The Right Conservative News Sites | Right Side News

No, You Don't Have the Right to Spit In Our Face . . . And No, we don't have to just "take it".

Many years ago I had a Government Studies teacher explain to me that "Each of us has all the freedom in the world we want, to do with as we want, right up to the point, and not beyond, where the next person's freedom begins and would be infringed.  And that is only how far their extends, right up to the point where yours is."  I doubt that this is now being taught.

Remember 9/11? TV Archives.

I mention this because of a recent "comment" left on an article published on RightSideNews.com which read:

> Comment Title: Freedom and Private Property
> Author: wrkrcoop
> Link to content: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010081411347/editorial/barack-obamathe-sharia-law-presidentendorses-the-911-mosque.html
>
> Comment:
> Americans have the right to worship (or not) as they choose.  Americans also have the right to own private property--including land in New York City.  If a Muslim wants to build a mosque on private property in NYC, that is their business, no matter what you or I think.  Period. 
>
> Living in a free country means that sometimes other people will do things you don't like.  So.... suck it up and start acting like a grown-up. 
>

I felt it important to take the time to let "wrkrcoop" know what someone on the other side of the issue thought.

So, back to my 7^th grade Government teacher, what this means "wrkrcoop" is that there are innumerable instances of "freedoms" for one that are not allowed to the one because it infringes on the freedom of another (not even "the many" but even just one!).  So you need to step away from that angry response for a moment and take a second (or even a third) look at the responsibilities that are incumbent upon us, by way of all the freedoms we possess.

First a clarification of a slight misconception you seem to have:

"Americans have the right to worship (or not) as they choose."

While this is true enough, it is only partially correct as it relates to the actual issue(s) being addressed by the First Amendment.  According to the Constitution and the amendments commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights what we have is:

Amendment 1  

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  [emphasis added]

This amendment is actually about the restriction placed upon the government.  The US government is not allowed to "establish" any sort of National religion, or give national preferential treatment to any religion by way of passing a law ("make no law") that would establish one religion as our "National" religion, nor is the government allowed to "prohibit the free exercise thereof".  Our founding fathers were come fresh from the crushing domination of the Church of England, the government established "ruling" church.  The framers of the Constitution and it's subsequent amendments had no problem (reference the Federalist Papers for further reading on this) with the American people including or excluding God in any other aspect of either public and certainly private life, as long as it did not become the "established government religion", like say, oh I don't know, Sharia Law wants to be!

This is a far cry from the "right to worship" as you state.  For example, there are some world religions which allow ( or even mandate) polygamy.  This is unlawful in the United States and thereby not allowed.  Some world religions (past and present) require the blood sacrifice of humans (Aztec) or animals (Santeria).  This is unlawful in regards to human sacrifice, obviously, and in some instances animal sacrifice is quite restricted or disallowed (health code/animal safety/land use).  Some world religions currently allow/require the taking of and ownership of slaves.   However, last time I checked, it is not legal to do so here in America.  Some religions have "dress codes" which are imposed (demanded/enforced) by their religious law upon their congregations at large (not just for their clergy or liturgical class members) that if not followed are punishable by death.  There are, of course, many US laws and even local (state/county/city) laws and ordinances which forbid this and laws would be violated, so that is also a no.

Bottom line on this part of the comment is, although in the last century the U.S. government has twisted that first amendment  which was to prevent the government establishing a national religion/church (which by the way is what Sharia would do) into eliminating judeo-christian  principles/ethics from all aspects of public life, the fact remains that there ARE duly established laws and regulations which govern, limit, and prohibit aspects of practicing any number of religious rites or activities preformed as part of a religious worship ceremony.

Regardless of the above, you do realize, don't you that this argument regarding "freedom to worship" and "freedom of religion" is actually totally unrelated to this issue?  You see, according to the Imam behind the plan, it isn't a mosque at all anyway.  It is a "cultural center".  So why do the muslims pushing for this keep bringing up this "freedom to worship" if it isn't really going to be a mosque?  I believe it is for no other reason than to obscure their true intent.  I believe it is to muddy the waters and confuse people.  If enough are confused about their true intent, if enough are under the mistaken impression that it's just a bunch of right-wing bigots trying to deny them their "religious freedom", then there will be enough confusion to allow them to move forward, lay claim to a captured and subdued area as theirs forever, build their triumphal structure on top of the conquered land's holy or revered site and "mark their victory" the way a dog pisses on a curb to mark it's territory. 

Next, let's discuss the "do your own thing" freedom to which you allude.  You have to be aware that while you have the freedom to, let's say, smoke a cigarette, you do not have the freedom or right to blow the smoke in my face, or even MY breathing space.  At that point your freedom to choose to smoke is superceded by my absolute right to breathe.  There are lots of choices  that are available to you and me -  -  you may choose to go to another nearby place to smoke, I may choose to go to another nearby place, you may choose to leave completely, I may choose to leave completely, either of these choices would, of course depend upon a variety of circumstances, such as are we on a public bus, on a street corner, in an elevator, etc.  

 There are also the areas where the government has made the decision for us, thereby limiting our individual freedom to choose, by passing regulations that stipulate whether or not smoking is allowed in a particular place (elevators, grocery stores, some areas of restaurants etc).  There are even privately owned buildings in which the owner has designated no smoking in their building, so workers, tenants, or visitors are not allowed to smoke in the owners building.  So, bottom line on this one is, when it comes right down to it, your smoking is a choice, my breathing is a necessity for continued life, so my RIGHT to breathe trumps your CHOICE to smoke, at least in close proximity or confined spaces.    

Let's face it, regardless of whether or not you smoke, as an American each has the RIGHT to choose, and if you choose to smoke, then you need to understand that the responsibility accompanying that choice includes acknowledging that at all times, another's right to breathe will always take precedence over your choice to smoke.   So you may ask "Do you mind if I smoke?", do not be annoyed if I respond "Sure, just don't exhale."  So far so good?  Still with me?

Now, let's take a look at the Private Property issue.  This argument was dead in the water, even as you typed it.  You see, there are thousands (probably millions) of laws, ordinances, regulations and CCR's (real property Covenants/Codes/Restrictions) which govern the "use" of [you guessed it] Private Property. 

I'm sure you have heard of "Homeowners Associations"?  These are a collective of all who own homes in a certain neighborhood who may determine how each individual is allowed to occupy a private home purchased in that neighborhood.  Their determinations cover everything from where you may park your car(s) on your own property, to what kind of fence you may erect, to how often you are required to mow your lawn.  If you don't want to be subject to their rules and regulations, then you have the choice to not purchase a home in that neighborhood.

How about cities, towns, counties?  Well, in case you are ignorant of how these governing entities work, they too are able to pass regulations, restrictions and laws regarding what may or may not be done with private property.  For example, in many states there are what are referred to as "Dry" counties.  These laws restrict the sale of liquor in certain areas and even the times the liquor may be sold within those areas.  If you own property in one of these areas and want to build a liquor store on that property, too bad.

There are other types of restrictions on what may or may not be built based on what is already established in the general proximity.  For example: many cities have restrictions stating that no one is allowed to build a bar/nightclub/strip joint within close proximity to an existing church or school.  Other times a residential neighborhood will protest the building of such within a mile or more of their homes or in the walking path of children from the school to the residential neighborhoods in which they live and will win because they have the right to choose the environment in which their homes are located and their families dwell, especially when they were there first.  These and other zoning laws are available to maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods and the composition of retail/commercial areas.

One is not allowed to build and operate an adult video store with pornographic material or sexual accessories within  the city limits of many cities and so an individual choosing to buy property for that purpose must locate well outside that city's limits.  Then there are the "land use" laws, codes and regulations and zoning.  Bottom line: can anyone do whatever they want on any piece of property as long as it is "private" property?  No.

So, is your statement - -

"If a Muslim wants to build a mosque on private property in NYC, that is their business, no matter what you or I think.  Period"

an accurate statement? No.  There are many ways this could simply not be the case.  Most cities have methods which allow the residents of a city to let the city council know their feelings regarding any thing of this sort and if there are enough residents who reject this there is also enough precedent under which they could, conceivably block it or later have it closed. Besides, it's not really a "mosque", remember?

War memorials, National memorials, State parks, and other designations are available which would preclude this insensitive and most evil monstrosity from taking place.  After the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, did either of those cities, or even the entire country tolerate or allow ANY American "cultural centers" built to pay tribute to the American philosophy which sanctioned the bombing, to promote "understanding" or as a symbol of "healing"?  Did America even suggest that any sort of shrine glorifying America and commemorating America's triumph be built there?  And how many decades has it been since the end of World War II?  So why, just a few short years after the most horrific act of war against this country, of American slaughter by enemies of America, would ANY reasonable thinking or thoughtful American even consider it their "right" to do so, as have these muslims in defiance of what their neighbors and fellow citizens want? 

After the concentration camps of Nuremburg and Auschwitz were liberated did you see the Nazi's go in and erect any sort of structure paying tribute to the Nazi philosophy, glorifying the very ideals which were responsible for the atrocity?  Did they construct a temple to Hitler and offer everyone a place to come and worship/commemorate all that he had done for them or even to "understand" him?  And then have the gall to suggest that such a place would lead to "healing"? 

When a violent ideology (Islam) slaughters several thousand people and then chooses to erect a monument to their victory, to further subdue and intimidate and further injure the survivors of their slaughter it should not be allowed.  When a violent ideology (Islam) promotes, even demands that their adherents lie to advance their agenda, it is both stupidity and ignorance for anyone to give any credence whatsoever to any mouthings of kinder, gentler motives coming from those who are in any way associated with the slaughter.  It is idiocy to believe what muslims "say" is their intention and "say" their religion represents when time after time after time their actions give evidence to their lies.  "Actions speak louder than words" is not just some trite grade school quote, it is both relevant and applicable to the deceit practiced by Islam today.  Ms. Wafa Sultan has a wonderful quote regarding this, when confronted with the commonly promoted (by Muslims) idea that "Islam is Peace" or many of the other things they say in their religion that is actually the opposite of reality, Ms. Sultan has replied:

"I can call this pen a knife for 14 centuries, but it will never become a knife, it will remain a pen. . ."

Get it?  Muslims are welcome to keep insisting that theirs is a "religion of peace" but the truth of the matter is, by the evidence of their actions across the world, every day in today's world, they are proven liars.  Muslims are welcome to keep insisting that their religion "honors women" but the truth of the matter is, the evidence of their actions across the world, every day, with every act of horror committed against women on a daily basis proves them to be liars.  We are therefore under NO obligation to believe what such liars might tell us, assure us, as to their "intentions" regarding this mosque, oh excuse me, this "cultural center".

Simon Deng is an American citizen from southern Sudan. He is also an escaped slave. He is a leading human rights activist who speaks out on the genocide perpetrated against blacks by Arab moslems in Sudan. The history of Arab colonization of Africa is one of islamization, wholesale slave trading, and genocide. Simon Deng is a warner of the horrors of unchecked Islam and sharia.

“This is an insult to America and this is an insult to New Yorkers. I’m outraged. I’m so mad and upset because of the insult to those who died here. The last words of the terrorists, it was Allah hu Akhbar when they came to kill us. And they want to build a mosque to say every single minute “Allah hu akbar” every minute here.

Let me tell you this, I came from a country where The policy of Islamization it took me to being a slave when I was nine years old. The policy of Islamization slaughtered three millions of my fellow Christians in southern Sudan. The policy of Arabization and Islamization left seven million of my fellow Christians refugees in Sudan, the biggest refugees since WWII.

In the state that I came from in southern Sudan, there used to be one mosque. I was in Sudan a month ago. There are 113 mosques. When they are building these mosques today, they’re going to build another one here tomorrow, and another one there, and another one there, and you’re going to have a million mosques. NO! Even the muslims themselves, I talked to hundreds of muslims, they agree, the mosque should not be here because of what happened here. The decent muslim agrees with all of you that the mosque, by being built here, it is an insult to those who died here. NO! NO! We, the New Yorkers, have to stand shoulder to shoulder, and stop this mosque.”

I will conclude with this, you say:

"Living in a free country means that sometimes other people will do things you don't like.  So.... suck it up and start acting like a grown-up" 

You are welcome to your belief, you are even welcome to shout it from the street corners (1^st Amendment again), however you need to understand that there are some things that those "other people" will attempt to do that I (and others like me) don't like which they will NOT be allowed to do unprotested.  Why?  Because it is wrong, it is evil, it is a violation against civility, against the entire American society, and there is nothing that can force me to be "tolerant" of evil.  And it is absolutely OUR right to express that view opposing their action and our obligation, in remembrance of those who have died to protect our rights, to do so.

So that would mean that you need to take your own advice and "suck it up and start acting like a grown-up".

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Kelly Wolf - writes opinion under full color and protection of the 1st Amendment. Contributing author, politically conservative and independent, fiercely protective of God, Country & Constitution.

“Truth is not racist, hateful, bigoted or intolerant. Neither are those who speak the truth. However, one usually has to only look at who is shouting the accusation of such to see the truth of who is.”  Kelly Wolf