Thursday, August 05, 2010

Mosques...NIMBY

The loudly proclaimed objection nationwide accruing to the intention of Muslims to build a mosque hardly two blocks from “ground zero” in New York City is being discussed mostly on the basis of First Amendment rights with regard to the freedom of (and from) religion or religious practices. Notwithstanding that the perpetrators of the heinous crime of 9/11 were Muslims with the admitted purpose of their act being obeisance to their religion, i.e., not a crime, even New York Mayor Bloomberg considers the mosque within the parameters of religious practice.

Among the definitions of religion, the one that seems to apply in this case is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” There is no mention of God or gods or even Allah, meaning that religion in this case is a civil/secular matter more than anything else. In other words, the traditional definition, “the service and worship of God or the supernatural: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” (also part of the same definition, Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th edition), does not apply…an interesting contradiction.

Even American imams and other Islamic leaders as well as rank-and-file Muslims admit that in the Koran, their so-called holy book, the command to kill infidels (anyone not Muslim) at every opportunity is extant. Most Muslims insist that they pay no heed to this “doctrine,” but they can’t escape the fact of its existence. In the Middle East on a daily basis, Muslims live up to this requirement, even to the point of killing each other in the process. If women and children are determined to be appropriate targets, so be it…in the name of Allah, their god, not to be confused with the Judeo-Christian God.

The question has to do with whether or not Islam is to be considered as a religion, with its adherents entitled to First Amendment protections, and this is where the rubber hits the road. If it isn’t a religion – at least in this country – what is it and how should it be addressed? More to the point, if it demands that an adherent commit a crime, has it become a secular instrument entirely and certainly not to be even considered within the context of religion.

In the Ft. Hood massacre, Major Hassan, acting in the name of religion (shouting Allah Akbar or some such thing), committed a heinous crime. While he may have thought he committed a religious act, he actually committed murder, as far as this society is concerned; otherwise, he would not be prosecuted. The First Amendment would have protected his religious right to kill people. This being the case, his supposed religion, Islam, is actually a terror-driven movement, rendering it unsusceptible to First Amendment rights. Islam is not a religion.

The obvious conclusion is that the people of New York City, acting through their elected officials or on their own, have the right to petition the NYC government in the interest of disallowing the building of the mosque. It is not a religious symbol in this country, since it requires criminal action on the part of its adherents, as shown by Hassan, the 9/11 butchers, the “shoe-bomber,” and the “skivvies bomber,” all of whom were committing or attempting criminal acts, namely, murders.

By extension, it can be concluded that mosque-building should be absolutely outlawed anywhere in the United States. Besides not being a protected religious symbol, many if not most of the mosques are the headquarters for jihad groups already in place in this country, as recently graphically shown in accounts in the media, further remarking the un-religious nature of the mosques. In Europe, Muslims are having an increasingly hard time in getting permission to build mosques and governments are also weighing in on the problem of women’s garb, which actually constitutes a sort of guerrilla camouflage that can also be used by men to do mischief such as gaining the 72 virgins through suicide/homicide. One wonders what the women bombers get out of it…72 gigolos, perhaps.

As long as that murderous requirement remains in the Koran, Islam is not a religion. The Koran was dictated by an illiterate named Mohammad probably to one of his wives and he is the only Muslim who can change the Koran. He died some 1400 or so years ago.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

1 Comments:

Blogger 筱朝宜財 said...

當一個人內心能容納兩樣相互衝突的東西,這個人便開始變得有價值了。............................................................

8:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home