This is a discussion of why the location of this mosque is not a religious liberty or tolerance Issue as is so often falsely alleged; there is, as may be guessed, the complete ignoring of the (invisible) blood present forever at, on, around, and near Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, in New York City; therefore, needed refutations of the contrary arguments must be discussed for better examining this entire matter. Let it be clearly noted, nonetheless, that there is no call here whatsoever for any hatred of Moslems.
There are, as ought to be well known by now, many mosques in New York City; there is one, moreover, within just a short walking distance near the solemn Ground Zero. Building such an institution there is not, therefore, any real or substantive issue of religious liberty that, in fact, exists, meaning liberty of religion, in that city and, of course, throughout America; what is then the extremely terrible matter in set question is, thus, a quite deliberate political and ideological provocation qua confrontational, in-your-face attack meant to harshly and greatly aggravate tensions not just in that metropolitan area but, in truth, throughout this country, for at least decades to come. This is, thus, not a question of tolerance or, alternately, ideologically alleged Islamophobia.
This bold Islamic effort will, in effect, vilely and contemptuously spit upon all the dead at a national war memorial site; what is conveniently forgotten, by those liberals and leftists who so callously support this abomination, is that there will be forever, therefore, (invisible) blood on that very hallowed ground, made permanently sacred by the terrible deaths of thousands of innocents, which was caused by those crazed Muslim fanatics who were then openly acting in the name of Islam.
One must seriously raise the absolutely critical question of why an Islamic cultural center (as it is also to be known) and, thus, an entertainment facility (with a planned gymnasium) glories so sadistically in the horrendous fact of being absolutely immersed and totally surrounded by the blood of innocents. Does this truly represent the very best of what Islam, (the alleged) Religion of Peace, is really all about? One begins to seriously and profoundly wonder. What is really going on by wanting to build at that particular site?
Important Questions Raised and Refutations Rendered
To then disgustingly support the construction of such a dubious facility, meaning as to its now chosen location, raises major questions about the integral moral sanity of those perverse liberals and leftists who horridly demand, in effect, that the massive amount of blood be just completely or, at least, mainly ignored. It would be certainly interesting to know, therefore, if any other actual religious entity, in this country, has ever before so demanded that it have the full and unrestricted right to build a house of worship on the site of a national war memorial.
The factual existence of a right, however, does not axiomatically make it an ethical right to then always exercise such a right, meaning regardless of the moral and other costs of the chosen action; just having a right does not make it right.
Until it can be demonstrated and documented that such an event has, in fact, occurred, there cannot be any real legal precedent and suitable rationalization for opening up this new venture of doing something that liberals and leftists normally always object to, meaning the uniting of Church (read: Mosque) and State. How is this interestingly meant?
A national war memorial site and its maintenance is a State-oriented proposition, as to its both internal and explicit logic; and, of course, a religious building is of the nature of a Church-oriented proposition; both Church and State, through that building’s obvious, deliberate and public presence at a national war memorial site, creates a manifest unity or, at least, an openly perceived union of Church and State. This matter is a total contradiction of progressivist demands for the total separation of Church and State. If any Federal government or state or municipal money goes toward this project, furthermore, then many curious constitutional issues would be raised about such public funding.
But, it is sophistically said that the proposed building is (actually at least) two blocks outside of the specifically or directly designated area, pertaining exclusively to the Ground Zero site itself, such that being not directly within the grounds of that locale constitutes reason enough, for excluding it from being a national war memorial site-related matter. This is so worthy of what used to get denounced as Jesuitical reasoning of a sort that gave neo-Scholasticism a bad name in terms of strained, hair-splitting ratiocination taken to a fine degree of “logicism”, the parody of logic.
As John Randolph of Roanoke had rhetorically remarked about such sophistry, there is no such thing as being partially pregnant. The original purpose of what was obviously then meant by, thus, building the mosque there was, let it be properly remembered, its quite direct relationship to its being so concerned with, in fact, having a Ground Zero presence. Now, however, the matter is being argued in two opposite directions at the same time, regardless of the prior reasoning that was then earlier employed. Q. E. D.
Another fallacious argument or, perhaps, mode of argumentation is that the property had then been privately sold to the Islamic organization for the construction of a mosque. So, property rights, in this specious line of reasoning, then becomes the greatest reason given for, axiomatically, allowing such a monstrosity to be dramatically and defiantly built upon a mass of blood; it has become an entirely PC cause, consistent with the deconstructionist and nihilistic efforts of cultural Marxism, to then undermine traditional American values; this is by directing attention away from the realities involved and toward the belittlement, the denigration, of this nation by seeking to make it a sharia-compliant country.
Only a tiny minority of rabid or extremist libertarians believe in absolute property rights, whereby an owner can do anything at all on his own property, meaning without any consideration for any adjacent property owner’s rights, or any other considerations, by extension, whatsoever. But, unconditional, unqualified, unrestricted, unhindered, or unlimited rights accorded to property, however, has and will never be actually part of legal or other reality in this world, nor in the USA or, for that matter, even in New York City. As with the pop expression, one must, forcefully, say: get real!
Real estate ownership in America is, however, by rental only, if the actual and ultimate truth be told; property taxes, one ought to know, are the functional and operational rental fees paid to government(s) for the “ownership” of (such) property; if those rents/taxes are not, in fact, paid the land is then legally forfeited, seized, etc. by the government and can be legally sold for the payment of taxes unpaid, etc.; normally speaking, in almost all cases, private property cannot be kept without paying real estate taxes as a cognate cost of said ownership, tenure, or possession.
Aside from, e. g., the Indian tribes within the borders of this country, all other land of significant real estate presence or obtainable/alienable/purchasable property is, thus, subject to real estate tax or, alternatively, a possible exemption from such at the behest of government, as on religious-institutional holdings/church property. So, with the noted aforementioned ownership of tribal land as an exception to the general rule, all other land qua real estate/land is not, therefore, ever absolutely so owned by private interests or parties, as has been demonstrated. These are, directly contrary to the thinking of radical libertarians, the basic facts of private ownership reality, meaning regardless of any libertarian or other hallucinations fixed in opposition.
Of course, there are, as is well known, constitutionally permitted legal fictions involved, as with, e.g., corporations existing fully as legal persons under the law. It is, thus, another legal fiction that (absolute) property rights exist, as such, in the realm of qualifications of rights; in addition, there is the important matter of the eminent domain rights of the government that, furthermore, again substantially negates any totalist contentions favoring or supporting (absolute) property rights.
So, as might be guessed by now, unless the Islamic and related supporters can claim a clear mandate from Allah or God or a Divine Entity of some kind, there is no property right that can unconditionally trump a possible decision, on the part of government, that could prevent permission for building that religious institution at Ground Zero.
More to the larger revealing point, it is unlikely, in general, that there would be such similar enormous opposition if a Muslim religious building were, in fact, to be built almost anywhere else in NYC; thus, Muslims are not at all being denied their religious liberty in that city. The actual issue in set question specifically pertains to the overt ideological and political statement that is to be permanently made by having a mosque in that particular place versus any other place in that municipality. Of course, this substantial point (of a deliberate provocation) is almost always, rather conveniently, ignored by the progressivist supporters of the proposed Islamic edifice.
In any event, the defenders of the mosque ought to immediately stop their production of hate-speech oriented, fear-mongering tactics that do, thus, necessarily engender evil passions of bigotry, intolerance, fanaticism, and prejudice. There should be an end to such manifest vituperation and hatred done in the assumed name of advocating religious tolerance. Sadly, it is so ideologically characteristic of the first postnational, postracial, post-American, and post-patriotic president in seeing how Obama has taken the damnable side of the real bigots concerning this issue; all this has wrongly added, furthermore, the perception of more geometrically rhetorical heat to the expanding controversy, not truly needed light.
Conclusion
But, of course, the presented canards of religious liberty, human rights, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, etc. are to, thus, make property rights endlessly sacrosanct and not the blood of the dead that made the ground sacred forever to patriots throughout America.
The Orwellian-inspired endeavor is really to use and turn Western values (as noted above) against the West, which is why liberals and leftists do support this heinous attempt to so deny that Islamic fanaticism/radicalism/terrorism is permanently involved, regarding what had happened at Ground Zero. So, where is the requisite reverence for the war dead?
Building that necessarily contentious mosque is, therefore, a deliberate affront, outrage, that is backed by the Cordoba House for the clear sake of exhibiting spite, malice, disrespect, hatred, insensitivity to the deceased victims of the attack, and, at a minimum, an absolute intolerance of American patriotism. But, what of the opinions and concerns of the survivors of the dastardly attack and the families and others of those who died there? Are they being fully involved in this issue? People are supposed to be utterly silenced forever by (false) accusations of Islamophobia, as if all truth itself must be then denied for the sake of PC thinking.
These same very hypocritical Muslims would never, e. g., sanction a church or synagogue’s construction in Mecca in the (Western) names of religious liberty, human rights, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, etc. Are they, therefore, said to be Christophobic or Judeophobic? In the Islamic tradition, it is important to know that such mosques, when pertaining to war situations, are built at sites of Muslim victories over the infidels, the (despised) unbelievers. Q. E. D.
It is, therefore, meant to obviously be a vile monument to brutal Islamic contempt, regarding Ground Zero, which is, thus, built so heartlessly, cold-bloodedly, upon a vast pool of blood. This is not an act of the purported Religion of Peace; it is an assault upon the American people; it is a middle-finger gesture toward the citizens of this nation that is to be vilely done, conspicuously, in the monumental form of a building.
