Only Bigots Oppose the Mosque!
“Where are the Republican leaders who will reject pandering and prejudice?” wailed The Washington Post in its most recent editorial in support of Cordoba House mosque near Ground Zero.
Like the controversy over the mosque, the Post editorial reveals the two Americas we have become, uncomprehending of and hostile to each other, even as we drift apart.
To the Post, opposition boils down to three arguments, all of them “objectionable.” The first is a wrong-headed belief “that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and killed almost 3,000 people there in 2001 really did represent Islam.”
The second is that, as many families of 9/11 victims associate the terrorists with Islam, to build a mosque near the scene of the massacre would be sacrilegious and wounding.
The third is cynical politics. As two-in-three Americans oppose the mosque, siding with them and savaging supporters of Cordoba House is to run unconscionably with the crowd.
None of these arguments is acceptable, says the Post, for they represent misunderstanding, prejudice or “repugnant” politics.
What the Post is saying is that opponents of the mosque are all either bigoted ignoramuses or political panderers.
Quite a statement, when a Time poll finds that 61 percent of Americans oppose the mosque and 70 percent believe that to build it near Ground Zero would defile hallowed ground.
“(T)he right response to misunderstanding and prejudice,” said the Post, “is education, not appeasement.”
In short, rather than yield to ignorance, bigotry and demagoguery, the Post will undertake to tutor us on how to think correctly.
This is a pure extract of liberal ideology. Few better examples of faculty-lounge obtuseness to the feelings of the people among whom they live are to be found. Yet, the editorial has a point.
For, in Webster’s, there are several definitions of “prejudice.”
The most pejorative one is “an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race.” Another definition, however, is simply a “preconceived judgment or opinion.”
It is this idea of prejudice that Edmund Burke endorsed:
“Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it most wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but the naked reason.”
“Naked reason,” pure rationalism, permeates the Post editorial, which ignores that vast realm of sentiments, such as patriotism and love, that reside in the terrain between thought and feeling.
“The heart has reasons that the mind knows not,” said Pascal.
True conservatives are people of the heart who use the weapons of the mind to defend the things of the heart.
Why would Americans be reflexively skeptical and wary of Islam?
We were born a Christian nation, an extension of Christendom. For most of us, it is part of our DNA. And for a thousand years, our ancestors fought a war of civilizations with Islam.
In the name of Islam, Muslim fanatics massacred 3,000 of us. In our media, the names commonly associated with Islam are al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
What are sins in Christianity — adultery and homosexuality — are capital crimes in Islamic countries. From the Copts in Egypt to the Chaldeans of Iraq, Christians are persecuted and purged in the Middle East. Few remain in the old Christian towns of Jerusalem, Nazareth and Bethlehem. Christian missionaries in Islamic countries risk stonings and beheading. Muslims are attacking Christians in Nigeria, Sudan, the Caucasus, Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Are there scores of thousands of patriotic American Muslims, hundreds of millions of decent, peace-loving Muslims around the world?
Undeniably true.
Yet one would have to be obtuse not to understand that a Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity.
An apprehension about that is what Burke called the “latent wisdom” of a people.
This is not an argument for war with Islam, but for recognition that “East is East and West is West” and America cannot absorb and assimilate all the creeds of mankind without ceasing to be who we are.
Prejudice is prejudgment. And if prejudgment is rooted in the history and traditions of a people, and what life has taught us, it is a shield that protects. Only a fool would reject the inherited wisdom of his kind because it fails to comport with the ideology of the moment.
“Prejudice,” wrote Burke, “is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled and unresolved.”
Without prejudice, we are tabula rasa, blank slates, upon which any ideology may be written, including what James Burnham called the ideology of Western suicide — liberalism.
Hard to believe how Pat Buchanan has jumped on board with the AIPAC crowd and the neo-cons on this one. The only reason I can think of is that the Republicans are promoting this to help them gain control of Congress this fall and at the end of the day, Buchanan has always been a Republican partisan. And if the Mossad gangsters mentioned elsewhere in TAC by Phil Giraldi succeed in using this controversy to incite violence leading to more wars on behalf of Israel, I guess it’s worth it to PJB as long as the Republicans benefit.
Islam did not cause “9/11.” American foreign policy caused 9/11.
True conservatives understand this. I would have thought you would, too, Pat.
I am a conservative American. I support a freeze on legal and illegal immigration into the United States. But I support this mosque.
“Quite a statement, when a Time poll finds that 61 percent of Americans oppose the mosque and 70 percent believe that to build it near Ground Zero would defile hallowed ground.”
To the extent that this is a manufactured controversy, poll numbers about this or any other such controversy carry little meaning. So the Washington Post is going to tutor us how to think — while we ignore that Fox and other cable stations are doing the same (and it would seem with a great deal of misleading propaganda)? And finally, even if all of Islam were the enemy, isn’t it be clear that seeking education about the matter would still be required to have one’s opinion be taken seriously?
I miss the “Lift the siege of Gaza” Pat Buchanan.
If Ground Zero is hallowed ground, can we get the mcdonald’s next to it (closer than the mosque, as far as I know) torn down? Or is McDonald’s sufficiently American and Muslims aren’t?
Incomprehensible nonsense, which is rare for the usually-cogent Buchanan.
Buchanan complains about “faculty lounge obtuseness”? Well, Mr. Buchanan, when the right gives in to bigots and hysterics like Pam Geller, when it puts emotion over reason, when it leaves leftists and atheists as the only ones who seem to remember that freedom of religion is both inflexible law and cherished principle in this land, when it forgets that it is for private property rights and against collective blame, then it damn well deserves to be lectured like an errant schoolboy.
What a shameful moment for this country.
I have to agree with the posters who are calling out Buchanan for his seizing on what he supposes is a great new variant of the Southern Strategy, even if he does have to get in bed with the Israel Lobby to do it. Next thing we’ll hear is that Pat has been booked on one of them fancy trips to Israel so he can do the bang-up job that George Will is doing on behalf of Israel. Feh.
Enough of the BS and PC – time for facts:
1. not allowing a mosque to be built at a certain location in no way infringes on the rights of Muslims to pray as they wish, just not anywhere they wish – no more 1st amendment cr*p.
2. all of the so-called bigots are not anti-Muslim but they have more than good reason to question the true motive for needing to erect a Mosque on this particular spot.
3. that Americans never hear ‘moderate’ Muslins repudiate the horrors of Shari’ a Law or the actions of the terrorists does make many skeptical about the premise of their religion
4. there is little question about where the funds for this huge complex will come from but a lot of question about why they would build in an area where few, if any, Muslins reside.
5. there may well be some racists and bigots among those opposing this project, but there are many more who truly believe it is very special land and should at least be free of controversial and/or painful reminders of anyone’s personal loss.
I don’t see what the big deal is.regarding the Mosque. After all , we had no issues with providing an air force to the Kosovo Liberation Army (Al Qaeda’s Franchise in the Balkans). We bombed the Christian Serbs and then annexed their terroritory and handed it over to the Muslim Albanians. And with the help of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, they have funded the construction of 300 + mosques. While the Orthodox Churches get vandalized, destroyed, burnt to the ground.
“A Time poll finds that 61 percent of Americans oppose the mosque and 70 percent believe that to build it near Ground Zero would defile hallowed ground.”
I suspect those pole numbers are based on a conflation of issues unrelated to each other and also based on sloppily worded questions that don’t indicate what Time says they indicate.
For example, I am wary of Imam Rauf in the same way I am wary of Pat Robertson. You have these people who pursue political agendas using religious symbols, you note that their political stunts may be unhelpful, and you are accused of religious intolerance.
That’s a pretty far cry from claiming that a Mosque is objectionable in and of itself — which is something I have heard from Republican leaders who overplayed their hand on this issue.
But I think it is certainly possible that the Time pollsters, based on my answers, would lump me in with people who made such statements.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to complain that Muslims are “attacking” Christians in Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine, and the Caucasus.
Is this column for real??
If that many people really oppose the mosque and, as they claim, respect property rights, they should raise enough money to make the property owners an offer they can’t refuse. They paid $5 million for the property so offer them $15 million, $20 million, $25 million for it, whatever it takes (donated money not tax money) and then anyone that’s not a bigot will be happy. Then they can build a monument to government incompetence or preventative wars or whatever the hell they want.
Is the Muslim My Neighbor?
This is a project that has had Jewish and Christian people on it’s board since day 1. The iman/his wife even appeared on Fox news ( not a noticeably moslem friendly place) with Glenn Beck & Laura Ingraham. Then great project, but for cheap theatrical politics now a huge furore.
Humiliating just dreadful. We are now meant according to Ex speaker Gingrich to match the standards of the Saudis? It’s a bit rich from us talking about Saudis after how we’ve snuggled up to them for decades. Is that the standard which we aspire to or are we better?
I feel you can only show that you stand for principals when the object of discussion is unpopular. Free speech for those A holes that protest Iraq veterans funerals for example.Anyone can show they’re for freedom of religion and property rights for say a christian church. Wow big stretch. But a Moslem community center with an Imam who has worked for years for the State Dept? Can we not show that as conservative people we are better than this dog whistle bigotry. I watched a brief interview with a muslim woman whose son had died as a 9/11 responder. She seemed a lovely woman and had lost a very brave son.Tragic just tragic. Go on Newt and Sarah… tell her she and her son wern’t real Americans like you and a mosque would spit on his memory. I hope people like Newt and Sarah choke on their horrible words. I’ll certainly rember at eelection time thats for real. Harry Reid youre a jerk.
The libs win, when we say, “Here’s what they should do with their property, because of MY politics.”
The libs win, when like George Bush, we let them get away with claiming we have no right to an opinion, because we are not as smart as they, and we are TOO ANGRY, and our opinions are formed out of RACISM.
Conservatives will win when we demand films and transcripts of what RAUF has been saying about us, and to WHOM. Conservatives will win when we demand proof that PEACEFUL MONEY is building this mosque (anybody remember LIBS and their BLOOD DIAMONDS?).
Remember when they said the purpose of the Mosque was to promote peace and understanding and heal wounds? Expect a TRUE story to remain UNCHANGED. Expect a STEALTH story to adapt as CONDITIONS CHANGE.
PJB, why can’t common sense win out here? Because TRUTH is not at work in many of these comments, unlike your article which we are commenting upon.
“Western suicide — liberalism”? Only when it’s perverted with dishonesty to fit the agendas of crooks and liars, and idealistic makers of war. (The eagle needs two wings to fly.)
This is all so simple, “Do you come as peacemakers? Or makers of WAR?” Assist us in proving your assertions. Trust but Verify.
Sir, I am disappointed by your stance on the community centre. Please do not take this personally, but for someone whose analysis of the runup to the second world war I found a breath of fresh air, I find your non-analysis of what is perspiring here astonishing.
Apart from that, I thought that court jesters had their place only in monarchies: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap . Strange sort of Republic, that needs jesters to cut down to the facts.
And, on another angle: will someone please save those columns on the present building? They seem rather handsome, especially by modern day’s architectural standards.
Great article!
How others commenting on this can miss the point behind this behooves me. Pat said back in 1999 that with the course the American foreign policy is on it is going to result in a catastrophic attack on American soil. No one understands this better than him and to be ignorant to this is plain laziness in understanding the man you are critiquing.
He is obviously not endorsing America’s foreign policy, but the men who attacked us on 9-11 are not blameless. Yes, our foreign policy contributed to what happened, but radical Islam is the source at fault. You are falling into the moderate ideology of the neocons and “big tent” Republican hacks of trying to pander to racial and religious minorities on this issue. I agree that there are more important issues out there than this, but if you believe that the people behind this mosque are being incensitive and doing something wrong, there is nothing wrong with using this issue to get votes. The southern strategy was effective in the past and there’s nothing wrong with a principled man using a political strategy to gain political power to do what he knows is right.
I respect Pat for attempting to explain the importance of the “terrain between thought and feeling”. At least he has a measure of intellectual honesty when other so-called conservatives feel the need to fabricate paranoid delusions of terrorist invasions to rationalize their extreme emotional discomfort with the mosque and Islam in general.
Pat deserves credit for acknowledging that opposition to the center and overall distrust of Muslims is strongly sentimental, and rests on a culturally shared prejudice that, in his view, is at least well founded if not entirely rational or correct. He’s right to point out that there is a stark division in America, even represented in this comments section, between people of the “mind” and people of the “heart” and that arguments from the heart are often more compelling and “true” than conclusions derived from “naked reason”.
Does this bring us any closer to finding out what is Right or Wrong, True or False? To understand the contours of this controversy its useful to examine the difference in the fundamental moral framework from which each side derives their convictions and conclusions.
I recommend this piece by Rod Dreher for a primer in what may be the core motivators behind both the opposition and support of the mosque:
http://www.oasiscenter.eu/it/node/6178
American politicians and their mercenaries are trying to carve out a vast empire in lands that are predominantly Muslim.
And, as in all previous military empires, there will have to be an accommodation and acceptance of the cultural and religious traditions of the conquered people.
Only then would the politicians and the plutocrats behind them secure what they’ve sacrificed so many lives and national treasure for – which, notwithstanding the hokum in the popular press, is nothing more but nothing less than the untrammeled exploitation of the loot (i.e. the oil).
Poor Pat…he loves America, but it just ain’t what it used to be.
So I assume that you now think Mississippi should change their flag now?.
Of course Americans have the right to oppose the mosque NOT at ground zero…just as they had the right to react with vitriol against Americans of German ancestry during WWI and against Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII.
AIPAC and the ADL should be careful about using bigotry and racism to cudgel their political enemies. Even if they are powerful lobbies, they represent only a very small minority, and it’s just a matter of time until the monster they’re now tenderly nurturing turns around and bites them on their kosher tuchyses.
dprosenthal;
1. not allowing a mosque to be built at a certain location in no way infringes on the rights of Muslims to pray as they wish, just not anywhere they wish – no more 1st amendment cr*p.
What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” do you not understand? It doesn’t say “prohibiting the free exercise thereof – except where we say they can’t”.
Do you think there are geographical areas in which we can say people don’t have their First Amendment rights? Or their Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth Amendment rights? What if Dallas said “You may speak freely – just not in our city”?
2. all of the so-called bigots are not anti-Muslim but they have more than good reason to question the true motive for needing to erect a Mosque on this particular spot.
No they don’t. If there is a logical reason – one based on facts and evidence, not on hysterical emotion – for questioning the motives of the Park 51 people, I certainly haven’t heard it.
3. that Americans never hear ‘moderate’ Muslins repudiate the horrors of Shari’ a Law or the actions of the terrorists does make many skeptical about the premise of their religion
Maybe the reason why Americans haven’t heard that is because when a moderate imam with a long history of “refudiating” terrorism and calling for peace tries to build an interfaith community center to bring people together, they launch into bigoted hysteria and try to shut the place down before it even opens. just a thought.
4. there is little question about where the funds for this huge complex will come from but a lot of question about why they would build in an area where few, if any, Muslins reside.
There’s “little question” of where the funds come from? Well, how about some answers, instead. DO you know where the funds are coming from? Do you have evidence to back up your claim? Or do you have nothing but unfounded accusation?
5. there may well be some racists and bigots among those opposing this project, but there are many more who truly believe it is very special land and should at least be free of controversial and/or painful reminders of anyone’s personal loss.
So strip joints, off-track betting, and sleazy souvenir stands – all of which exist in that neighborhood – are perfectly appropriate, but an interfaith community center is not?
Also, we are Americans, and conservatives at that. We do not let emotion trump principle.
TomT
Conservatives will win when we demand films and transcripts of what RAUF has been saying about us, and to WHOM. Conservatives will win when we demand proof that PEACEFUL MONEY is building this mosque (anybody remember LIBS and their BLOOD DIAMONDS?)…
This is all so simple, “Do you come as peacemakers? Or makers of WAR?” Assist us in proving your assertions. Trust but Verify.</i?
Muslims: Guilty until proven innocent.
I have lived in the Middle East my whole life. I have lived in Jordan Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and UAE. I am a Jordanian Christian. Christians in the middle east are fine, and they are not being purged. We don’t need Pat Buchanan types to lie on our behalf.
Furthermore, the co-owner of Fox News has funded the Imam of this mosque.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0821/fox-shareholder-funded-mosque-imam/
<i?What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” do you not understand? It doesn’t say “prohibiting the free exercise thereof – except where we say they can’t”.
It wouldn’t be Congress, it would be the city of New York. The First Amendment is a limit on the Federal Government, not on the state governments. But maybe you’re one of the new “conservatives.”
The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on behalf of a religion.
We cannot grant religious freedom to such a religion.
i love pat buchana, and god bless him. for those who think this country can be all things to al people, take a look at the Constitution of the United States. it is not intended to be splintered into the tower of babel whereby we are used as a offshoot of any and all who differ from us.
the founders of this country, as mr. buchanan has written about extensively, did not intend that the Constitution be used as a tool of blatant disregard for our culture and our way of life. to infer, and refer, to our Constitution as simply some document that in no ways represents and supports America’s Christian values and ways is idiocracy.
sure, everyone would love to treat the united states as a bazar where foreigners come, have their way with us, and then go home when we fall. but that is genocide, countryside, and christiancide.
sixty minutes had a segment recently noting that the oh-so-nice muslims in turkey have driven out all Christians. now tell yourself just how much affirmative action you’d like to have when your country is no longer your country? and then name any other country anywhere in the world at any time, that was stupid enough to be “tolerant” and survived it?
there is them and there is “us” and that’s all there is to it. until someone comes up with the magic “we can all live together cause you believe exactly what i believe and will play fair won’t cha?” pill, protect yourself from foreigners with ill intent.
no more immigration of any kind. the inn is full up.
How many Christians has the Iraq invasion killed?
“The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on behalf of a religion.
We cannot grant religious freedom to such a religion.”
This is where we’re heading folks. The constitution had a good run. Some of us will miss her.
“”It wouldn’t be Congress, it would be the city of New York. The First Amendment is a limit on the Federal Government, not on the state governments. But maybe you’re one of the new “conservatives.” “”
Maybe at first, but the Supreme Court over the years has ruled that many parts of the Bill of Rights extend to states and localities by virtue of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment following the Civil War, the most recent example being last Term’s decision extending the Second Amendment to the city of Chicago.
Wow, pb, hadn’t really occurred to me before that the fine print on the freedom-of-religion thing made it perfectly OK for states and municipalities to practice religious discrimination. So all you Southern states that want to push the Jews and Muslims out, y’all can go right ahead.
Man, in their wildest dreams, I’m sure the 9/11 attackers had no idea how much of America they would end up destroying and continuing to destroy. With Americans’ eager help.
pb;
It wouldn’t be Congress, it would be the city of New York. The First Amendment is a limit on the Federal Government, not on the state governments. But maybe you’re one of the new “conservatives.”
So again, under that logic, Florida could suspend free speech, Wyoming could institute torture, the City of Dallas could search your home without a warrant… that’s insane.
Weren’t conservatives *just recently* the ones arguing that the City of Chicago can’t unilaterally suspend the Second Amendment? Where did *that* principle go?
norman;
The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on behalf of a religion.
We cannot grant religious freedom to such a religion.
First, you are an ignoramus. There are no exceptions in the First Amendment’s granting of freedom of religion.
Secondly, if we are to take away the rights of the adherents of any religion or philosophy that has ever had anyone commit an atrocity in its name, no one will have any rights. Certainly, Christians will not. Nor will conservatives.
Thirdly, I tire of these screeching hysterics. Even during the height of the Cold War, the American Communist Party was allowed to operate. The reason is that Americans of that time were made of sterner stuff, and were unwilling to give up the rights even of their real and sworn enemies. They realized that only the brave can remain free. They realized that unless our rights apply to all, they apply to none. You do not.
Norman Ravitch said: “The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on behalf of a religion. We cannot grant religious freedom to such a religion.”
And if someone kills a pro-abortion Dr. or blows up an abortion clinic in the name of, say, the Catholic Church, will you be leading the march to demand St. Patrick’s be closed?
The illogic of so many so-called conservatives is astounding. They are acting as bad as we’ve said liberals always do. They are basing their demands upon emotion, not upon logic.
To my fellow conservatives: The Constitution either holds, or it does not. Is our willingness to twist and bend The Constitution to our own purposes yet another of the toxic legacies we’re suffering from having sided with the neocons?
This division and mistrust is exactly what the murderers of Al Quieda wanted. Lets not play into their game. When the damn things built nobody will give a damn. Liked the coats though..none of you guys miss Burlingtons?
You don’t have to like the mosque and you’re free to voice your opinion for or against or even i don’t care ..its an old coat factory. Thats freedom for you.You can march / demonstrate thats free too. Being so free however we do put on a show for everyone else that can easily be portrayed in an unflattering manner.
One thing I like about Pat is his realism about our role in the world and that sometimes well intentioned actions lead to a chain of other actions and maybe .. just maybe we should be good neighbours not the world’s policeman.
To the usual pro Israel ranters these protections also apply to you. Dismantle them and when you need them… when the right goes anti jewish again they may not be there. Careful about what you allow to happen to your semetic cousins. We’ve seen an eruption of anti gay, anti Mexican ,anti Muslim hate usually from the same guys.. can you see what’s coming?
I already suggested putting something no one would object to – an abortion clinic on ground zero.
And our Lord bent down and wrote in the dust…
Given Buchanan’s screed, there should be a center dedicated to the removal of every accused pedophile priest in NYC. Complete with 800 number to dial to get that priest that you didn’t like the homily removed if not actually imprisoned for a very long period – who cares if they really did it or not, much like those in Gitmo. They are the worst of the worst not for anything they did, but for who they are, what they belong to. Guilt or innocence, especially individual cases don’t matter. If there were any Catholic churches destroyed from the destruction of 9/11 they should not be rebuilt,or if rebuilt, razed and replaced with something that won’t upset those who have been victims of abuse.
And don’t dare oppose this for apparently the worst evil is not “insensitivity” – even for Mr. Buchanan.
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND DEFENDERS OF A RELIGION BORN IN HATRED OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.
I’m going to say something that Pat Buchanan and other critics of this mosque plan probably won’t want to hear.
If the U.S. federal government had done to Christians what it has done to Muslims over the past 60 years, it would have been Christians–not Muslims–who were attempting to bomb the country’s financial and military centers. What then? Do you ban all churches in New York City’s financial district?
And if the U.S. federal government had done to Israel what it has done to Muslim countries over the past 60 years, New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Los Angeles just might lie in ruins right now. According to Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:
“We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts
I am not trying to sound callous, but all I hear is “hurt feelings”. How did people live prior to the self-indulgent, self-help America existed? I admire most of Pat Buchanan’s comments, but the pandering to hurt feelings is insulting to anyone who has ever sustained a loss. Heck, should those who have lost people with clogged arteries ask for a ban on all fat? Do those who lost a loved one in a car accident ask their neighbor to stop owning a car? We are in trouble…
Wow, I am truly proud of (most) commenters on this thread.
Of Pat, not so much.
Yes, Kirt Higdon. I realize it’s shaped in part by contrasting European and American politics, but “America’s Le Pen?NOT,” Pat Buchanan—well, flip a coin on an issue and (unlike Jean-Marie in his heyday), he’ll be “party first” or “nation-first” at any given time.
I am liking the new Patrick Buchanan a lot more than the old one. Hopefully he apologizes for once stating that the terrorists “attack us because we are over there”. It appears Mr. Buchanan is finally realizing the errors of his liberal foreign policy views.
Nergol, the state governments are limited by their own constitutions which enumerate the rights of their citizens. No government, state or federal, can violate the rights of its citizens justly, which do not derive from the constitutional documents per se but rather are recognized as the necessary presuppositions and protections required in any government that deems itself a free republic rather than a tyranny. It is a myth that state governments are restrained ONLY by the federal constitution, which was never meant to be a comprehensive governing document (rather, as its language indicates, it was meant to be a limitation on Congress and the federal government specifically). Obviously, governments do exceed the limits of their authority (which ultimately resides in the people forming a sovereign state to begin with), but in our time that is much more likely on the federal level. After all, it was the CIA and the Pentagon (federal agencies) which are implicated in torture overseas, not Wyoming, and the NSA and/or FBI, not the City of Dallas, which has been caught engaging in warrantless wiretaps.
You are right to be confused by the behavior of conservatives in regards to the 2nd amendment case in Chicago. The 2nd amendment was the recognition of each state’s right to arm its populace (or, alternately, for its populace to remain under arms) without external restraint by federal authorities. The federal constitution and the Bill of Rights is silent in regards to a state’s (and local government’s) authority to restrict the bearing of arms, because the state constitutions delineate that authority. I think some state constitutions have their own version of the 2nd amendment, which limits that state’s government (and subordinate local governments) in terms of how it can restrict firearms ownership and/or carry. I don’t know if Illinois’ constitution has such a provision, and obviously that should be the decisive factor. Chicago may or may not have been in violation of the Illinois constitution, but the notion that Chicago’s gun ordinances violate the 2nd amendment of the federal constitution is simply baseless, no matter who says so.
Islam is not a religion born in hatred Mr Ravitz.Use your caps lock key ffs. Remember if ppl come for the muslims now.. others turn will come with this bigotry. The precedent is set.Hate to sound like Glen Beck there praps i’ll cry into my keyboard.
CDK;
That may all be true, but my point was that it is simply bizarre for someone (especially a conservative) to all of a sudden come up with the idea that the Bill of Rights does not apply to actions undertaken by state or local governments. That has never been understood to be the case, and God help us the day it is, because your “inalienable rights” will shift every time you cross a town line to go to the grocery store.
My point is that conservatives seem awfully selective about when they think the Constitution applies, and who it applies to. Of course, it’s no worse a thing ethically than liberals who demand “power to the people” and “democracy now” and then scurry off to have an unelected, unaccountable judge overturn every free and fair vote that doesn’t go their way, but one side being unprincipled and hypocritical doesn’t excuse the other side being so.
So the bottom line is this: Either the Constitution applies at all level of governments, which means that both guns and mosques are protected, or it does not, which means that neither are. Which? Conservatives cannot have it both ways.
Ultimately, it’s up to the people of New York to decide if this is a proper time, place, or manner (churches are prohited from being built all the time, or limited in their structure, for one reason or another).
But Americans can vote their opinions in the ballot box.
If those that support this mosque are voted out of office…then that is the right of Americans to vote as such.
Or should Americans not be able to vote their conscious?
Or do they
Anybody who has read Pat Buchanan for a while knows Pat’s concern with conserving the American polity as it was founded and has developed over 200 plus years.
Pat specifically rejects the Neocon, “invite the world, invade the world”, mentality. This post is consistent with Pat’s philosophical framework.
Pat has documented what has happened and will happen in Europe if present demographics (births and immigration) continue a pace in Europe.
Pat doesn’t want that to happen to America.
Shiria Law has no place in America as it is a combination of religion and government (government enforcing religous edicts) in a specific framework set out by Islamic scholars and religious leaders (Imams) by reference to specific passages of the Koran.
The vast majority of American Muslims (as far as I can tell) don’t support or agitate for establishment of Shiria Law in America, but a number of “Muslim leaders” do support Shiria Law in America, apparently including Imam Rauf of the Ground Zero Mosque.
Those supposed leaders that do support Shiria Law in America should be politically isolated and politically defeated (yes, they can continue to agitate as is their First Amendment rights — but that does not mean they have a right to be successful in achieving their objectives).
This mosque is wrong on so many levels.
Instead of bridge building, it comes across as defiant provocation.
Why can’t the mosque go somewhere else in Manhattan?
One mosque not built at its leaders preferred location is not the end of religious freedom in America or any serious limitation of religious freedom of Muslims — they will continue to exercise their faith.
And, by the way, while freedom of religion is guaranteed in the First Amendment, America can choose to limit or exclude any foreigner for any reason (usually politically incompatible ideology — Shiria Law is a political/religous ideology enforced by government edict).
Perhaps, as a result of this political ruckus, Americans will decide that it is unwise to allow wide-spread immigration of Muslims or Muslims that support establishment of Shiria Law on American shores.
(Considering the above possible backlash, maybe, it is in Muslim Americans’ best interest to avoid this clash by encouraging the mosque project in question to be moved elsewhere in Manhattan — I understand there are Muslims who do support moving the mosque elsewhere –these folks would seem to be politically astute.)
Sometimes, it is better to avoid a problem by not ever letting it get out of hand — the insistence on building the mosque in the face of this political uproar would seem to hurt the standing of Muslim Americans, like it or not, regardless of what elites or Globalists may think is right (or principled Conservatives for that matter).
And, yes, assimilation is often expressed by complying with the will of the already present majority. Failure to assimilate by an immigrant group suggests immigration should be reduced or even cut-off for that group.
It does not matter if the Post may, or may not, be right on the 3 legged argument. The bottom line, a clear two third majority of Americans are objecting to the Mosque and the majority right should be respected. Islam is not a native religion to America and Moslems are not only relative new comers to the States as Immigrants, but they are few in numbers and have no right yet acquired to impose their will so arrogantly on the majority. America has accommodated Moslems despite their excruciating retardation and unpleasant attires, rude customs and lack of scientific and cultural contribution to America. There are more Mosques in America that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan combined. Syria, thanks (or no thanks really) to Hafez Assad has the world largest numbers of Mosques in one country and the only contribution they made to Syria is retardation of the populace and the covering of women. Why not built the Mosque complex somewhere else, where people wanted such center built in their county so they can benefit from it. As Syrians, we are very offended when we see in malls of America a covered woman, it is rather very offensive to us, one can imagine how Americans feels. Immigrants from the Middle East comes to live and work in America because they wanted this American life style, likewise a devoted Moslem should go and live in that dump called Arabia where he can enjoy a pure Islamic lifestyle, why live among the heathen and hope to convert them. Please tell Mordakhai Bin Ibrahim Bin Moshe Al Walleed Bin Talal to take his Mosque and Korans and find other place than America, less holly, to shove it in. Moslems of America are not impressed, nor deceived, by those pretending to be Moslem piety while profiting from the dead soul of millions of Moslems in Iraq and elsewhere, partnering in business, ventures, and investments with those most venomous to Islam and Moslems. No for the Mosque and we support the American majority in their opinion and respect their feeling and cultural interests.
You don’t have to be a neo-con to oppose the ground zero mosque. You don’t have to be a supporter of Israel to oppose the mosque. You can be a critic of our foreign policy and still oppose the mosque.
All you need to justify opposition of the mosque is common sense. Islam is a barbaric philosophy of conquest and control, it is not a religion. There are no moderate muslims. Islam is more than anti-American; it’s a contagious disease that requires a quarantine.
We should get out of the Islamic world and get the Islam out of the US.
“That may all be true, but my point was that it is simply bizarre for someone (especially a conservative) to all of a sudden come up with the idea that the Bill of Rights does not apply to actions undertaken by state or local governments. That has never been understood to be the case, and God help us the day it is, because your “inalienable rights” will shift every time you cross a town line to go to the grocery store.”
Obviously, you missed an important part of American history. As I pointed out earlier, the Bill of Rights was originally interpreted to apply only to the federal government and not the States and localties. It was the passage of the 14th Amendment with its “due process” clause following the Civil War that ultimately led the Supreme Court to conclude that certain provisions of the Bill of Rights did apply to States and localities. The most recent example was the decision during the Court’s last term which extended the Second Amendment (gun rights) to the City of Chicago.
According to Wikipedia:
” The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to “incorporate” most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
Mr. Ian,
Islam is the SEMITIC REVENGE for Christianity which joined Jewish monotheism to Greco-Roman thought.
The Koran warns believers against the rabbis and the monks. Even you could figure out who is meant.
Jim Evans writes
“Pat specifically rejects the Neocon, “invite the world, invade the world”, mentality. This post is consistent with Pat’s philosophical framework.”
No it isn’t, Jim, because Buchanan did not balance a perhaps justified ultimate call for the mosque not to be located as planned with any criticisms of US “invade the world” ongoing foreign policy placing in ethical/geopolitical context all the relevant concerns.
That’s why a “Nate Weinstein” can applaud.
From this point forth, I’m going to refer to anybody who spouts platitudinous and discredited neo-conservative talking points as “Nate Weinstein”.
There is no problem in building a Mosque and cultural center, sort of a (Y) complex, as Cordoba Institute is billing it, near the site where 19 Saudi Moslem terrorists slammed hijacked planes and atrociously murdered perhaps as many as 6000 innocent, hard working Americans who loved life and loved others. But considering the fact that a clear two third majority of Americans (include Moslems) in adamant objection to this Peace project, which it’s builders and developers, headed by Walid Bin Talal maintains the same nationality of the Saudi Terrorists that carried out the 911 attack on America. It would be appropriate to negotiate thru cultural and diplomatic means an exchange of complexes that signify true tolerance and peace. That is Americans will welcome the Mosque complex building near the Saudi Terrorists devastated WTC site, in exchange for Saudi ruling family welcoming the construction of a Church and Christian complex, as well as a Synagogue and Jewish studies complex, in Madina and in proximity to the Kaabba. Preferably, and significantly, at the same distance the Mosque in New York will be erected away from WTC site. This will truly be a genuine symbol of a “Peace Deal” and a fair one. Otherwise, should the Saudi refuse the exchange, you will know that the Mosque is nothing more than a Moslem occupation site and a forceful rude intrusion on American culture and dignity.
Norman Ravitch veritably shrieked: “I CANNOT UNDERSTAND DEFENDERS OF A RELIGION BORN IN HATRED OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.”
Norman, were you there at the inception of Islam?
9/11 was comitted by 19 out of 1.5 billion Muslims. If we’re to blackguard all 1.5 billion for the deeds of 19, then isn’t it acceptable to blackguard all Jews for the atrocities comitted by the Irgun and the Stern Gang committed at Israel’s founding?
Ken Hoop:
A columnist generally covers only one topic in each article. Clearly, over the span of many opinion pieces and books, Pat Buchanan has spelled out his rejection of the Neocon, “invite the world, invade the world”, mentality.
The bottom line, a clear two third majority of Americans are objecting to the Mosque and the majority right should be respected.
No, it shouldn’t. If ever there was a graphic demonstration of why the founding fathers, in crafting the Bill Of Rights, made some things so insanely hard to change that it effectively put them beyond the caprices of the mob, this is it. If racist neocon crazies want to get freedom of religion repealed, they can try passing a Constitutional Amendment. Until then it’s the law of the land.
Also, I’m not sure why I’m under any obligation to “respect” racist hysteria or an attempt to take away one of this country’s basic freedoms. Once again, neocon fascists prove that the likes of Osama bin Laden are pikers compared to them in the area of hating our freedoms.
tbraton;
Obviously, you missed an important part of American history.
Interesting. I’m not sure where it has ever been the case that any credible person has argued that, for example, it would be perfectly legally acceptable for the Philadelphia police to torture a confession out of a suspect, or New Jersey to allow its prosecutors to open someone’s mail without a warrant.
And even if that was the case once (which I’m not convinced of), it’s irrelevant now. And dangerous. Do conservatives really want to open the door for San Francisco to bar the Catholic church from its boundaries for being an “anti-gay hate group”? For Massachusetts to outright prohibit private ownership of firearms? Is that really where you want to go with this – just to save the precious “feelings” of people who are being entirely unreasonable in the first place?
Count me out of that.
miss marple: yes I was there. I have read extrensively about the origins of this hatreful excuse for a religion. Have you?
Nergol wrote: “If racist neocon crazies want to get freedom of religion repealed, they can try passing a Constitutional Amendment…I’m not sure why I’m under any obligation to ‘respect’ racist hysteria or an attempt to take away one of this country’s basic freedoms. Once again, neocon fascists prove that the likes of Osama bin Laden are pikers compared to them in the area of hating our freedoms.”
You are engaging in “hysteria”, yourself, with these over-the-top declarations of Constitutional doom.
And, worse, you are being used & manipulated (playing into their hands) by a faction that has the same goals as the people you claim to despise: The Neocons.
The Neocons are a faction or have similar goals as the elite/Globalists.
The elite/Globalists share the same Neocon mentality: “Invite the world, invade the world (so we can more easily control the world)”.
And, it is the elite/Globalists, who are behind Imam Rauf and are at least partially financing the proposed Ground Zero mosque.
See:
“It was previously reported that the ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’ officially known as the Cordoba House, is the vision of “Imam” Faisal Abdul Rauf, a member of the Council on Foreign Relation’s Religious Advisory Committee.”
It has also been revealed that Imam Rauf is a globalist stooge/minion, who receives financial support from various Globalist foundations:
“It was also reported that the dual organizations Rauf is using to promote and fund his activities are the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). ASMA had listed several large globalist foundations as its supporters including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Rockefeller Brothers, Rockefeller Philanthropy, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.”
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque-part-ii.html
(Supporting documentation/authority links are within the above linked post.)
These Globalists want to promote division within America, so America can’t stand against the Globalist visions (America needs to be united as much as possible to reject the Globalist vision of a U.S. deprived of sovereignty/independence), which one vision is “invite the world, invade the world”.
Promotion of Shiria Law, which Rauf is engaged in is a way to divide America. Shiria Law has no place in America (because it is a combination of religion & government, government enforcing religous edicts, in a specific framework set out by Islamic scholars & religious leaders, Imams, by reference to specific passages of the Koran).
Nergol, you, and others with similar opinions, are being played like a fiddle by elite/Globalists.
This mosque simply should not be built at this location (somewhere else in Manhattan would be fine).
28 Muslim Americans were victims of the extremist terrorist attacks in New York. If a Mosque were actually being built near ground zero, it would be more than an appropriate way to honor some of our fellow Americans. If all they can get is an Islamic Cultrual Center being built in New York City, two blocks away from the hole in the ground that was the World Trade Center, then so be it. The City has approved it. They have the legal right. What’s the issue?
But, Pat Buchanan has gone off the rails in this article, choosing to demagogue the “non-issue” for reasons I cannot fathom thereby giving in to the terrorists who, among other reasons, attacked us because they believed the West was at war against Islam. Buchanan’s article will be widely circulated in the East as proof they were right and used to justify the next series of attacks.
Whatever happened to the Home of the Brave, I wonder?
Norman Ravitch sniffed: “miss marple: yes I was there. I have read extrensively about the origins of this hatreful excuse for a religion. Have you?”
No doubt you also believe in genies and flying saucers.
Take your meds, Norman. You need them.
I apologize beforehand, but if the tee-vee or radio tells them to go send their boys and tax dollars off to revenge 9/11, and then tells them that a mosque is being built at ground zero, setting the nonsense aside which we all agree on, someone should speak for their people, such as they are.
Nergol:
That may all be true, but my point was that it is simply bizarre for someone (especially a conservative) to all of a sudden come up with the idea that the Bill of Rights does not apply to actions undertaken by state or local governments. That has never been understood to be the case, and God help us the day it is, because your “inalienable rights” will shift every time you cross a town line to go to the grocery store.
My point is that conservatives seem awfully selective about when they think the Constitution applies, and who it applies to. Of course, it’s no worse a thing ethically than liberals who demand “power to the people” and “democracy now” and then scurry off to have an unelected, unaccountable judge overturn every free and fair vote that doesn’t go their way, but one side being unprincipled and hypocritical doesn’t excuse the other side being so.
So the bottom line is this: Either the Constitution applies at all level of governments, which means that both guns and mosques are protected, or it does not, which means that neither are. Which? Conservatives cannot have it both ways.
Apparently you don’t really understand what CDK wrote. “That has never been understood to be the case.” Actually it was. Your brand of conservatism, if that is really what you are supporting, is ahistorical.
There is no absolute freedom of religion. We forbid Mormons from practising polygamy; we prohibit illegal drugs as part of religious ritual. We would prosecute any Jews or Muslims who stoned women to death. Female circumcision is illegal. Hindus are not ALLOWED TO BURN WIDOWS ALIVE,. PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE PROHIBITIONS VS. PRIMITIVE RELIGION. ISLAM IS PRETTY PRIMITIVE.
Great article. Thank You Mr. Buchanan. Yes, we should follow our “latent wisdom”. Yes, “East is East, and West is West”. Conservatives should understand that; and these guys who are attacking you are suicides, liberals.
Norman ravitch whined: “There is no absolute freedom of religion. We forbid Mormons from practising polygamy; we prohibit illegal drugs as part of religious ritual. We would prosecute any Jews or Muslims who stoned women to death.”
None of which means we should prohibit Muslim houses of worship.
Your same arguments could be used to shut down synagogues. To some people, new born circumcision is a cruel and bloody rite. Should government power be used to close synagogues because the people who worship there adhere to a primitive, bloody, painful and barbaric rite?
Not a great article.
Pat’s problem is he has a problem with islam when its Muslim immigration. As long as Muslims are overseas Islam is hip.
If he is against non White immigration to America then say so like many Nationalist in America do.
But Pat can’t say that. So when it comes to Islamic issues INSIDE America he sounds JUST LIKE A NEOCON.
Every nation has a right to have an athnic and cultural identity. But White Americans have a stigma problem so they go on in circles.
Dr Kevin Macdonald is right. Unless Whites EXPLICITLY speak of their White idenity and proclaim non White immigration a problem for them, they will lose.
This article is a great example of the intellectual bankruptcy in the right.
I think it’s a bit generational. My parents are late 70s early 80′s and aren’t fond of dark skinned foreigners either. I don’t argue with them as they’re set in their ways but it doesn’t mean i have to pay any attention.
Mr. PJB, you know that Islam didn’t drive Christians out of Palestine. Did not the greatest exodus coincide with the founding of Israel? Coincidence? Did not Jews, Christians and Muslims live in relative harmony together in the region all under the Ottomans?
And for as many terror groups you’ve named that are Muslim, how many have actually attacked us Americans? And how many non-Muslim groups/nations have attacked us?
Bigmo,
I agree. If Pat Buchanan types actually came out and spoke what’s truly in their hearts regarding the white identity and non-White immigration problem. But Pat, like you so rightfully said, sounds like a neocon when he talks about Islam in America. This is what makes Pat a complete coward.
I will gladly leave the West since I am non-white, and go back to Amman, if the US government does two things:
Stops supporting the kings and sheikhs, dictators of the Middle East.
Dismantles Israel and creates Palestine.
How many “Americans” were against the abolision of slavery??? You wingnuts are so dam hypocritical that it’s repugnant! I get so sick of American, self righteous elitist attitudes. This country will never unite. It will always be a seperate but equal in appearance group. I say group because I wouldn’t desercrate the word “country” with the sick display posed by people of this country on all the world’s stages. The terrorist are eating this stuff up. It plays right in thier hands. They tell new recruits that Americans hate them and all they have to do is go to just about any blog for proof. How stupid we Americans are. So many years of slavory and detententions of specific races, and we still haven’t learned SH _ _!!!