BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

The Ground Zero Mosque: Not About Freedom

by David Yeagley · August 17, 2010 · 23 Comments ·

Religious freedom? NOT. The proposed Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero in New York has nothing to do with religious freedom. It has nothing to do with tolerance, either. It is simply to honor Muslim murderers. For Americans to “tolerate” such a permanent gesture is truly a Freudian death wish.

Freedom of religion is not something this country was founded on at all. This is a grave error, and a most precarious, pernicious presumption. There is no justification of any mosque, or even cathedral, in the United States of America. And “justification” is a misapplied term altogether. Why?

“Religious freedom” is not a term found in the American Declaration of Independence, nor in the United States Constitution. “Religious freedom,” as a term, is a subsequent abstration, or a theory. It is a proposed principle, found in later commentary. It later developed into a political slogan.

To attempt to read the concept of “religious freedom” into the 1st Amendment is to commit scholarly error. To consider “religious freedom” as a principle, divorced from historical context, is to transcend history with personal application. It is abandon to the subjective, with a certain arrogance of soul.

So what is the historical context of the Constitution, of America’s foundations? Freedom from England. The men who rebelled against the Crown wanted independence, economic and religious, from the Church of England. The historical context of that European socio-political development was the general trend away from Rome, from Roman Catholocism. If the abstract term “religious freedom” ever occurred in the minds of America’s founding fathers, it would have been in reference to the tyrannies of England and Rome.

The fathers of America wished to practice their Biblical beliefs the way they wanted to, without dictation from state authority. They wanted to practice Christianity the way they saw fit. That is the bedrock of America. The economic independence was an evolution of that “protestant” Christian faith.

The fathers had no mind for Islam, Hinduism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Voodooism, Satanism, Buddhism, Shintoism, or any other kind of religion in the world. America was not conceived as a haven for non-Christian, non-Protestant religion or culture. To think it was is profound error in interpretation. This is anti-historical, unscholarly, and wholly unjustified and unreasonable. Such a concept leaves America as some multi-cultural buffet, or an international bazaar. The haven idea makes American society worse than a melting pot. It turns American into a big brown bowel movement, ineviscerably impacted with infectious bacteria.

For this conceptual error, we suffer the constipated stupidity of the Ground Zero Mosque issue. Yes, there are many reasons why there should be no mosque at Ground Zero; yes they are all obvious. But they are also subjective, non-historical, and superficial. Bad taste, insensitive, inappropriate, yes, these are all reasons to disallow such a mosque. But the best reason is the unfair, preferential treatment the murderous Muslims received by the defiant, Communist city council of New York–who unanimously voted in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque, while at the same time have nothing to say for the 85-year-old Greek Orthodox congregation who want to rebuild their St. Nicholas Church–which was destroyed by the 9-11 attack. (Just why the Port Authority is cited as the offending body instead of the city council is unclear–but it apparently has to do with money, $20 million, which was due the church, which the Porty Authority refuses to turn over.) Why are the Greek Orthodox ignored, and the Muslims coddled and indulged? Because the Greeks pose no threat. They are not murderous. The Greek Orthodox do not bomb American interests, or seek to destory America.

But, again, the concept of religious freedom is not an American foundation, and that such a concept should form the essentional justification of the proposed Mosque is laughable. It is the most idiotic, non-historical discussion in modern political discourse.

Those Americans to prefer the Hebrew take on reality (i.e., the Bible) need to be reminded that there is really no such thing as religious freedom. There is one God, and one Word. Religious freedom may be a political concept, used originally to justify independence from England and/or Rome, and to let Christians practice Christianity in the way they wished, no matter how many different groups of Christians developed different styles of worship. But tolerance never included that idea of allowing murderous Muslims to build shrines to their murderous beliefs and practices.

Tolerance is insulting, deceptive, and suicidal as applied to the Ground Zero Mosque fiasco. The Islamic lust for death has already infected America, and it accentuates the liberal perversions of anti-Americanism. Too much discussion about “religious freedom” is wholly subjective and naive, bordering the inane.

“Religious freedom” is a curse to America. As articulated by the ignorant, and the politically biased, “religious freedom” is a lethal deception.

Posted by David Yeagley · August 17, 2010 · 8:42 am CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Christianity · Islam · Liberalism · Politics · Religion




Read More Journal Posts »

23 responses so far ↓

  • 1 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 8:42 am   

    Mosques should never have been allowed in America. If there must be cathedrals, they should be regarded as sectarian. And anyone discussing the Constitution needs to be as historically aware and open-minded as when sincerely studying the Bible. Context is critical. No principle is born without context. Strict Constitutionalists and Bible believers have a lot in common as conservative readers of historical documents. Methods of understanding are quite similar. Biblical students should have an advantage, but, they often don’t, because they chuck certain core realities in the name of historical context! The holy Sabbath, the seventh day, for instance, is usually regarded as an element of historical context, rather than an eternal, living reality.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 9:20 am   

    Of course I would like to have included links to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, Yahoo has removed any such links from their search lists. Else, they are well hidden now, and I shall have to take the time to find them elsewhere, like Google, of all places.

  • 3 Pamela K. // Aug 17, 2010 at 10:16 am   

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (meaning a church-state like England) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” – Bill of Rights, Amendment I

    Liberals like to misconstrue the meaning of these words to justify their erroneous claim that America was not founded under the Judeo-Christian priniciples of the Holy Bible. We were. Just visit Washington DC. Almost every government building there and monuments have either a fresco of Biblical patriarchs or passages from Scriptures carved into their walls.
    Aside from this, fifty-four of the fifty six signatories of the Declaration of Independence were confirmed Christian believers. These men sought God’s wisdom above all else to shape the framework that would become America, the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Furthermore, they knew religion did not set men and women free. Only Jesus Christ has the power and the authority to truly liberate us.

    “Whom the Son sets free is free indeed.” 8:36

    The Bible also warns us about the words we speak Words can heal and words can destroy.
    “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and they who indulge in it shall eat the fruit of it for death or life.” Proverbs 18:21
    Using the power of his foolish and arrogant tongue, our president has placed our nation under serious judgement from God.
    “I don’t want to see my daughter punished with a baby.” “If I am elected president I will pass the Freedom of Choice Act.” (endorsement of abortion)
    “If I am elected president I will repeal the federal Marriage Protection Act which is unfair to gays and lesbians couples seeking to legitimize their unions.” (endorsement of perversion)

    “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. This includes the right to build a place of worship and community center on private property in lower Manhattan.” (endorsement of our enemies)
    Barry Soetoro, the Closet Muslim, has finally stepped over the threshold and into the light with his endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque. His next step will be to find an excuse to fly the Islamic flag along side the American flag at the White House.
    Before 9/11, when Osama Bin Ladin used to crawl out from underneath a rock somewhere in the Afghan desert to spew some cryptic-sounded message like, “One day the sword of Islam will pierce the heart of the eagle.” I used to laugh and think he was a crazy man. Now I know he was telling the truth. And it’s not funny anymore.

  • 4 Dernon Ruton // Aug 17, 2010 at 11:08 am   

    I submit without comment, but not I hope without relevance, an excerpt of George Washington’s 1790 letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island:

    “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

    It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.”

  • 5 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm   

    The Jewish religion is, and always has been, an exception. It is to be understood as such, in every context.

    I would not in the slightest degree employ Washington’s poetic/political abstractions as an endorcement for anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Biblical religions and cultures. I do not see those thoughts or sentiments included in Washington’s words at all.

    But, hey, this blog is all about my opinion, as I’m sure you’ve gathered!

  • 6 Gary DeLoriea // Aug 17, 2010 at 12:15 pm   

    Here we have a typical conservative this is what the constitution says but this is what it means rants. Actually your wrong, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution there was a faction led by future Chief Justice Byrd who wanted xtianity as the state religion he just wanted all denominations allowed. The argument he made was what if a Pagan or a Muhammadists were to get elected. The answer was if they’re the most qualified for the job let them have it. Men such as Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (who were dieist) and George Washington(who was a Freemason) realized that xtianity may not be the dominate religion and by making this a xtian only nation they may very well doom the republic. There is a very good book out there called Liars or Jesus: The religious rights attempt hijack american history. While i only got to read the first 2 chapters of a copy my friend had it was very interesting. Unlike xtian articles i’ve seen this book is heavily foootnoted. The author lists all of her sources and where you can locate them(some are in government archives) As far as not being able to find the DOI on Yahoo it took me less than a minute to find the Government website with complete text. BTW i also found the constitiution as easily. Contrary to conservative xtian belief the the age of reason had far more to do with the american revolution than xtianityTHomas Jefferson had it right xtianity has always sided with the tyrant through out history. (Or as the Druids would say Like attracts like) As far as the Mosque goes. While this group has the right to build on what is essentially their property it is a site that is in bad tastes and should be moved a few blocks away. New York state is having a Governors race this year the gop canditate has stated that he would use eminent domain to confiscate the property at ground zero. This is just as wrong. I believe that this will open the practice to even further abuse. What is to stop the government from taking from groups it doesn’t like? At that point nothing and since i belong to a minority religion this does concern me.
    Gary DeLoriea
    Arfstol church of Theodish belief

  • 7 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 12:27 pm   

    I consider the Pilgrims (Puritans) the founders. They set the values of the society of the colonies. The Declaration and Constitution writers were, what, the 5th generation down? Interestingly, Ann Coulter says (in Treason, that it is precisely the descendents of the fathers who today are the liberals, the anti-American white liberals, sons of the WASPS, who are destroying American values, such as Christianity.

    So what was I “wrong” about? Sounds like you confirmed everything I said about the fathers’ desire to keep non-Christian religions out. That in the end they decided to frame their words in “abstractions,” or words like “religion” itself, doesn’t mean an open door concept.

    Show me evidence, or even logic, that they were inviting the Buddhists here, or the pirate Muslims. Show me that intended America to be a haven for all faiths. Show me that there were conclaves of Buddhists, Muslims, and Shintoists here, practicing their religion, and therefore needed to be included in the “principles” or “abstractions” of the law of the land.

  • 8 Pamela K. // Aug 17, 2010 at 12:52 pm   

    David Barton on America’s Christian Heritage
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrJ7tNGJ8SM&feature=related

  • 9 Pamela K. // Aug 17, 2010 at 1:02 pm   

    David Barton on The Declaration of Independence

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAh1wnGR0C8&feature=related

  • 10 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 1:43 pm   

    It just doesn’t make sense to mix everything together. It won’t taste good. It won’t look good. It isn’t good. It is not the formula for nationhood. Multiculturalism is the undoing of empires. People prefer nationhood, that is, their own kind, their own ways. We’re programmed that way.

    I think the rest is subliminal sexual prowess, or prowling.

  • 11 Pamela K. // Aug 17, 2010 at 2:39 pm   

    David Barton On Tour In Washington DC
    Check out his arm bands!
    Liberals must really hate this guy! He is a true American patriot!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

  • 12 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 3:53 pm   

    I’m familiar with David Barton. He’s an oracle of some kind, indeed! Stunning information. Sounds miraculous, but, it’s just history!

    Now, remember, like most white people he doesn’t know anything about the Indian, or the Indian point of view. We mustn’t expect that kind of miracle…

  • 13 Thrasymachus // Aug 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm   

    Powerful article, Dr. Yeagley.

    Kill the Ground Zero Mosque TV Ad .

  • 14 Thrasymachus // Aug 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm   

    Appeasement does not work with these Muslims.

    Radical Islam in Britain.

  • 15 Pamela K. // Aug 17, 2010 at 4:43 pm   

    I went on David Barton’s Wall Builders website to search for anything relevant to American Indian History. There’s nothing on his site about American Indians. However, the information he has on America’s true Christian heritage has probably taken years of painstaking research-sorting fact from the crap written by revisionist historians- and there is plenty of that out there, especially on the Internet. I am hoping he will focus on American Indian History in the future-the real history-which will not be an easy task given the fact that there were numerous indigenous tribes, and that some people have clearly managed to suppress the truth about how badly the US Government treated the Indians. That’s what aggravates me about NMAI. They’re focus is more global. I think their focus should be to collect historical information about the tribes that were right here on this soil. Like the unsung Founding Fathers David Barton points out, these people and their contribution to American History should not be forgotten or overlooked either.

  • 16 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 4:48 pm   

    Really sincere Christians are more or less terrorized by Indian history. They sense something was really, really wrong. But, they don’t want to deal with it. Sometimes, the Christian historians actually say false things. I’ve witnessed it. They feel they have to cover for Christ, as it were.

    Pam, it was a train wreck. No body needs to be covered. Well, Christians have insurance!

    I’m not afraid of the history.

    But, this is why I am not in demand as a conservative or a Republican. There are no talking points. The Right has no way of talking about Indians. They fall flat on their faces. They should let me teach them how to talk about Indians. But, they’d rather not deal with Indians. It is a prick under the saddle, but, they ride on.

    I have a Bad Eagle Interview. Mark Levin refused to take it. He didn’t want to talk about Indians. Hannity didn’t take it.

    Ilana Mercer took it. Ann Coulter took it. I don’t push it anymore. I understand things know like I didn’t before. I’m not angry about anything. I just understand that Indians aren’t part of the conservative political conversation. Plain and simple.

  • 17 Thrasymachus // Aug 17, 2010 at 5:23 pm   

    Neo-Conservatives are not identical with traditional Conservatives.

    The American Indian should write and publish books on his history. These books would strengthen the Indian nations and, eventually, influence how Conservatives deal with the subject.

    I know that I’d read “A History of the Comanche Nation”!

  • 18 Pamela K. // Aug 17, 2010 at 5:49 pm   

    No one ever said the truth would be easy to swallow, but I think it should be told. I think too, that you are confusing people of faith with people of religion. People of faith know that it was not in anyway Christ-like behavior to “kill the Indian but save the man.” That was a concept of self-righteous, ‘religious’-minded people. Jesus warned about this type of “well-meaning” but totally unscriptural “leaning on their own understanding” religious person when he said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy.”
    You ought to write a book on the history of the American Indians. You have a passion for preserving history and furthermore, you are a fighter! It’s in your blood to fight!

  • 19 kschwantz // Aug 17, 2010 at 7:49 pm   

    There was a fine, (I thought) analogy made somehere regarding the mosque, saying it serves the same purpose in that particular spot as erecting a “Peace” monument to Emperor Hirohito at Pearl Harbor.

  • 20 David Yeagley // Aug 17, 2010 at 8:49 pm   

    Yeah, I heard that one. Or a Hitler memorial at Auschwitz.

    That Muslim leaders would think that Americans could get cought up in the “tolerance” gig–to tolerate the avowed enemy of all that is American, is laughable. Muslims must truly laugh at America, if they have any humor in their souls at all.

  • 21 Pamela K. // Aug 17, 2010 at 8:51 pm   

    “Moderate” Muslims On The Defensive About Ground Zero Mosque
    Obama Sending Mixed Message on NYC Mosque

  • 22 Thrasymachus // Aug 17, 2010 at 8:53 pm   

    “There was a fine (I thought) analogy made somewhere regarding the mosque, saying it serves the same purpose in that particular spot as erecting a “Peace” monument to Emperor Hirohito at Pearl Harbor.”
    ———————————————————
    Exactly the same validity of purpose! This is sinister and a cruel mockery of the American citizenry. This project is clearly malevolent. If this mosque is erected and this insolent and arrogant plan is fulfilled, it will only demonstrate how powerless and morally enslaved the American people have become. It will be a sign of weakness given to a very hostile and angry foe. It will mean that the American people have no spirit or honor left and that they will allow themselves to be downtrodden and humiliated senselessly by their enemies.

    Welcome to Liberalism made a reality.

  • 23 Dernon Ruton // Aug 18, 2010 at 3:12 pm   

    David, yes, of course I know your blog is about your opinions. Which I think are almost always extraordinarily trenchant and well-expressed. The current article is no exception. My submission (comment #4) above of the George Washington letter was not to refute your tone or
    any of your points. Rather, as a religious Jew, I felt it shed a clear and particularly beneficent
    light upon a unique corner of American religious and personal freedom and history. I warrant
    you, I believe that the spread of the Islamic death cult in America has put us, and has us now, in the vise of an accelerating death-grip. From my perspective as a Jew and an American I follow closely and with keen interest your choice of topics and the writing on your site. I know you will continue to speak with your customary unique and incisive voice on issues of Indian and American history and pride.

You must log in to post a comment.