d suggest that he read Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), so as to try to understand the difference between verbal advocacy and violent action, but I fear it would be a wasted effort.

          1. The more Islam you have the more Islamic violence you will have.

            I submit Europe is proof of that.

            But suggesting that to you is obviously a wasted effort.

      2. WWII was just another opium war. Conservatives think it was to save the banking system from war loan deadbeats and getting the godless commies to make up for the time in 1917 when they caused the same problem. It wasn’t expedient to tell conservatives otherwise. But the whole thing about Islam is that this is an artificial revival of the Crusades versus the Saracen Blackamoor Jihadists–to benefit the Republican faith-based military-industrial complex. I am all in favor of the mystics fighting it out–in coliseums, with very short knives, to the roaring cheers of paying spectators. But I want them to pay for it with their own money.

    3. Another Red Republican, impressed with Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Manifesto of 1848…

  41. Yet so far, conservatives seem not to care.
    Nor do some purporting to be libertarians in these comments either.

    Witness how quickly the tu quoque torchbearers lean in with “But but XYX does it…” and “Well, this is Islam, not a religion”

  42. Conservative organs such as National Review, The Daily Caller and The Daily Signal have published scads of commentaries about Hobby Lobby, the Little Sisters of the Poor, wedding-cake makers and so on. But they have not said word one about the Islamic Center of Culpeper (ICC).

    They have, now that they’ve heard about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..der-attack Is Hinkle ready to drop his insinuation that NR is guilty of hypocrisy?

    1. I like the fact they just link back here.

  43. Sounds like an excellent lawsuit against the city as well a good case for an Attorney General to take and show these bumpkins that the Bill of Rights is still around and it’s not the “Christian Freedom of Religion Amendment” it’s the freedom of religion amendment. What a bunch of idiots.

    1. Somebody ask the Devastator about freedom for Positive Christianity and National Socialism as described in Adolf’s 1920 platform…

  44. Three things:

    – Mere silence isn’t all that telling. It’s a big country, lots of battles happening always and everywhere, and not everyone pays attention to the same things.
    – I’d be especially wary of bitching about silence when there’s actual full-on support-the-other-side-of-the-argument hypocrisy to be found everywhere (including these very comment threads! Yay us). No point in excoriating people for insufficient zeal, when there are much more deserving targets, like the people who called in to try to block the mosque, and the incredibly cowardly supervisors, who probably know they’ll lose and have to pay damages to the ICC (FINANCING TERRORISM!), but would rather do that than tell their constituents “we can’t stop it”.
    – Something about these articles seems to draw in ever more extreme waves of panicked “MOOSLIM HORDES” commenters. Listening to them you’d think Genghis Khan’s hordes pillaging Culpeper and trying to set up a port-a-potty for their warcamp.

    1. Why could that be?

      Angela Merkel has bent over backwards for the Muslims invading her country–to the detriment of Germany , not to mention her political career, yet how do they reward her?

      With more attacks! Yay.

  45. What conservatives care about is religious coercion–the exact opposite of freedom. There are still enough of them that promising to repeal the Roe v. Wade decision inspired by John Hospers and Toni Nathan’s electoral vote gets them into diapers and to the polls to vote for prohibition and against women’s individual rights. But pandering to mystics is doomed to extinction. The LP covered the spoiler vote gap in eleven states with 90 electoral votes this campaign. It was the Dems’ own cyanide-laced energy planks that handed the GO-Pee the hand in the till this election.

  46. happy christmas

    Peyton . you think Connie `s blog is cool, I just purchased BMW M3 from having made $4287 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe ten-k last month . it’s by-far my favourite-work I’ve ever had . I began this 8-months ago and straight away startad earning more than $72, per-hr . visit the website

    ==============================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  47. my friend’s sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  48. Do the Rockettes have religious freedom?

    http://bit.ly/2iC5eji

  49. The ignored question is: Do they plan on putting a loud-speaker at the top of the mosque’s minaret which will blare out the Islamic call to prayer many times a day including in the VERY early morning in summer? They claim it’s a religious injunction to ensure that any muslim within a mile can hear it. The rest of the population? Tough luck! Islamic religious freedom trumps your right to sleep.

    That’s why Switzerland banned building minarets (but not mosques). But those who have never lived close to a mosque and been woken up in the wee hours have no idea of this problem and ignorantly think it’s religious discrimination…

    If you dislike noise pollution – or simply enjoy your sleep – then do NOT allow minarets…

  50. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  51. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  52. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  53. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  54. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  55. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  56. A mosque is a place for jihadists to gather and plan. It also is a building in which sexual discrimination taught and practiced. Those facts alone overshadow any other purpose the mosque might have.

  57. Aaliyah. I see what you mean… Edwin`s artlclee is unimaginable, on friday I bought themselves a Cadillac after making $5642 this past five weeks and-more than, 10/k lass month. this is definitely the best-job Ive ever done. I began this six months/ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $75, per-hr. Learn More Here

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  58. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.