Tag Archives: Ground Zero

Posted on by

Republicans vs. The Constitution – New Update 8/12/11

We originally posted this in March 2011, but we will update this periodically to showcase the latest in their confusion with the Constitution. If you see items that we should add, feel free to let us know in the comments.

The GOP has made it a priority to mention how much they want judges to follow the Constitution, how much they believe in upholding the Constitution, how they want to make sure lawmakers respect the intent of the founding fathers.

Then they try to destroy it.

That’s no hyperbole, no intentional misrepresentation of their intent. No, the folks on the right say plenty about the Constitution, but in reality, they just think it’s a quaint little piece of paper that’s convenient to refer to occasionally so they can look patriotic.

Think I’m making it up? Below are some of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Along with them are what the right has done to try to disembowel each Amendment.

UPDATE 8/12/11: Rick Perry goes 2 for 2, with a weak on the Constitution in general. Before getting into the Amendments, Rick Perry showed his “grasp” of the Constitution in an interview for in Newsweek. When asked what the phrase “general welfare” in the Constitution means, Perry said the following :

I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.

So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by “general welfare”? 

I don’t know if I’m going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant.

But you just said what you thought they didn’t mean by general welfare. So isn’t it fair to ask what they did mean? It’s in the Constitution. 

[silence]

He knows what they didn’t mean, but can’t say what the did mean.

UPDATE 8/3/11: Added Rick Perry’s flip-flop on the 10th Amendment.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This has been a favorite for the right to trample underfoot, or twist in every way possible. This one requires addressing each section, as they have all been targets of attack from the right.

First:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The first line of attack for the right is to claim that “freedom of religion is not freedom from religion” or that the United States is a “Christian” country. Neither is true. In the first case, freedom of religion means you don’t have to have any religion, and none shall be thrust upon you by the state. That’s where “establishment of religion” comes into play.

The founding fathers were pretty strong on this point, Jefferson in particular. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were many religions represented, and many of the original settlers came to the US to escape religious persecution. In fact, Jefferson was strong enough on this (and the right is aware of it) that folks like the Texas Board of Education have been working to re-write textbooks to minimize Jefferson’s importance, so that his views on a secular system of government are not exposed as strongly.

This sentiment was solidified in the Treaty of Tripoli, where it specifically states that the government of the United States is not rooted in the Christian faith. Since this is a treaty between the US and another country, it is a binding law, per another Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. This was no mistake. There was discussion as to the inclusion of this piece, and the working of the Treaty was voted on by all members at the time, and voted through unanimously. It was published in the papers of the day. The intent was clear – to declare that the US is not a “Christian” country.

But that’s just half of the first sentence. The “free exercise thereof” has been under attack for the last few weeks because of an Islamic cultural center planned a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center attacks. In this case, folks on the right call it an outrage that a Muslim “mosque” will be built “in the shadow of the World Trade Center”. It has even been called a “monument” and a
“training center” for future attackers and extremists.

“Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims’ families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.”

- Newt Gingrich, July 28, 2010

Note the imagery: “Battlefield”, “radical Islamists”. Here’s some facts about the planned center:

  • It can’t be seen from the WTC site. Perhaps, when the Freedom Tower is built, you might see the top of the building from higher floors. But there will be no minarets, no extravagant architecture. It will look like an office building.
  • It is planned to be a 13-story building. Next to it, closer to the WTC site, is a 14-story building. This additionally hides the new building from sight.
  • It is not on a common path to the site. Tourists are unlikely to pass the building on the way to the site. They will likely be unaware of its existence.
  • Already closer? Two cathedrals, and Orthodox Greek church and Trinity Church and cemetery. Also, a mosque. The argument that “they don’t need another mosque this close” is ridiculous on its face. Does there need to be two cathedrals? Or two other, non-Muslim places of worship?

And yet, despite all of this, the folks on the right are falling over each other to decry the building of the community center. They have even suggested a zone, a perimeter around the WTC site within which a mosque cannot be built. Of course, they can’t really tell you whether 4 blocks, 4 miles, or 4 counties is far enough. Because no number will be good enough, no distance far enough.

But no matter the number they come up with, it violates the 1st Amendment. And we’re only on the first sentence.

“or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

With the significant exception of Fox News, the right has a more than healthy disdain for the press. Unless it serves their purpose, it is all part of “the liberal media” – a myth of epic proportions. Sharron Angle, running for Senate in Nevada, perhaps spoke what most Republicans think:

“We needed to have the press be our friend… We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported…”

Sharron Angle, Fox News interview 8/2/10

And she might be forgiven for thinking that. It’s what her party has worked at to achieve. Control the media, and you control the message. So much for freedom of the press.

Amendment 2

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Well, this one is abused quite frequently, and most recently, by the Tea Party folks. As a rule, they ignore the first four words.

“A well regulated Militia,”

These folks want to be able to own just about any kind of firepower without telling anyone. They want it a secret that they own a weapon, and you can “pry it from their cold, dead fingers”.

Of course, that’s not what the Second Amendment says. It says that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. And to that end, the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. What folks on the right want it to mean is that first comes the right to bear arms. Anything else is either a burden or unnecessary, such as the militia part.

Keep in mind, this was created at such a time as there was no conscription, no national force, no Department of Defense. Just citizens. They were a militia, with regular musters.

Some of the more extreme folks want to get around this part by declaring themselves militias. Of course, the “well-regulated” portion then becomes open to interpretation. Are 10 guys running around the woods in Michigan a “well-regulated militia”?

Remember Sharron Angle?  She’s even further to the right on this:

“”What is a little bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability for sporting goods stores to keep ammunition in stock… That tells me the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways?”

- Sharron Angle, to the Reno Gazette Journal, June 2010

“I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical… And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

- Sharron Angle, to conservative talk show host Bill Manders, June 2010

Again, Angle is a Tea Party favorite. Her rhetoric is, at best, ridiculous, and at worst, dangerous. When prospective lawmakers start talking about “Second Amendment remedies” regarding sitting politicians, when they speak of the government for whose office they are running as “tyrannies”, you can see how the 2nd Amendment is being twisted. My guess is that such talk at the time of the founding fathers may have been found treasonous. Instead, she gets the GOP nod.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here, the southwestern US Republicans, particularly in Arizona, have trampled all over the Constitution. SB1070, the controversial law that had major portions struck down in late July, is a particular problem.

The issue here is with the the requirement that law enforcement officers check the citizenship status of anyone who they have made a legal contact with. The key here is “unreasonable searches and seizures”. If you happen to be in a car when the driver is pulled over, should you be subjected to being required to show your citizenship papers? Should you be detained while the citizenship of all the occupants of the car are verified?

Leading this charge are AZ Gov. Jan Brewer, Senators John Kyl and John McCain, and a whole host of others. To listen to them, it’s an issue of immigration. And of course, that should be enough justification to throw out the 4th Amendment in its entirety.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yup, they’ve gone after this one too.

After the capture and arrest of the individual who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square earlier this year, the cries became loud and shrill to revoke the rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the Miranda Act. Marco Rubio, Republican candidate in FL, John McCain, and Peter King (R-NY), all denounced the fact that Faizal Shahzad was read his Miranda rights. In fact, they even started talking about revoking citizenship of anyone suspected of having terrorist ties. Once again, if it fits their agenda, throw out the Constitution.

Amendment 6

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Again, Republicans would abolish this if they could. Under the guise of “terrorism” and “national security”, they are perfectly happy with locking away individuals without trail. When the Obama administration announced it would be working to close the Guantanamo Bay facility and try some of the prisoners as criminals, the right went ballistic. Their claim was that it was “too dangerous”. Their alternative? Keep them locked up without trial. Another example of where the Republicans love the Constitution, right up until it doesn’t advance their interests.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is a real favorite of the right. They use it to decry every act the government takes, claiming they violate states rights. And it might be a good argument, right up until they decide to ignore the 10th Amendment. Like they did with – wait for it – SB1070 in Arizona. With this law, they tried to get past the federal government’s ownership of immigration law. This is, in fact, why portions of the law have been stricken in court. The right uses this to argue that the federal government is not doing their job, isn’t interested in fixing immigration, etc., all the while ignoring the fact that they have deliberately violated the 10th Amendment.

Added 8/3/11: Texas Governor Rick Perry, who as of this date has not announced whether he will run for president, is the latest to flip-flop on the 10th Amendment. When New York passed legislation recently to allow same-sex marriages, Perry said he was fine with it. His reasoning was, of course, the 10th Amendment. Since it is not explicitly forbidden under federal law (nor mentioned), Perry said that meant it was up to the states, and he was ok with that. Then came an interview on the Christian Broadcast Network (8/3/11) where Perry reversed himself:

He’s such a believer in states rights that he’s defended state decisions that he fundamentally disagrees with.

But on issues like traditional marriage, which he says are important to the fabric of the nation, he supports amending the constitution to make it the law of the land.

“I support the federal marriage amendment and I also support the same with the issue of abortion. And I also that same process for a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution so Washington will finally get the message of, ‘Hey, quit spending all the money,” Perry explained.

So, he was fine with it, until he decided it was time to amend the Constitution to outlaw it. This is a fairly common tactic of folks who want to use and abuse the “Constitution” arguments. They will tell you up and down that they know what the founding fathers’ intent was in writing the Constitution, unless of course, that section of the Constitution supports something they don’t like. Then they suddenly toss all that fatherly wisdom of the founders out the window and demand a change to the Constitution.

Amendment 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Their latest attack is on the 14th Amendment, which gives citizenship to those who are born on US soil. They now say they want to repeal that portion of the 14th Amendment to stop so-called “anchor babies”, children of illegal immigrants. Of course, this ignores the fact that nearly all of us are descended from immigrants. So the question then is: How many of the Republicans who are clamoring for change to the 14th amendment actually come are descendants of immigrants to the US?

Never mind the fact that the concept of “anchor babies” is as unfounded as the “welfare queen” of the 80′s. The argument is contradictory with the other claim, that illegal immigrants hurt the economy by sending money out of the country. Who would they be sending it to if their “anchor family” is here.

Updated 8/6/10: Republicans have a new front, or at least a new battle on an old front – gay marriage. A federal judge struck down Proposition 8, the California law prohibiting gay marriage under the grounds that it violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. This, of course, flies in the face of what conservatives and the right believe is “morally” correct. They like to declare that they arefor  protection for all, as long as that doesn’t extend to sexual orientation. At that point, they throw out the Constitution. Whether they try to use this as a wedge issue remains to be seen, but they will certainly speak up – and they won’t be arguing the Constitution. They will have plenty of other reasons to argue against this ruling, but precious few will actually argue that the law is Constitutional.

Again, the Republicans tout the Constitution as the law of the land. Except they can’t stand major portions of it.

So Why Do They Hate The Constitution?

As you can see, Republicans have problems with half of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, unless it serves their purposes. But they claim to want to instill lawmakers that are strict constructionists and followers of the Constitution. They use that argument in judicial nominations and confirmations. They rail against those who they deem as unwilling to follow the Constitution.

Then they back laws and policies that go against everything that they claim they want to protect. Why?

The answer is fairly simple. The right has become a party concerned with one thing: The preservation of the party. They do not care for the Constitution – to them is is a quaint, antiquated document that gets in the way when they want to raise the hackles of their favorites. When they claim to “protect” the Constitution, they are doing so to wrap themselves in the imprimatur of patriotism, showing their faithful that they are the “true” Americans.

When the Constitution gets in their way, then things become the federal government’s fault, or it’s time to change the Constitution. Forget the founding fathers. Nope, time to change the document they were so vehemently protecting 10 minutes earlier.

It’s all in an attempt to confuse the issues, to change the subject, to fake out everyone else. It’s disingenuous, it’s cynical.

And for now, it’s working.

What needs to be done is that they get called out. That every time they take actions that go against the Constitution, it is pointed out, given a bright spotlight, and the question asked “Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?”

Posted on by

Tea Party Vitriol – The Hits Keep Coming

The folks over at Politico have been following the latest incarnation of the Tea Party Express in Wisconsin as they try to drum up support for the Republicans facing recall. Not surprisingly, these folks are up to the same tactics. From Politico:

The founder of Tea Party Nation claimed liberal ideology is responsible for “a billion” deaths over the past century during a raucous rally here Saturday in support of one of the six Republican state senators facing a recall election Tuesday.

“I will tell you ladies and gentlemen, I detest and despise everything the left stands for. How anybody can endorse and embrace an ideology that has killed a billion people in the last century is beyond me,” said Tea Party Nation CEO Judson Phillips.

Phillips, who a day prior likened protesters of Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi storm troopers, urged a few hundred tea party supporters to turn out for state Sen. Alberta Darling, who is in a ferocious battle with state Rep. Sandy Pasch to hold onto her suburban Milwaukee seat.

But he wasn’t the only speaker to use loaded language to gin up the crowd.

Vince Schmuki, a leader of the Ozaukee Patriot tea party group compared the recall effort to a terrorist attack.

“This is ground zero,” said Schmuki.  “You remember what the term ground zero means? We have been attacked.”

He continued, “Tuesday is going to be the beginning of our takeover. And we’re going to follow it up the following week, and then we’re going to polish off the enemy in November 2012.  Who’s with me?”

Let’s see… comparing opponents to the Nazis, claiming “a billion deaths”, usurping the image of ground zero to use it to attack their opponents, “polish off the enemy”.

This is what the Tea Party “elite” do. I don’t think the rank and file are like this on a whole, but they don’t denounce it either. It was only 7 months ago that the conversation was about how we can change the level of discourse on Washington, how the vitriol was making things worse, not better. We were all discussing how violent rhetoric was likely empowering nutjobs like Loughner who went after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. So much for elevating the conversation.

The scary thing is that these folks have elected people into office, and those people are having an outsized effect on Washington. Case in point – last week a survey was released showing that only 20% of those surveyed have a positive opinion of the Tea Party. And yet, last week’s debt ceiling deal was crafted to make sure it would get past the Tea Party members, who had already scuttled plans by John Boehner. The Speaker of the House can’t get his own legislation passed because of Tea Party folks, and yet, they represent a small minority of the country.

There should be no place for this kind of rhetoric. And ignoring it is not the answer. By ignoring it, we accept it. By allowing it to continue, we encourage it. This vitriol adds nothing to the discussion and plays to lowest common denominator. And it encourages those individuals who are looking for an excuse to “polish off the enemy”. And when it happens, they’ll blame it on another “isolated incident“.

Shame on them. And shame on us if we ignore it and don’t speak up.

Posted on by

We Are All Americans – Or We Should Be

A flight under the cover of darkness. A highly trained team, having rehearsed the incursion in a specially built replica of the compound executed the plan nearly perfectly. A mechanical failure causing one chopper to be grounded. Forty minutes in and out, just escaping before Pakistani jet fighters find them. And with them, the body of Osama Bin Laden.

The plan took months to develop. From information gleaned from interrogations in Guantanamo, to the name of a trusted Bin Laden courier, the trail was followed to Abbottabad in Pakistan. There, in the same town as Pakistan’s version of West Point, a compound that had been built in 2005 was scrutinized. Eight times larger than the surrounding homes, with walls 12-18 feet tall topped with barbed wire, the home stood out like a sore thumb. It had no phone or internet connections, despite having been built only six years ago. There were no windows that faced the street. And unlike the rest of the neighbors, trash was never taken out of the compound. Instead, it was burned within the compound.

But there remained one piece of the puzzle missing – Osama Bin Laden had never been seen there.

The “boots on the ground”, the “humint” or human intelligence all pointed to someone important being kept there. The million-dollar home with the reinforced security measures made no sense in any other context. And the owner of the home? The courier. But there was no sign of Bin Laden.

A number of options were discussed from bombing from stealth aircraft to missile strikes and the eventual option taken, the incursion. This was no simple decision – it required forces to enter Pakistani airspace and execute a military operation on Pakistani soil. And there was one additional complicating factor: the Pakistanis would not be notified.

The compound was approximately a mile away from the military academy, yet no Pakistani intel had led US intelligence to the compound. Either they were clueless, the leader of Al Qaeda living under their noses, or there were forces within Pakistani intelligence that were willfully ignoring or hiding the identity of the compound’s residence.

After weighing all the possible options, President Obama made the decision to use the members of Seal Team VI, now known as United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) to come in low in helicopters, take the compound, and retrieve Bin Laden – if he was there.

This was not a decision without a great deal of peril. They wouldn’t be notifying the Pakistanis. And there was no guarantee that Bin Laden would be there. John Brennan, deputy national security advisor for homeland security and counter-terrorism said the President’s decision to go ahead with the mission was one of the “gutsiest calls of any president in recent history”.

A mission approved by President Jimmy Carter to rescue American hostages in Iran failed and Seal Team VI was born. The reality of that failed mission is what allowed the success of this mission  31 years later.

All involved in the mission to capture or kill Bin Laden deserve high praise. From the myriad intelligence personnel who did the hard work of tracking down leads and developing the information used to make the decision, to the military personnel who executed the mission, the national security team, and the President himself all deserve recognition for the hard work, difficult decisions and bravery required to bring the mission to successful conclusion.

Both former president George W. Bush and former vice-president Dick Cheney congratulated all involved, including President Obama on the raid. Crowds gathered at the White House and Ground Zero in New York to cheer the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. And for a time, we weren’t Democrats, Republican, Liberals or Conservatives. We were all Americans.

For a time.

Nearly as swiftly as the news was announced, the politics of the raid began.

There was Sarah Palin, who congratulated the military, but ignored the intelligence community and the President. Texas Senator John Cornyn gave the president praise as “the messenger” that delivered the news, heaping more praise on George Bush. Texas Governor Rick Perry as well as  House Representatives Pete Sessions and John Carter also congratulated the military, while glossing over President Obama’s involvement. And of course, right-wing mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh did what they could to minimize the President’s involvement in the operation.

Some have tried to make the case that former president Bush actually started the process, but even that is flawed. The hunt for Bin Laden was actually begun by former president Bill Clinton. In fact, Republicans were highly critical of Clinton when there were failures to get Bin Laden.

But for the President there is no safe haven. On the left the newest conspiracy theory has begun. First it was the Truthers, the folks who believed that the 9/11 attacks were planned by the CIA. The right countered with the Birthers, who refuse to believe the President was born in the United States and demanded to see his birth certificate. Now, it’s the “Deathers”, who alternately believe that Bin Laden was either killed years ago, or was not killed at all, and that the whole mission was an elaborate Kabuki dance to fool a gullible public.

When the attacks happened on 9/11/01, this country came together regardless of political stripe. We had an enemy to confront, one that for nearly 10 years has changed our way of life. Last night, the figurehead for that enemy was killed. The President showed that the US will not stop until justice has been served and that we will not give up the fight against those who wish to harm us. But it’s no longer 9/11/01. Apparently, it’s now more important to make political points by diminishing the President’s leadership in this effort, to stand against him – or at least stand apart from him – at one of the turning points in American history.

Posted on by

So Much For Civility

So Much For Civility

Remember the Park51 controversy? The furor over a multi-cultural center being built near Ground Zero because it would have a Muslim prayer space? The trumped up outrage? These folks certainly didn’t forget…

Click on the image to see it larger – but do you really need to? These folks are using some of the most violent, emotionally charged images they can to make sure you see “Ground Zero Mosque” against the backdrop of the Twin Towers.

More heinously, they have no qualms about calling the Park51 project (the real name for the project) the “second wave of the 9/11 attacks”.

It’s reprehensible, disgusting, and asinine.

Posted on by

Season 2 Has Begun! Episode 1 Is Here

After a 2-month summer hiatus, we’re back and revved up. We’ve got a new set, a second camera, we’re starting our Skype interviews – we’re on fire!

Our first episode is available in individual segments, linked below, or click on the Full Show link to start the whole show as a YouTube playlist.

We’d love to hear from you, whether it’s a response to a topic we cover, suggestions for the show, questions and topics you’d like to answer, or even if you’d like to be interviewed. You can submit a comment here, send us a video – just let us know! Visit our “Appearance Information” page for details.

Enjoy the show!

Full Show

Intro:

Park51 – You may not know the name Park51, but you’ve probably heard of the “Ground Zero Mosque”. That name – and that idea – is wrong.

The Silly Season – It’s that time in the election cycle – the last few weeks – when the nuts fall out of the trees. The problem is, this time, the nuts might just get elected.

A Tale of Two Rallies – The Mall in Washington DC is a popular place lately.

A New Obsession: Gourmet Food Trucks – These aren’t your dad’s roach coaches – these folks have some seriously good grub!

Katy and Elmo – Katy does a guest video for Sesame Street, and gets yanked. Really?

Interview: Winter Balefire – Our first interview – Winter Balefire, writer and poet.

Final Thoughts – Some closing thoughts.

Posted on by

Of Mosques and Men

By now, you’ve heard about Park51 – the multipurpose community center being built in New York City that has been characterized as “The Ground Zero Mosque”. It’s become a hot-button issue, with folks getting heated on both sides.

The sad part is – it shouldn’t even be a discussion.

Let’s look at what the facts are and get down to reality.

First, it’s not a mosque. It’s a community center that will have a pool, offices, meeting rooms, and yes, a prayer space. But calling it a mosque is like calling Treasure Island in Las Vegas a cathedral. It has a prayer space as well – they even hold weddings…

No, it’s not a mosque. And it’s not at Ground Zero, either. It’s two and a half blocks away. In fact, it’s at 51 Park Place. Park Place doesn’t go by Ground Zero. At all. There are two large buildings between Ground Zero and Park51, the name of the project being built. Except for the very top floors of the new building, you won’t be able to see anything of Ground Zero, except perhaps the very top of Freedom Tower. Which isn’t built yet. Don’t believe it? Use Google Maps, search for 51 Park Place in New York, then choose the Earth option and zoom down to the building. You’ll see very quickly that you can’t see Ground Zero.

So, it’s not a mosque, it’s not at Ground Zero, and you can’t even see Ground Zero from the building’s location. So what’s the deal?

Some are saying it’s about the principle of the thing – that extremists want to build a mosque on “conquered land”. Except it’s NOT on Ground Zero. More importantly, this attitude is exactly what extremists want – by trying to deny the building of Park51, extremists can prove their claim that Americans are trying to destroy the Muslim faith – or so they will say.

Of course, this argument itself is full of holes. If not 2 blocks away, how far? There’s an actual mosque 4 blocks away – should it be torn down? Where do you draw the line? The folks who propose this don’t have an answer, except, perhaps, nowhere. Over the past two to three weeks there have been multiple protests and attempts to block the construction of mosques in towns all over the US. There has even been a call to deny all permits for the building of mosques anywhere in the US. Muslims have been labeled “terrorists” by those ignorant of the reality that there are evil people in every faith. Just as there are extremists that claim the Muslim faith, there are extremists that claim to be Christians. But as anyone who knows these faiths will attest, those who are in the extreme are not of the faith.

But if anything is wrong with the furor over Park51, it’s the fact that blocking it is against everything our country was founded on. When the original settlers came across the Atlantic, they came to escape religious oppression, to be able to practice their faith and worship in peace. This tenet was of such importance to the founding fathers, that it is expressly mentioned in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The very first.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That’s what our country was founded on. Not one religion, but any. And that government shall not get in the way of religion. But that seems to be lost on a whole series of folks. Let me read you a few quotes.

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”

Or a simple one:

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. “

How about this one?

“Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … (few) years. “

And on schools -

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith …we need believing people.”

I have no doubt that there are many folks who would agree with these quotes. And on the surface, they seem simply to be strong statements from someone very solid in his faith. These quotes were all from one individual.

But these types of quotes can also be considered extreme, depending on the context. Because the quotes themselves are not what’s important, but the actions behind them. This is true regardless of the religion or the political leaning of the individual speaking. Whether ultra-right Christian extremists or hard-line Muslim radicals, these people do not represent their faith. They represent a perversion of those faiths.

So why the quotes above? Because of who said them.

Adolph Hitler.

Without that context, the quotes seem innocuous. With that context, they take on a completely different tone.

I believe that the vast majority of Christians would denounce everything that Hitler stood for. He did not represent the Christian faith, but rather a bastardization of it. And yet, if all you did was listen to his speeches and read his writing, you might actually believe he was a devout Christian.

Such it is with Muslim extremists. They don’t represent their faith, but an ugly imitation of it. They want everyone to be of their faith or gone. And if you listen to ultra-right Christians, you’ll hear the same rhetoric. Same plan, different god. The danger is not the words, but the intent behind them. Extremists of all stripes wrap themselves in righteousness of their faith, and use that faith as an excuse for heinous acts. And yet, if all we do is listen to their speech, they sound like everyone else.

The protesting is a sham, a political wedge, and an excuse to try to elevate on faith over another.

And to really put the entire thing in perspective, there is one last fact that has been ignored until the last week or so.

Those who complain that a “mosque” shouldn’t be built near Ground Zero are likely ignorant of the fact that there already was a “mosque” at Ground Zero – before it became Ground Zero. In fact, there were two. One in each tower.

The first was a prayer center on the 17th floor of the south tower. It included a washroom to cleanse before prayer. It is likely that there were at least some individuals there praying at the time that the plane flew into the south tower.

The second was a prayer space set aside in a stairwell in the north tower, between the 106th and 107th floors of the north tower, used primarily by those that worked in the restaurant on the top floor. Workers would use the space to perform their prayers without having to be far from their stations.

On the day that extremists used airplanes as weapons against thousands of innocents, there was not one, but two Muslim prayer facilities in the World Trade Center towers. And when those buildings fell, those prayer centers became part of the tragedy as well.

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our country’s founding. The attacks nine years ago were an attack on those foundations. By not recognizing the rights to freely practice their faith, in a building of their own construction, we complete the attacks that were started by extremists. And we dishonor the memory of those who died, including those of all faiths who lost their lives on that day.