There is only one demographic whose support for the Ground Zero Mosque is understandable: The Islamist enemy. They have found a no-lose proposition. The practice of building a religious shrine over that of one's enemies is older than the history I know of. Theories abound to why Catholic shrines are built over ancient pagan shrines of unknown purpose. The building of mosques is less enshrined in mystery. It took the caliphate less than a century to understand the value in doing so.
And Islamists chose a great name for the project: the Cordoba House. Disarmingly, it sounds like something out of Spain. It is. Cordoba was the site where they built a mosque over a Catholic Church, to rule Spain, during the height of their power in Europe. It says a lot as a name.
The question is why are there apologist supporters for the Ground Zero Mosque? Is it a question of the 1st Amendment? Some argue that it is, but those leading that charge know otherwise. No, I will not ascribe, nor subscribe to the "belief" of politicians in the cause they endorse. I question everything a politician claims and look for their underlying motive, rather than the marketing they put on it. I will allow that their die-hard parrots believe the slogans of their self-serving "leaders."
Amendment I
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.
Congress may not prevent this, but NYC zoning permits and even the State of New York may. Conversely, the President should not be "respecting the establishment" of a religion. And the people have an absolute right to speak out against it, even to assemble in protest of it.
Leaders must occasionally convince their followers of unpopular concepts, because it is in the best interests of the group. This is not the current case. The mosque overshadowing the worst terrorist attack in history is not in the Nation's Interest, nor in Muslims interest. The only ones with anything to gain are those looking to provoke, not those seeking peace.
Islamists define "peace" as submission. Submission is not the answer. In this case, as so many others, submission is appeasement. We'll get back to the politicians.
But the most important voice in this are Muslims. Muslims that oppose the building of a Victory Tower/Ground Zero Mosque. Why do they oppose it? Because they understand its purpose is to provoke. They understand it will make life as a Muslim in the US more difficult. They understand it is the pouring of salt into the open wound that is the WTC.
What of the politicians? What is their motivation? Muslim demographics are too small for a special interest voter block worth the outrage. In fact, Islamist Ideology is so counter to their bigger special interest blocks, that it is not worth losing one to gain the other. I find it particularly suspect that they would take this tact. There is only one thing worth more than votes. It is the money that buys votes. And Islamists have plenty of money. Would our politicians sell us out as did the politicians in the movie The 300? Some would say they already have.
No, there is no justification for the Ground Zero Victory Mosque. There is no unfilled need for local worshippers. There is no political benefit to it. There is nothing except the desire of Islamists to erect a Victory Tower to 9/11. Congress cannot stop it, but NYC is not so restrained. Whether its a Republican Mayor or a Democratic President or the Speaker of the House, the policy of appeasement is selling out of the American People and the American Troops who have sacrificed so much and risked all to fight this atrocious enemy in sand, in heat, in cold, in snow, and where ever the enemy raises its atrocious head.
Submission is NOT an option.
Stumble It!
