On the Recumbant Recta among Us

[Fred the Red Shirt]

In response to:

Moral myopia at Ground Zero

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904769.html


Charles Krauthammer opens an August 10, 2010 op-ed piece in the
Washington Post with these two statements: "It's hard to be an Obama
sycophant these days. Your hero delivers a Ramadan speech roundly
supporting the building of a mosque and Islamic center near Ground
Zero in New York. Your heart swells and you're moved to declare this
President Obama's finest hour, his act of greatest courage."



Putting aside the presumption that he would accurately represent the
sentiments of people he evidently (based on his use of the word
'sycophant') does not respect, is the statement grounded in historical
fact?



Well, let's look at what Obama said: ""Let me be clear: as a citizen,
and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to
practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes
the right to build a place of worship and a community center on
private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and
ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom
must be unshakeable."



Now, is that roundly supporting the project? Is it supporting the
project at all? The answer to both questions is clearly no. It is
roundly supporting America, American ideals, and the protections of
our Constitution which the President to sworn to uphold and defend.
That doesn't stop his political enemies, or even erstwhile supporters
who do not share the Patriotism the President expressed from 'roundly'
lying about his statement.



So the President rebutted those false statements the very next day,
saying, "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance
with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not
commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision
to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right
people have that dates back to our founding."

That, of course, was clear before he said so, at least to everyone who
understands plain English, has at least a passing familiarity with the
history of the United States, and also possesses at least two brain
cells to rub together. Which may help to explain why the President had
to clarify his statement for the benefit of people writing op-ed
pieces in major newspapers.



Regardless, Mr Krauthammer then went on to make this nest remarkably
false statement: "No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate
is about the propriety, the decency of doing so." Perhaps Mr
Krauthammer has been in a coma these past few weeks and did not read
the widespread criticism of the Landmarks Commission when they
approved the plan. Or perhaps he is still unaware of just how many
people, a majority in his own party, say exactly that the congregation
in question has no right to build a mosque there. Perhaps he can take
a look at this recent poll and consider if he should 'revise' his own
remarks: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/no-right-build-mosque.



Mr Krauthammer then continues with the typical attempt to equate the
Sufi congregation in Manhattan with al Queda and the like. Considering
that Suffism is the most peaceful and benign of the popular Muslim
sects one has to wonder if, a few years ago during the 'Troubles' in
Ireland, did Krauthammer ever write an op-ed piece pointing out the
association between the Quakers and the IRA?



[Fred the Red Shirt]

If You Can't Trust a Priest, Who Can You Trust?

In Response to:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/ground-zero-mosque-a-rabat-not-a-cultural-center/

if Father Zuhlsdorf feels that we should suppose a 21st century Rabbat
to serve the same purpose as one did in the 7th century, should we not
fear the Catholic Dominicans as they are the perpetrators of the far
more recent Inquisition? Should we not fear the Catholics because
wherever they went they replaced the local religion and culture with
their own at the point of a sword, enslaved the local people, and tore
down the local places of worship building their own churches to
replace them on the very same foundations?

Mind you, the Protestants were arguably worse, but I daresay that
Father Zuhlsdorf perhaps does not feel that Protestants are followers
of the one true faith.

Honestly, I cannot remember seeing an essay with more self-
contradictions.

There is also outright dishonesty, for example, "Faced with the anger
of New Yorkers, the promoters of the project have started calling it
the Cordoba House, " In fact, the promoters have STOPPED
calling it "the Cordoba House", in deference to the objections voiced
by New Yorkers and others. This essay is dated Sept 10, 2010, at 9:35
am so it is unreasonable to suppose that the good Father is ignorant
of the change.

While Father Zuhlsdorf is correct to point out that: "It is true that
the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn’t force their Christian and Jewish
subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith
and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a
poll tax in a system of religious apartheid."

He neglects to tell us that after the Catholics drove the Muslims out
of Cordoba they required all Muslims to convert to Catholicism upon
threat of death. OTOH Jews, who had lived in Spain before either the
Catholics or Muslims, were exiled.

So here we have an essay in which the good Father condemns the Muslims
rulers in Spain who were tolerant of minority religions while
remaining silent on the fact that when his own religion took over,
minority religions were persecuted.

As I have stated elsewhere, I condemn dishonesty, revisionism,
deception, and bigotry. Therefor I condemn this essay, and, though I
do not hold him liable for the sins of his forbears, ask Father
Zuhlsdorf to repent of his own recent sins.

There is no question that in today's Islamic Republics the unholy
intermingling of secular and religious authority facilitates and
promotes bigotry, injustice and outright atrocities against religious
minorities. But that does not justify dishonesty and deception about
the history of relations between religions.