In “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?” I said what is now being restated by the president and reluctantly by everyone one, even by some of the sentimentalists fighting the Mega-Mosque with appeals to emotions: “Restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained.” (It is the proper libertarian position that rights of property subsume freedom of religion. You can’t demand to practice your religion on my property).
Obama reignited the mosque-at-ground-zero debate, which never really died down. A yet another White House event, this time celebrating Ramadan (Bush put on a big bash on Cinco de Mayo; not sure how he celebrated Ramadan), Obama, “expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks.”
“Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.”
‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’
“But the next day,” reports the Mail Online, “he insisted he had not been commenting on the ‘wisdom’ of placing a mosque in such a symbolic place.”
Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida at the weekend, the President said: ‘I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. ‘I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.”
As CNN’s John King reported today, there are other mosques in that radius. The small Muslim community is well-served in Lower Manhattan and the surrounds. He also pointed out that the “not in my backyard” attitude to the erection of mosques is shared across the country. His chorus of Republican and Democrat commentators agreed that what we have here is anti-Muslim bias.
What we have here are people who won’t come out with it. What do I mean by “IT”? I said so in “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”:
“Having examined only their feelings, Americans campaigning against occupiers in-the-making have failed to examine what it is they are really saying and, then, say it out coolly and clearly, and then take cover.
If Christians raised a cathedral at Liberty St. and Church St., most Americans would not mind. If the Hari Krishna set up a place of worship in the vicinity, and bobbed up and down the exact complex in Lower Manhattan, Americans would smile benignly. Ditto if a Jewish tabernacle were to be erected around the corner; this reaction would not have occurred.
It’s in the faith of Islam and its adherents that Americans have no faith.”
“Such pleas [for sensitivity] remind me of the victim impact statement so popular in our Courts. How humiliating and futile is it to plead for contrition from sadists who’ve amply proved they are incapable of such sentiment, and derive sadistic pleasure from watching their victims squirm.”