Diary

Obamaholic's practice of religion vs place of the practice

The mere idea of building a mosque near Ground Zero is totally repugnant, so long as the potential taint of a tie to radical Islam remains. Some of the same individuals who want to build a Muslim memorial over the graves of the 3000 victims slaughtered on 9-11, may themselves be affiliated with lunatic Muslim terrorists, or worse. In addition, there are credible allegations that groups and individuals sympathetic to Islam terror-mongers, may be supplying funds for the Ground Zero Mosque. At times, it almost seems as though it has become more onerous to risk offending Muslims, than to exercise common sense and logic.

Asserting that opposing the construction of a mosque on Ground Zero raises questions of religious freedom, protected under the First Amendment, is sheer Orwellian double-speak. The building housing a mosque has nothing to do with religious freedom. No one is taking away the Muslim’s freedom to practice their faith. Prohibiting the construction of a mosque, on a particular site, does not concern a Muslim’s practice of religion. It only effects where a mosque is built. Could Obamaholics be confusing the practice of religion with the place of the practice?

Under the Constitution, the people have the right to regulate activities for their General Welfare. Narrow, strictly curtailed measures, to thwart Muslim terrorist’s efforts to gain a foothold near New York City’s Financial District, clearly qualifies as an action taken to protect the General Welfare; not to hamper Muslim’s Constitutional right to practice religion freely.