Behind the mosque

Our friend Jack Hunter wrote an article entitled “Beyond the Mosque”, mine is called “Behind the Mosque”.

I agree with Dr. Thomas Fleming this has become a stupid debate, typical for the politics of the age. There are already mosques in New York City, some fairly close to “Ground Zero” and they have been there for a long while.  Why aren’t they being protested? The reason this became an “issue” is because the imam of the proposed “Cordoba House”, who in the past was more than willing to be an Islamic government stooge during the Bush II Administration  in order to earn praise by Laura Ingraham, has refused to condemn or attack Hamas. That got the neocons over at the New York Post all hot and bothered so they began a campaign attacking his plans to build the Cordoba House a few months ago and sure enough, politicians, doing the neocons’ bidding, began to attack it as well thinking they would ingratiate themselves with them and the “base”.

Nobody seemed to care before that there were mosques in New York City because, as Fleming says, it ceased being an entirely-American city by World War I and probably long before that.  Actually, a more interesting debate concerns the building of a mosque in the Tennessee city Murfreesboro. Why would someone want to build a mosque all the way out there? Well apparently there’s a large Kurdish immigrant population (no thanks to our involvement in Iraq)  in the Nashville metro area (in which Murfreesboro has been basically absorbed into) and they are Muslim and they need mosques to worship in as you would expect. And the little rooms in little buildings they were using before can’t fit this growing population. So they want bigger buildings and are buying up land to build them.

Now, you can zone against the building of such mosques but you would have to do so in a politics so brutal and raw that you virtually be prepared for the onslaught of opprobrium that will be heaped upon you. But doesn’t it strike you that we’re becoming like France, which believes it can solve its Muslim dilemma by regulating what Muslims wear instead dealing with the root problem of this whole matter: immigration.  Preventing women from wearing burqas is not going to solve France’s problems with Muslims anymore that preventing mosques being built is going to lower the number of Muslims in the U.S.

The only way to deal with this problem is to deal with immigration. And rather than engage in another suicide mission to change the Constitution, perhaps the best way is to revisit the 1965 Immigration Act now that Ted Kennedy is no longer around to defend it. For it was this act that opened immigration venues to persons from Asia and Africa where the bulk of Muslims live. Restrict such quotas or eliminate them altogether, and we won’t have to worry about building new mosques in Murfreesboro, Tennessee or any place else.

Oh yes, a non-intervention foreign policy would help as well.  Do you think it a coincidence that every place the U.S. military intervenes its residents find their way to American shores? I don’t.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

11 thoughts on “Behind the mosque

  1. Matt Weber

    The 65 act is basically unassailable though. There’s a reason that all the focus is on illegal immigrants and ‘comprehensive reform’. It is assumed that the basic problem with immigration is that the quotas aren’t high enough so people are forced to immigrate illegally. I doubt even a focus on mosque building muslims could break the ‘comprehensive reform’ wall.

  2. Bede

    Good post. We definitely should repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 or, if the U.S. breaks up into smaller countries, the smaller countries (at least the pro-Western ones) should enact immigration policies similar to the Old Right’s Immigration Act of 1924.

    Terrorism is an immigration – not a foreign policy – issue.

  3. Kirt Higdon

    “Oh yes, a non-intervention foreign policy would help as well. Do you think it a coincidence that every place the U.S. military intervenes its residents find their way to American shores? I don’t.”

    Definitely not a coincidence. Empires usually begin by dispatching colonists from the heartland to the periphery and end by sucking subject peoples from the periphery to the heartland. This can be a matter of deliberate imperial policy, perceived economic and other opportunities or both. You can see this in the case of Britain, France and Portugal and to some extent even Spain, although the latter’s empire has been defunct for a longer time. And for how long was Rome a predominantly Roman city once the empire was established?

    The US had few foreign born Moslems until it began to intervene in all parts of the Moslem world. Before that, most US Moslems were black adherents of a rather eccentric brand of Islam. That has changed radically in the past half generation or so. As Ron Paul so accurately and succinctly put it, “They’re over here because we’re over there.”

  4. Pingback: Passions Rise at Dueling NYC Mosque Demonstrations – ABC News - Most hotest, Most latest U.S. News Online - Online News 28 – Top Stories in U.S.

  5. Kirt Higdon

    The war on terrorism, like the war on poverty and the war on drugs, was never intended to be won. It’s purpose is just to give the rulers more power over the ruled. “War is the health of the state.”

  6. RonL

    1. It is a NEW MOSQUE
    2. It is being built not 2.5 blocks away, but 1.5 blocks from WTC 7, in a building damaged and left vacant since 9-11.
    3. The name was an insult. The Cordoba mosque was built on a church, and the Emirate in Cordoba was Muslim domination of Christian land.
    4. The HAMAS comment is key for everyone.
    Rauf’s dad was a bigwig in the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) is the militant and political branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in “Palestine”. One of its founders was Abdullah Azzam, who was the founder of MAK, which funneled Arab money and Arab Jihadis into Afghanistan in the 1980s. Azzam’s protege was Osama Bin Ladin. After Azzam was assassinated in an internecine quarrel with Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Bin Ladin took over MAK and turned it into Al Qaeda. Egyptian Islamic Jihad (a Muslim Brotherood militant group from Egypt) then joined Al Qaeda a decade later. Hamas is not about Palestine. Their founding documents speaks of reconqering Spain and taking back the Cordoba Mosque.

    For a Muslim Brotherhood member, running a project named after Cordoba, to refuse to denounce Hamas is an explicit indication that he agrees with their goals and means. And Rauf’s only problem with Al Qaeda is means, not ends.

    Why should we allow the Muslim Brotherhood (MB is not the ummah, but a group founded in 1926) to build a victory mosque?

    The problem is liberalism, which tells us to let everyone in and never judge them. If we can break this idea on Militant Islam, we can look at Islam and then all immigrants.

    They are not over here, because we are over there. They are over here as a religious mission to conquer the world. Our immigration policy brings them in. But even if we ended Muslim immigration, there are 3 million plus here. Even if 90% are good Americans (I doubt it’s that high), that’s 300,000 sympathizers waiting to be radicalized.

  7. Pingback: Ground Zero Mosque Stack of Stuff « Countenance Blog

  8. Filmer

    Kirt, I answered some of your objections in the thread below. I am curious to see your response.

    I am not as familiar with the background of this is it or isn’t it mosque as Ron obviously is, but I do agree that there is an “in-ya-face” element to this that Americans of whatever faith should not take lightly. I think they may be overplaying their hand and victory here will possibly end up being more of a set back for Islam in America than a step forward, but I still don’t want to see it built.

  9. Kirt Higdon

    Filmer, on the Americanist and false religion issues, I’ve responded in the other thread. The in-your-face element and indeed the mosque “issue” is pretty much the creation of Fox news (followed by the rest of the media herd), the Republican establishment, and the Israel lobby, represented here by our friend RonL. Two or three weeks ago, no one was paying the least attention to this pseudo-issue. Now you have anti-mosque demonstrations going on all over the country against just about any mosque which wishes to expand or in some cases just hold normal services. Is all this just spontaneous outrage? No, but it is a good lesson in how easily one can manipulate the mob. Over at TAC, even Pat Buchanan is marching in step with AIPAC and the neocons, but then he always was a reliable Republican partisan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>