I’d like to begin this post with two definitions borrowed from Dictionary.com:
________________________________________________
can
–auxiliary verb
1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2. to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3. to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5. may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?
6. to have the possibility: A coin can land on either side.
________________________________________________
should
–auxiliary verb
1. pt. of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.
________________________________________________
While many English words have multiple definitions, you’ll notice that the ones most relevant to the following text I have highlighted in red above. (For those not reading this on my actual blog page, I’m referring to definitions #4 under “can” and #3 under “should”) Keep these words and their respective highlighted definitions in mind as you read on. The reason will become clear.
So a lot of fuss is being made about the intention of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to establish the Cordoba House (now called Park51), the proposed Islamic cultural center that will include a mosque inside, within several blocks of Ground Zero in New York City. I will be the first to admit that I am one of the dissenting voices that opposes this idea, which should come as no surprise to those who know me well. My general disdain and mistrust of Islam clearly guides my opinions in such matters, and this situation is no exception. The notion of an Islamic facility so close to Ground Zero is something that riles me up and brings about some pretty powerful feelings of disgust.
There are those on the other side of the argument who insist that Islam itself did not bring down the towers and slay over 2900 people, so why should all of Islam and its followers be held accountable for the actions of a few fanatics? They would argue that those fanatics were not true Muslims, and that they did not follow the teachings nor the tenets of true Islam. They would argue that those terrorists merely hijacked Islam in order to justify their actions and further their political goals, not to further any religious ones.
To those people who love to apologize for our enemies' actions, I would point out that in the minds of the terrorists themselves, they were very much doing their deeds in the name of Islam. Deep down in their black hearts, they truly believed their actions to be sanctified and justified in the eyes of Allah and Mohammed the Prophet. We can argue all day about whether these individuals represent true Muslims, but what really matters is that what the terrorists did, they did because of their wholehearted belief that it was all for the glory of Allah. I find it interesting that this little tidbit is so readily dismissed by apologists in any kind of discussion on the matter.
I keep reading and hearing that it makes no sense to admonish a world full of around 1.57 billion mostly peace-loving moderate Muslims just because 19 extremists perpetrated 9/11. The statistical game starts to get played next, and then we are told that of all the Muslims in the world, something less than 1% of them are supposedly radicalized extremists. Well, as we all know, statistics can be obtained (or conjured up) from anywhere to support any side of any argument, so I tend to take all statistical "evidence" with a grain of salt in disputes such as this one. One of my favorite political quips that I stole from somewhere unknown is: "Did you know that 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot?" That about sums up my faith in statistical evidence. You never know how much it's been tweaked, fudged, or adjusted to suit a given argument. Even catering to the apologists and playing their statistical game, 1% of 1.57 billion Muslims amounts to around 15.7 million radical extremists, if I’ve moved my decimal point correctly. Let's be generous and say only 5 percent of those radicalized elements are likely to engage in violent acts. Well, you still end up with around 785,000 potential terrorists out there. I would be willing to bet that the number of potential radicals that would readily engage in violent jihad is probably much higher than that, but I'm shooting from the hip on that and don't have any legitimate (or bogus) statistical evidence to back that up.
I guess when it comes to my opposition to the Cordoba House/Park51 project, I suppose it may be so strong because it's hard to know whether the inhabitants or visitors to the place may or may not be among those possible 785,000+ bad guys. And I've argued for years that just because a given Muslim doesn't engage in violent jihad, doesn't mean he/she doesn't sympathize with the cause and support such endeavors in other ways. The Islamic practice of zagat (charitable donations for the "poor" in Islamic nations) provides all kinds of funding for violent acts on the part of terrorist organizations. This has been discovered time and time again whenever our intelligence agencies follow the money trail of terrorist organizations. Much of that money is often obtained through zagat. Hamas and Hezbollah themselves have for years been working to win over the hearts and minds of their own enslaved societies by providing for their basic humanitarian needs wherever possible in the occupied territories, Lebanon, etc. It's a strategy that has worked well for them and their twisted goals, and "pious" Muslims the world over fork over zagat under the pretense that it is going to help the poor and needy, when in fact much of that money ends up funding the purchase of weapons and ammunition to perpetuate violent jihad.
I personally have a hard time believing that Cordoba House/Park51 will truly be the wonderful "beacon of cultural understanding and healing" that it purports it will be. My expectation is that there will be a great deal of anti-Western and/or anti-American propaganda taking place within its walls. I can hear the cries of the wise-ass left jumping in already: "Would you expect any less from the Muslim population after so much hatred and racism has been directed towards them over this mosque?" Well, let it be known that this anti-western sentiment has been around a lot longer than this mosque controversy. I believe that Islam at its purest is fundamentally incompatible with our western ideals. This is why I don't see the point in establishing yet another beach-head for our enemies to springboard a whole new wave of Islamist propaganda. And in the eyes of the radical extremists in the Islamic world, the establishment of this Islamic center at this location will be viewed as a secondary victory after 9/11. Let the crescent flag fly high! They may as well have just planted their flag atop the debris pile of the World Trade Center towers on 9/12/01 with the full blessing of the liberal left, all in the name of freedom of religion. I mean, after all it IS Islam's right to slaughter thousands of innocent infidels (and a number of their fellow Muslims) for the sake of their religion, right? We certainly can't dictate to Muslims how to prosecute their faith or their beliefs because that would clearly interfere with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. We are apparently obligated to let any religion do whatever it wants (without restraint) because the Constitution apparently says so. I suppose this means that satanic cults that would sacrifice human babies as a matter of procedure must be protected to the bitter end as well. We can't have the law telling the Satan worshippers to stop slaughtering innocent babies, because that would interfere with the Satan worshippers' ability to practice their freedom of religion.
This constant misapplication of the Constitution's content to sickly justify, or apologize for, radical Islam is becoming more systematic all the time. Radical Muslims know full well that they can exploit our own Constitution and our belief system against us, and they're doing so at every turn. And we're letting it happen! The problem is that in the interest of political correctness, more and more Americans are simply choosing to be politically correct rather than falling back on their own common sense. How closely are you going to cling to your ideals to make your point? Are your ideals so important that you're willing to allow an Islamic center to impose itself on Ground Zero, which will without question become a springboard for more rhetoric and violence against innocent people? When the first terror cell is born from Cordoba House/Park51 that successfully kills one person, two persons, or a dozen persons in the name of Islam, are you lefty liberals going to be perfectly okay with that because you stuck to your guns and "defended one of your most precious ideals of freedom of religion"? This is the point in the argument where the lefties chime in and ever-so-poignantly point out that, "the moment we compromise our most precious principles and ideals is the moment that we let the terrorists win". What a PATHETIC way to justify their own complete lack of common sense and their utter disregard of the obvious. That precious phrase of theirs sounds so noble on the surface, but when you peel it back it's essentially just handing over complacency to our most vicious enemies on a silver platter. Then after some terrorist catastrophe happens that can be directly attributed to their weak political correctness and their tenacious hold on their noble ideals, they'll be the first to find fault in someone else instead of looking in the mirror.
Freedom of religion is a dodgy topic, and it's sometimes a thin line between what is or is not a religion. And lately, more often than not, I see the liberal left abhorring any religion of any kind. This is surprising in light of the fact that they're so adamantly defending freedom of religion and waving it as their Constitutional banner in the Cordoba House/Park51 controversy, when freedom of religion and/or the Constitutionality of the debate is not even the real point of contention. I'm not sure why the left is so intent on defending religions in one breath while so readily denouncing them all in the next, but this is the way of things. I've read the anti-religion rhetoric online countless times where the left is concerned.
One of the biggest proponents of the Cordoba House/Park51 of late has been none other than New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He went so far as to say, "...there is nowhere in the five boroughs that is off limits to any religion." Well BRAVO, Mr. Bloomberg. What a lovely thing to say, and what a wonderfully pluralistic notion. Let's just build that Islamic terror cell right next to Ground Zero -- I'm glad you’re so confident there will not be any anti-Western propaganda preached from the imam's pulpit in this center of cultural understanding.
Heck, by Mr. Bloomberg's logic, we should build a Pastafarian church on the other side of the wall from the Kaaba shrine in Mecca. It's only fair. That way, Pastafarians can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster freely and openly in the lovely, tolerant Saudi Arabian culture and sing kum-bay-yah with all of those tolerant, peaceful Muslims next door. The Islamic world is such a lovely place, isn't it?
As soon as Bloomberg and his supporters come back down from la-la land, let me know. I cannot wait for the reality to set in for them regarding what this "cultural center" is going to promote from within its walls. It won't be a message of peace and understanding, I am confident of that.
And for the record, for all of you apologist lefties that keep calling my side of the debate "fear mongering", please be advised that I don't fear Islam. I simply loathe it and refuse to capitulate to its demands like you cowards do. There's a big difference.
Everyone, the crux of the matter is simply this. The question is not whether they CAN build the mosque at this location. Nobody is really arguing the Constitutionality of this matter. The law says the mosque CAN be built. The question is whether or not they SHOULD. The liberal left keeps waving the Constitution in everyone's faces and equating the opposition's arguments with arguments against the Constitution. This is not the case. If Muslims are so peace-loving and tolerant, then perhaps they should show a little bit of this supposed tolerance and understanding and choose a less sensitive location elsewhere to construct their mosque. Clearly, they have no interest in doing so. Once again, it's Islam's way or the highway. “Back down, lowly infidel: your law says I can build it wherever I see fit.” I'm sick of this nation catering to every whim of Islam. You should be too. The establishment of the Cordoba House/Park51 facility in such close proximity to Ground Zero flies in the face of freedom of religion because Islam itself does not ALLOW freedom of religion. In their minds, it is THE religion and can accept no other.
From that perspective, opposing this particularly inappropriate mosque can be seen as protecting the freedom of all other religions, because Islam certainly does not seem to embrace any such religious freedom, unless of course you're referring to Islam itself. In Islam, one is free to openly practice one religion: Islam. It is THE only religion -- just ask any devout Muslim, you silly doomed infidels. Dhimmitude awaits you all, with big, sharp, pointy teeth. Got jizya?
