Is this really freedom of religion?

In case you have not been paying attention to the news for the last several weeks, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf plans to build an Islamic cultural center (i.e. Mosque) two blocks away from Ground Zero.  As this news has gradually quieted, Rev. Terry Jones announced that he was going to have a Quran burning at his church in Florida.  Now, the question I have through all of this is: Why are people bending over backwards to stand up for the rights of the mosque but not for the rights of the Pastor?

Please do not get me wrong.  I do not believe that it is right to have a Quran-burning celebration.  As Christians, we are not to provoke others to wrath.  We are told to go out and be a witness to those who do not follow after Christ.  By participating in such divisive acts, there is no possibility for testimony to the unsaved, Muslim or otherwise.

However, I am left struggling with the thought that we are told that we are Islamophobic if we do not support a mosque being built so close to the place where Islamic radicals took the lives of 3000 people.  Why are we told to respect a religion that encourages its followers to either convert or kill those who disagree with them?  Many say that Islam is a peaceful religion.  This is just not true.  Michelle Malkin has done a tremendous job outlining the radical nature of Islam and its followers.  There are Muslims who are peaceful people.  I do not deny that.  But the teachings of Islam lead to the violence that we see outwardly manifested in the actions of radicals.

The liberals in the media and in Washington tell us that Muslims have the right to build this mosque, and according to our Constitution, that would be a true statement.  However, I find it utterly contemptible that the same people who do not want any form of Christianity in the public square are now so willing and ready to stand up for the First Amendment when it applies to Islam.  These people have no shame.

The Imam that wants to build this mosque has just returned from a fund-raising trip to the Middle East that was paid for by our tax dollars.  This fact is completely repulsive.  But what is even more repulsive is that he went to the Middle East to solicit funds from Islamic groups and nations that celebrated the fact that the US was attacked back on 9/11.  I still vividly remember scenes from these countries where people were out in the streets cheering and celebrating the fact that we were attacked that fateful day.

This same Imam has also stated in the last couple of days that he will not find another location for the mosque.  This is humorous, if not for the fact that he has said that he is seeking to build bridges to the non-Muslim world through this cultural center.  Yeah, he sounds like a real bridge-builder to me.  He has also said that if they move the mosque to another location, then this will provoke the Muslim world to violence.  The last time I checked, they really needed no provocation to attack their enemies.

Now, we have self-righteous American politicians and media people telling us that we are no better than the terrorists if we do not let them build this mosque.  Are you kidding me?  When did these guys suddenly become religious people?  If this were a Catholic church, or a synagogue, or a Baptist church, would they be this zealous in defending people's rights to build the church?  I think not.  Then why are these people defending a religion that seeks the destruction of those who are not in agreement with their religion?

The people who adhere to this peaceful religion attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us.  There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when we were attacked.  There was no Guantanamo Bay.  We had done nothing to provoke them, but they still attacked.  What this tells me is that they do not need a reason to attack us.  They do not care who is in power.  They attacked us under President Clinton and President Bush.  They laugh at President Obama.

But the defenders of the mosque continue to pull out the freedom of religion card in this debate.  This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion.  It has everything to do with a certain religion making inroads into a people's way of life.  They seek to assimilate and get people on their side.  Then they seek to dominate, and eventually annihilate.  You may call this is Islamophobia.  I call it the facts.  This is what they do.  Their goal is complete domination.  Just read the Quran.  This is what it teaches.

Now, compare the treatment that Islam is getting to the treatment that Rev. Jones is getting.  Again, I do not condone what he wanted to do.  However, does he not have first amendment rights also?  Is he not free to express his religion in any way he sees fit, provided he does no harm to others in the process?  His church has no more than fifty people in it.  What harm can this small congregation do?

(As a side note, this is not the same as Hitler or Stalin burning books.  Hitler and Stalin were the government.  They were burning books to get rid of them, and as the government, that amounts to censorship.  This guy is the Pastor of a small church.  He is not censoring anything.  There is no comparison, other than the fact it involved fire and books.)

To show what a peaceful religion Islam is, the adherents to this religion have been having global protests in anticipation of teh Quran-burning.  To show their peaceful nature, they have been burning American flags and threatening violence should this Quran-burning take place.  Yep, these are really peaceful people.  They handle adversity and religious differences well.

And let us not call the Quran a 'holy' book.  The only Holy book that we have today is the Bible.  Holiness means purity, without sin, without blemish.  The Quran does not fit this profile at all.  Just because it is a religious book does not make it a holy book.

Does anyone besides me see hypocrisy in these two scenarios?  The people who are in favor of freedom of religion when it comes to building a mosque are showing moral outrage at a man who wants to burn Qurans.  If you are for freedom of religion in one case, then you should be for freedom of religion in the other one also.  In contrast, those who oppose the mosque are also voicing their opposition to the Quran-burning.  They understand that both are legal, but they also believe that both are inappropriate.

There is also the issue of violence.  Those opposed to the mosque are demonstrating in a peaceful fashion.  They are fighting the mosque plans they way that they should be - by letting their voices be heard and fighting the mosque in a legal way.  Those opposed to the Quran-burning are displaying a more violent side - they are burning American flags and threatening violence.  They do not know what civil discourse is, nor do they want to know.

So, why are people like Mayor Bloomberg standing up for the mosque?  Are they afraid of the violence that may occur should the mosque not be built?  Perhaps.  Are they afraid to be labelled as an Islamophobe?  Possibly.  Are they attempting to buy votes?  Definitely.  Is it their goal to slowly remove God from the public debate and replace Him (not completely do away with a supreme being) with a religion that does not believe in this same God?  Probably.  Are we in danger if we do not return to God and follow Him?  Most definitely.

What should Harry Reid do?

By now, everyone is most likely familiar with some words spoken last year by Sen. Harry Reid concerning then-candidate Barack Obama. To paraphrase, Sen. Reid indicated that Obama was a light-skinned person who spoke with no 'negro dialect.' Many Republicans are calling for him to resign, while many Democrats are standing behind him.

First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?

Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.

To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.

Liberals need to learn how to think and stop letting other think for them

In yesterday's (12/30/09) Harrisburg Patriot News, I was taken to task for an editorial that I submitted a few weeks ago. My editorial (which was extremely well-written and a work of conservative genius) was in response to an editorial by someone named Billy Carelock, a man I have never met. He basically called out conservatives and Republicans for disagreeing with the sitting President and that we should give him time to fix things. We should also stop being disrespectful (at least, that is how he saw disagreements with this President and his policies).

Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.

Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.

He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.

• His compassion for Americans without health care - Well, it is not the government's duty to supply health care to everyone. Let's get our emotions out of this argument and look to the U.S. Constitution. Health care is not an inalienable right. If anything, the government should be removing impediments to health care companies so that they can be competitive and affordable. The government should stop adding regulations and allowing frivolous lawsuits (which is something they never want to eliminate, for fear of angering the ABA). Government needs to get out of the way.
• His success in averting a depression - Not sure where Mr. Peracchia is coming from on this one. We would have pulled out of this economic downturn months ago had Congress and the President allowed the business cycle to run its course. Government intervention is not a good thing. It only keeps perpetuating the problem. Now, the government owns a car company and is trying to control even more industries. This is not good for democracy (remember, this kind of control didn't work for the USSR, Eastern Europe, and it is not working in Venezuela or Cuba).
• His efforts to restore credibility in the world - We are the world leader in almost everything. Even though other countries are jealous of that and want to see us fail, they know where to go when facing a crisis - the U.S.A. We provide relief, but are never thanked for it. We provide money and food, yet no one acknowledges us for it. We are taken for granted, and the President can't help but apologize enough for our greatness. Credibility in the world is very overrated. We will never get the credit from these 'friends', but they will have their hand in our pocket any chance they get.
• His ideals on corporate greed - Corporate greed is a problem and it needs to be fixed. However, it is not a systemic problem. It is a person problem. Greed happens because there are corrupt people. The system itself is fine. So because of a perceived problem, the President needs to appoint all kinds of czars to control things? Who is the greedy one here? I believe that the President is the greedy one here, trying to seize as much power as possible.
• His principles to redirect more equitably our nation's wealth to deserving workers - This is, by definition, Socialism. So now we have American citizens hoping and praying that socialism is instituted in our country. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. You punish hard-working people by taking from what they earn and giving it to people that do not work as hard or do not work at all. Are people really this stupid?
• His concern for the poor and undereducated Americans - Whose fault is it that people are undereducated? We give them a free education in our public school system. Is it my fault they do not take advantage of it. Is it my fault that people do not avail themselves of this free education in order to study and get a better job? I don't think so. This is the problem with the government. The more money they sink into the public education system, the worse it gets. Yet, all these liberals are holding on, hoping it will get better someday. Oh, and by the way, this is why liberals exist today. The school systems of America are not doing their jobs, and they are teaching people what to think, not how to think.
• His Nobel Prize award - This was purely political in nature, and it had nothing to do with his effectiveness in leading the country. This award marks the point where the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the proverbial shark.

I am not going to give this President 4 years to ruin our country. I will speak out against him and his policies (but not insult him personally, as liberals did to President Bush) when I do not agree with him, which will probably be most of the time (although, I may need to insult liberals as a group for their inability to think outside of their talking points). Liberals said that speaking out against our President (while Bush was President) was the hallmark of democracy. Well, the criticism goes both ways. Liberals need to stop being the thin-skinned, shallow, hypocritical fools and they need to start using the brain that God created them with.

Government bailout hypocrisy

Is it just me, or is there a lot of hypocrisy concerning this bailout thing? The folks in Washington want the automakers to come to them with business plans in hand that says how they plan to use the money that they want from the government. Yet, the banking industry is getting their money without having to do anything, other than ask for the money. Henry Paulson cannot seem to hand out enough money right now.

Isn't it funny how the automobile CEOs are being excoriated for flying to DC on the company jets, spending so much company money (it is not from the taxes that we pay). Yet these same congressional leaders look the other way when the banking guys are doing the same thing and using the bailout money for bonuses and trips.

I saw a representative from California grilling the CEOs of the auto companies about using their corporate jets to fly to DC and acting as if he was horrified. In my humble opinion, these CEOs should have come back at him and ask him why he flies home every weekend at taxpayer expense (and then flying back to Washington at the beginning of the week), all the way across the country, increasing his carbon footprint.

There is so much hypocrisy in this, it is ludicrous. Yet, no one in the media seems to notice.