The Cordoba Initiative got the go ahead to build the community center and mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. And, not surprisingly, the Right is in uproar. The amount of vitriol coming from opponents of the mosque is really disturbing. I saw a comment on an article where the author called for all mosques to be blown up. Hateful people.
One of the arguments I hear most often is about the name of the mosque, Cordoba House. Cordoba was built, as the critics of the mosque say, as a sign of the triumph of the Muslims and that the use of that name means that the Muslims in NYC that are building this mosque are doing it as a celebration of the Islamic victory on 9/11. Maybe so, and?
History of Cordoba
I found this tidbit interesting. Quote from this article, "Ironically, Islam's roots in New York City are in the area around the site of the World Trade Center, and they predate the Twin Towers: in the late 19th century, a portion of lower Manhattan was known as Little Syria and was inhabited by Arab immigrants — Muslims and Christians — from the Ottoman Empire"
I like this video, the guy is a little annoying but makes a good point.
Jon Stewart had a great segment about this called "Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update". If you want to watch it you'll have to go look it up. He says one bad word that wasn't bleeped so I won't post it here.
If this were just about a mosque at Ground Zero I might sympathize. But there have been several instances when residents of cities all over the country have protested mosques being built, even before 9/11. And usually those protesting say they are christians and patriotic americans. Nevermind that the freedom of religion is in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
I had a lot more to say, but can't at the moment. Kids need tending to.
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Elena Kagan and Prop 8
I must admit that I have not followed the confirmation proceedings for the newest Supreme Court Justice well. If I had wanted to be informed I am quite certain that I would not go to One News Now or any other Right-wing source for my information. This article illustrates my concern well. The 'experts' say that Kagan will be a solid vote for "homosexual 'marriage'" without bothering to give any real reason for that opinion. I have a feeling that what they mean is that she will not cast a vote to infringe upon the liberties of a segment of the population that the Christian Right disagrees with.
The whole Christian Right is in uproar over the CA judge that overturned the Prop 8 amendment. So was Judge Vaughn Walker correct? I am inclined to think that he was. And if the case does make it to the Supreme Court I hope that they will uphold his decision.
I read some of the text of the judgement, it is long, over 130 pages, so I didn't read every word. I am going to touch on some of the things I did read.
First for the conclusion drawn by Judge Walker.
"Conclusion
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
The portion of the US Constitution he refers to is the 14th Amendment:
Section 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.
If the law of CA recognizes marriage for heterosexuals it must also grant the same priviledge to homosexuals. The belief that homosexuality is sinful is a religious one. I agree with those on the right that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't want the government making moral judgements.
Part of the text in the judgement is:
"A state's interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."
That is true.
The notion that homosexual marriage will degrade or in any other way affect heterosexual marriage is ridiculous. How can it affect my marriage? Homosexuals marrying will not change the commitment my husband and I have made. Homosexuals being allowed to have a marriage license and all of the rights, responsibilites, and privileges that go with it, "will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages".
There was one part of the argument against Prop 8 that I disagree with. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful harm gays and lesbians." How is that? I've never harmed anyone who is homosexual. How can my belief that they are wrong for their sexual proclivity harm them unless they allow it to affect them? I know people who believe that somethings I do are 'sinful'. It does not harm me for them to hold that view.
So, to end. If Kagan would vote that a 'ban' on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional I believe that would be a good thing. If that is the only argument the Right has against her, it isn't much.
The whole Christian Right is in uproar over the CA judge that overturned the Prop 8 amendment. So was Judge Vaughn Walker correct? I am inclined to think that he was. And if the case does make it to the Supreme Court I hope that they will uphold his decision.
I read some of the text of the judgement, it is long, over 130 pages, so I didn't read every word. I am going to touch on some of the things I did read.
First for the conclusion drawn by Judge Walker.
"Conclusion
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
The portion of the US Constitution he refers to is the 14th Amendment:
Section 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.
If the law of CA recognizes marriage for heterosexuals it must also grant the same priviledge to homosexuals. The belief that homosexuality is sinful is a religious one. I agree with those on the right that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't want the government making moral judgements.
Part of the text in the judgement is:
"A state's interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."
That is true.
The notion that homosexual marriage will degrade or in any other way affect heterosexual marriage is ridiculous. How can it affect my marriage? Homosexuals marrying will not change the commitment my husband and I have made. Homosexuals being allowed to have a marriage license and all of the rights, responsibilites, and privileges that go with it, "will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages".
There was one part of the argument against Prop 8 that I disagree with. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful harm gays and lesbians." How is that? I've never harmed anyone who is homosexual. How can my belief that they are wrong for their sexual proclivity harm them unless they allow it to affect them? I know people who believe that somethings I do are 'sinful'. It does not harm me for them to hold that view.
So, to end. If Kagan would vote that a 'ban' on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional I believe that would be a good thing. If that is the only argument the Right has against her, it isn't much.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Religious Liberty- Does It Still Exist in America?
Got this in my inbox yesterday from World Net Daily
Patriotic American,
The time for the so called "religious tolerance" double standard is OVER! And that's why I am sending you this most important email today on behalf of ReAL Action – The citizen activist arm of Renewing American Leadership. We must act now before it is too late.
It appears that the man leading this initiative blames us for the attack on the World Trade Center.
Here is an exact quote from the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:
"The United States and the West must acknowledge
the harm they have done to Muslims before
terrorism can end." - See full article.
According to the New York Post, "The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week." – See full article.
The memories are still very fresh in my mind---but, more importantly, the minds of the families of the nearly 3,000 that were killed.
Even though there are more than 100 mosques in the New York City area, there are no churches and synagogues in the entire country of Saudi Arabia.
The time to end this religious double standard is now.
The very name "Cordoba House" tells us the true meaning behind the effort to build a mosque overlooking the site where thousands of Americans lost their lives. The name refers to Cordoba, Spain where Muslim conquerors symbolized their victory over Christianity by transforming a church into one of the biggest mosques in the world. To learn more about this, listen to a more detailed explanation from my good friend Dr. Jim Garlow, the President of Renewing American Leadership.
I believe that peaceful Muslims can have a place of worship – but my mind cannot even comprehend the audacity of trying to build a $100 Million mosque at Ground Zero. America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.
Select here to read my entire statement on the Ground Zero mosque.
It is not only a slap in the face to the families of the nearly 3,000 9/11 victims, but to every patriotic American, like you.
This is a genuine, insensitive injustice.
I cannot understand why city officials are bowing to the demands of the American Society for Muslim Advancement to open this 13-story shrine to Islam on . . . of all days---September 11, 2011! Will you assist me in STOPPING this onslaught against the common decency of respecting the families of 9-11?
Thank you for your true patriotism to our great country.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich"
I would ask Mr. Gingrich what "double standard" he is referring to. Here in America, per the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, all religions are free to worship and build places of worship if they choose. I would say from the rest of his letter that he is the one with the double standard. He wishes to infringe on the rights of Muslims to worship and build a mosque.
He goes on to say that there are over 100 mosques in the New York area. And his point is? NYC has a population of over 8 million. That gives a ratio of 1:80,000 for mosques to people. I'd be interested to know how many christian churches are in NYC. In my city of less than 200,000 there are over 200 christian churches. That gives a ratio of about 1:1,000 christian churches to people.
Later he gets to the "double standard" he is referring to. Saudi Arabia doesn't have any christian churches. Well... The Saudis are bigots what can we say? Does that mean we should be too? How utterly juvenile! The Christian Right people are always belly-aching about the 'persecution' of Christians here in America and then turn right around an wish to persecute people of another faith. What hypocrisy! And this kind of persecution predates 9/11. See this article.
Now I quote that pesky First Amendment;
"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."
I know it isn't Congress making a law in the case of the mosque near Ground Zero. The principle, however, is being violated by those who wish to keep the Muslims from building it.
~Rabbit~ The Right's pundits keep saying 'the mosque at Ground Zero' or 'the Ground Zero Mosque'. The proposed mosque will NOT be at Ground Zero. It is 3 city blocks away. Close, but not 'on' or 'at'. A nice example of how alarmist language is shaping this issue.
It was not the Islamic church as a whole that attacked us on 9/11. It was a group of radical Muslims. Most of which came from Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq (but that's another rabbit I don't have time to hunt and kill).
Newt says,"I believe that peaceful Muslims can have a place of worship" -- unless of course Newt doesn't like their choice of location.
This whole thing sickens me. If Christians are so concerned about Muslims taking over America why don't they get off their butts and do some soul-winning?! Live like a Christian and quit spouting hateful and bigoted rhetoric that only serves to offend and alienate those that the Christians perceive as their enemies but who they should be showing the love of Christ to bring them to the saving knowledge of his grace.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23, "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."
Patriotic American,
The time for the so called "religious tolerance" double standard is OVER! And that's why I am sending you this most important email today on behalf of ReAL Action – The citizen activist arm of Renewing American Leadership. We must act now before it is too late.
It appears that the man leading this initiative blames us for the attack on the World Trade Center.
Here is an exact quote from the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:
"The United States and the West must acknowledge
the harm they have done to Muslims before
terrorism can end." - See full article.
According to the New York Post, "The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week." – See full article.
The memories are still very fresh in my mind---but, more importantly, the minds of the families of the nearly 3,000 that were killed.
Even though there are more than 100 mosques in the New York City area, there are no churches and synagogues in the entire country of Saudi Arabia.
The time to end this religious double standard is now.
The very name "Cordoba House" tells us the true meaning behind the effort to build a mosque overlooking the site where thousands of Americans lost their lives. The name refers to Cordoba, Spain where Muslim conquerors symbolized their victory over Christianity by transforming a church into one of the biggest mosques in the world. To learn more about this, listen to a more detailed explanation from my good friend Dr. Jim Garlow, the President of Renewing American Leadership.
I believe that peaceful Muslims can have a place of worship – but my mind cannot even comprehend the audacity of trying to build a $100 Million mosque at Ground Zero. America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.
Select here to read my entire statement on the Ground Zero mosque.
It is not only a slap in the face to the families of the nearly 3,000 9/11 victims, but to every patriotic American, like you.
This is a genuine, insensitive injustice.
I cannot understand why city officials are bowing to the demands of the American Society for Muslim Advancement to open this 13-story shrine to Islam on . . . of all days---September 11, 2011! Will you assist me in STOPPING this onslaught against the common decency of respecting the families of 9-11?
Thank you for your true patriotism to our great country.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich"
I would ask Mr. Gingrich what "double standard" he is referring to. Here in America, per the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, all religions are free to worship and build places of worship if they choose. I would say from the rest of his letter that he is the one with the double standard. He wishes to infringe on the rights of Muslims to worship and build a mosque.
He goes on to say that there are over 100 mosques in the New York area. And his point is? NYC has a population of over 8 million. That gives a ratio of 1:80,000 for mosques to people. I'd be interested to know how many christian churches are in NYC. In my city of less than 200,000 there are over 200 christian churches. That gives a ratio of about 1:1,000 christian churches to people.
Later he gets to the "double standard" he is referring to. Saudi Arabia doesn't have any christian churches. Well... The Saudis are bigots what can we say? Does that mean we should be too? How utterly juvenile! The Christian Right people are always belly-aching about the 'persecution' of Christians here in America and then turn right around an wish to persecute people of another faith. What hypocrisy! And this kind of persecution predates 9/11. See this article.
Now I quote that pesky First Amendment;
"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."
I know it isn't Congress making a law in the case of the mosque near Ground Zero. The principle, however, is being violated by those who wish to keep the Muslims from building it.
~Rabbit~ The Right's pundits keep saying 'the mosque at Ground Zero' or 'the Ground Zero Mosque'. The proposed mosque will NOT be at Ground Zero. It is 3 city blocks away. Close, but not 'on' or 'at'. A nice example of how alarmist language is shaping this issue.
It was not the Islamic church as a whole that attacked us on 9/11. It was a group of radical Muslims. Most of which came from Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq (but that's another rabbit I don't have time to hunt and kill).
Newt says,"I believe that peaceful Muslims can have a place of worship" -- unless of course Newt doesn't like their choice of location.
This whole thing sickens me. If Christians are so concerned about Muslims taking over America why don't they get off their butts and do some soul-winning?! Live like a Christian and quit spouting hateful and bigoted rhetoric that only serves to offend and alienate those that the Christians perceive as their enemies but who they should be showing the love of Christ to bring them to the saving knowledge of his grace.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23, "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."
As for the quote by the Imam. Bin Laden's professed reasons for the 9/11 attack and other attacks was the US' interference in Middle East affairs and occupation of their countries. Unfortunately, the US will not acknowledge her part. And she should. It does not compromise our national security or degrade us or make us less to admit, "Hey, we screwed up, Sorry 'bout that."
It is what I tell my kids all the time when one of them is in trouble and the one pipes up with, "Well, she/he started it!" or "Well, they did it too!" or whatever words they use to justify themselves and lay blame on someone else. "You are only responsible for yourself. And just because someone else does wrong doesn't make it okay for you to do it."
Those on the Right are making a big stink about this to cause division. And it seems to be working quite well. They use emotional and inflammatory language to get a rise out of people. And those people are not objectively considering what is being said.
I will close with some wise words from some of America's founding period.
"If we may openly speak the truth neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion." John Locke
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." Thomas Paine
Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."
Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.
A petition of a group of citizens of Chesterfield County, Va., to the state assembly, Nov. 14, 1785: "Let Jews, Mehometans and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state.
Benjamin Rush, asserted that he had "rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles."
Friday, June 11, 2010
How soon we forget.
Not long ago Joe Lieberman introduced the Terrorist Expatriation Act (S 3327)in Congress. The idea that a citizen of the United States could be stripped of their rights is very disturbing. Of course most of the things that would cause the loss of citizenship are understandable (i.e. swearing allegiance to or getting citizenship in an enemy state). There was one point that was still very disturbing. I did already blog about that bill here.
What seems to have gone unnoticed is John McCain's bill. The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Detention and Prosecution Act (S 3081).
What really disturbs me is that many people seem to think this is a good idea! That taking away the rights of American citizens because they are suspected of terrorism could ever be thought a good idea is just appalling!!
After all it was only last year when the whole hullaballoo happened about the DHS report that targeted "right-wing extremists" and some other groups as potential terrorists.
So, I ask, Christians who want to deny rights to citizens and to keep even noncitizens from having legal counsel and the right to a trial, what will you do when it is YOU that is taken to a military prison to be held indefinitely without the right to know why you are being held or to have legal counsel or even the chance to defend yourself? How will you feel then? Will you still think that the terrorists are our greatest enemy? Will you still believe that non-citizens should not have Miranda rights when your citizenship is stripped from you because you are merely suspected of terrorist activity?
Christians who lament about how they are 'persecuted' here in America are embracing legislation that will make real persecution so very easy!! I know very few Christians who oppose the PATRIOT Act, and most Christians I know are all for not giving Miranda rights to those who are not citizens and/or are suspected of terrorism. (And, yep, I'm making a big deal about the term 'suspected'. A person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around). In their zeal for a 'righteous government' and safety from terrorism Christians have lost sight of what America was really all about, freedom from tyranny.
What seems to have gone unnoticed is John McCain's bill. The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Detention and Prosecution Act (S 3081).
What really disturbs me is that many people seem to think this is a good idea! That taking away the rights of American citizens because they are suspected of terrorism could ever be thought a good idea is just appalling!!
After all it was only last year when the whole hullaballoo happened about the DHS report that targeted "right-wing extremists" and some other groups as potential terrorists.
So, I ask, Christians who want to deny rights to citizens and to keep even noncitizens from having legal counsel and the right to a trial, what will you do when it is YOU that is taken to a military prison to be held indefinitely without the right to know why you are being held or to have legal counsel or even the chance to defend yourself? How will you feel then? Will you still think that the terrorists are our greatest enemy? Will you still believe that non-citizens should not have Miranda rights when your citizenship is stripped from you because you are merely suspected of terrorist activity?
Christians who lament about how they are 'persecuted' here in America are embracing legislation that will make real persecution so very easy!! I know very few Christians who oppose the PATRIOT Act, and most Christians I know are all for not giving Miranda rights to those who are not citizens and/or are suspected of terrorism. (And, yep, I'm making a big deal about the term 'suspected'. A person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around). In their zeal for a 'righteous government' and safety from terrorism Christians have lost sight of what America was really all about, freedom from tyranny.
When we crave 'safety' more than our liberty the terrorists win. And so I suppose they have won...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
