Muslims, Immigrants, Gays and Why The Right Wing hates the Constitution

The Right Wing hates the Constitution. Period. Although they claim to be defenders of the Constitution, they want nothing more than to shred it to pieces and instate their radical Tea Party platform of no taxes, no immigrants, and no freedom.

Many prominent Republican politicians have come out against the Park 51 project in Manhattan. This brings us to the first amendment which the Republicans hates: The First Amendment.

It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The free exercise clause guarantees the religious liberty of America’s citizens. However, Chis McGreal of the Guardian notes the many Republicans coming out against the proposed community center:

Sarah Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, has been a vocal opponent of the controversial New York mosque.

Other prominent politicians have cast the net wider. Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives, who is thought likely to make a run for president, has warned that Muslims are attempting to impose sharia law in the US and that it poses a “mortal threat to freedom” in America.

Gingrich said that he would push for legislation to prevent states from adopting sharia law even though none are proposing it and there is no likely prospect of it happening.

Esposito said politicians’ fearmongering over Muslims was similar to exploitation of fears that the country was being swamped by a tide of illegal immigrants.

America, these are your 2012 Republican Presidential nominees. The New York Tea Party candidate for governor made similar bigoted remarks:

As governor, I will use the power of eminent domain to stop the mosque, and use the site as a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country

Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, too, came out against religious liberty for Muslims.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs noted how the conservative mouthpieces Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh also oppose Muslims from setting up a community center in New York.

Beck labeled the Park51 project an “Allah tells me to blow up America mosque.”

And Limbaugh, not to be outdone, mocked the idea of “Muslim outreach” and said the Park51 builders are “planting the flag of victory,” so they can say “we won.

Founder of Redstate.com, Erick Erickson, compares the building of an Islamic community center to be equivalent to human sacrifice.

Oh — what about the Greater First Church of Satan wanting to do human sacrifice of a willing victim? I guess our founding principles demand the President support that too. After all, it is a religious belief and only willing participants.

Maybe it’s a bit sensationalist to say the Right Wing hates the First Amendment. It’s fair to say, though, the Right Wing hates the First Amendment when people other than themselves receive its protection.

The American Family Association, supporters of the Tea Party and Gingrich (redundant, I know), said so themselves:

Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. They are currently using First Amendment freedoms to make plans to destroy the First Amendment altogether. There is no such thing as freedom of religion in Islam, and it is sheer and utter folly for Americans to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

What’s worse is that the bigotry and fanaticism of the Tea Party extends all over America in opposing mosques being built. Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times notes a few incidents:

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

Temecula is nearly 3000 miles from Ground Zero, yet it still should not have a mosque. Opposition to the Park 51 Project has nothing do with the interests of 9/11 families (Consider these families who support the mosque and the Muslims who died in the attacks as well), but pure and simple bigotry.

Hamdan Azhar of the Christian Science Monitor makes a simple case why the Park 51 project should continue:

Similarly, there are those who say “don’t let those Muslims build a mosque near Ground Zero.” Do they realize that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City? And no, this isn’t a Saudi plot to take over America – the oldest was built over 70 years ago.

And then there is my generation, those who were born and raised in this country, brought up in the uniquely diverse milieu of New York. “Those Muslims hate our way of life,” we are told. Such an ignorant statement shows that some people cannot accept the simple fact that Muslims can be Americans and so many Americans can be Muslims; that Muslims can be New Yorkers and New Yorkers – 800,000 of them – can be Muslims.

Now that we’ve established that Conservatives would like to limit the application of the First Amendment. Let’s move on to an amendment which they want to outright revoke. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This sounds like a reasonable amendment. America is a country of immigrants! Why who would be daft enough to oppose such an amendment? Well, look no further than the Republicans in Congress. Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor writes:

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky, Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama, and Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona have said they would be in favor of looking at the issue via hearings. So has House minority leader John Boehner (R) of Ohio.

These aren’t just some rogue Republican politicians. The Senate leadership, the House leadership, and the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate all have doubts about the 14th Amendment! What’s their beef with the Amendment? Well, let someone more qualified explain:

“You see, when an illegal man and an illegal woman just love each other very much, they share a special hug…. Then nine months later the baby is born a U.S. citizen. And by immigration law, they can get their relative a green card. All t…hey have to do is wait until the child turns 21, have it petition the government, then return to Mexico for a mandatory ten-year waiting period and then, boom, they come back to steal all of our social services starting with social security because by then they’re eligible. – Stephen T. Colbert

Some Republican politicians like Louie Gohmert are quick to point out that terrorists could be planting “terror babies” that will be ready to strike in 31 years using this method. Interestingly, Republican politician Mike Huckabee opposes changes to the 14th Amendment, and, in fact, said:

The question is: Is he [child of illegal immigrant] better off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker or whatever he might become, and becoming a taxpayer, and in the process having to apply for and achieve citizenship, or should we make him pick tomatoes? I think it’s better if he goes to college and becomes a citizen.

You know there’s something wrong when Huckabee is the voice of reason in the Republican party.

Moving on, Republicans claim to be big cutters of the government. Nothing better exemplifies their cutting than their desire to remove another part of the 14th Amendment which reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With the recent striking down of Prop 8, the Right is seething with hatred that gays will finally be able to marry per the equal protection clause. Okay, okay, I’m probably being sensationalist again; they don’t want to remove the 14th Amendment. Republicans just interpret it differently. Maybe gays aren’t persons? Yeah! Similar to Arroyo Toads and Coho Salmo, gays don’t deserve the protection of our laws (Well, to be fair, those toads and salmon are protected under the Endangered Species Act).

Simmi Aujla of Politico reports that Rep.Lamar Smith plans to issue a resolution condemning the Prop 8 ruling in Congress:

Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Steve King of Iowa and John Fleming of Louisiana told reporters on Tuesday that the California federal judge who overturned Prop. 8 acted against the will of voters in striking down the state’s ban on gay marriage.

“Legalizing an alternative form of marriage dilutes a long-standing and widely accepted standard of marriage as a union between a man and woman. We should adhere to such standards rather than undertake a massive social experiment with perhaps unknown consequences,” said Smith, who is introducing a resolution condemning the ruling.

Yes, imagine the devastating consequences of legalizing gay marriage! Temperatures will rise to the hottest on record, fish will disappear from the oceans, and giant ice islands four times the size of Manhattan will break off in to the Arctic! Oh wait, all of that is happening already.

So what’s the Republican Party’s strategy in all this fear-mongering? Simply put, it’s to get the base out for the 2010 elections. Rachel Maddow explained that the Republicans are using the same Southern Strategy which involves appealing to the conservative, traditionalist nature of Republicans in that they oppose the “Other.” Electoral gains through fear, as simple as that.

  14 comments for “Muslims, Immigrants, Gays and Why The Right Wing hates the Constitution

  1. kee da peace
    August 16, 2010 at 10:56 am

    In my view, this has less to do with the. 1st Amendment and more to do with insensitivity. Why build a mosque at any 911 sight? That clearly sends the wrong message. I am on the ring and I believe, like most people, that the Constitution and Amendments mean what they say. But, just because someone has the right to say or do something, doesn’t make it morally right.

    • Francisco Barragan
      August 17, 2010 at 6:29 am

      you ask: “Why build a mosque at any 911 Sight?”

      My Response:
      Because Islam is NOT the enemy. The tragic events of 911 was perpetrated by a group of Terrorists who acted from a corrupted view of Islam.

      Would you deny Americans, or legal residents who follow Islam the following:
      1) The right to open up a restaurant near ground-zero.
      2) The right to walk around near ground-zero.
      3) The right to freely assemble near ground-zero.
      4) The right to open up a private school near ground-zero.
      5) The right to own a business (legal, medical, dental, accountancy practices; or any other type of business).

      Hey, if we are so afraid of the “Islamic take-over”, why don’t we just them round-up, and place them in Internment Camps…like we did with Americans of Japanese descent, and since we want to keep track of them, perhaps we should also Tatoo Numbers on Them.

      The real threat is that we would trample on our US Constitution and our American values out of irrational prejudice and religious bigotry.

      P.S. Saad Asad thank you for this very informative article!

      Francisco “Paco” Barragan (My opinions only and not those of any group)
      Santa Ana, CA
      barraganfj@gmai.com

      • kee da peace
        August 18, 2010 at 9:35 pm

        You’re missing my point. Your inclusion of businesses or other institutions has no bearing on this. A mosque is a religious center. Why build any center of a particular religion near ground zero. Islamists seem to be pushing very hard to get this mosque built. Why? Why not use some of that empathy they claim to have and be considerate enough to let this drop. Why he big push… unless it os to shove our noses in it?

        • barragan
          August 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm

          I think you are MISSING the WHOLE POINT.

          YOU SAY, “A mosque is a religious center. Why build any center of a particular religion near ground zero.”

          MY RESPONSE:

          1) Because this is First and Foremost about Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Religion. (CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION); and

          2) Because this is also about our AMERICAN VALUES – of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”.

          Denying any RELIGIOUS group, and in this particular case an ISLAMIC group, the right to locate near Ground-Zero presumes, that US Citizens or Legal residents who follow the Islamic faith, somehow are “GUILTY Until Proven Innocent.”

          3) You say you feel that Moslems want to “shove our noses in it”, by building the Mosque near Ground-Zero…TRUE Moslems follow the following, and the Terrorists did NOT represent true Islam:

          Positive Sayings of the Prophet Mohammed:

          • When the bier of anyone passeth by thee, whether Jew, Christian or Muslim, rise to thy feet.
          • The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr.
          • Who is the most favored of God? He from whom the greatest good cometh to His creatures.
          • All God’s creatures are His family; and he is the most beloved of God who doeth most good to God’s creatures.
          • Whoever is kind to His creatures, God is kind to him; therefore be kind to man on earth, whether good or bad; and being kind to the bad, is to withhold him from badness, thus in heaven you will be treated kindly.
          • He who is not kind to God’s creatures, and to his own children, God will not be kind to him.
          • Kindness is a mark of faith: and whoever hath not kindness hath not faith.

          Francisco “Paco” Barragan
          My opinions only

        • Howard be my name
          August 19, 2010 at 8:32 pm

          You ask, “Why build any center of a particular religion near ground zero?” Well, there are already a number of religious buildings much nearer ground zero than this will be.

          You also ask, “Why he big push… unless it os to shove our noses in it?” Is there any evidence of an attempt to shove anyone’s nose in anything? I suspect supply and demand is the only culprit here — a group was looking to build in a Lower Manhattan location, and this one was available. Good old American capitalism.

          That being said: when I first heard of the idea of a new Islamic Center at Ground Zero I was not terribly pleased myself. Then I looked at where the center will be, and it’s really not very near “ground zero.” And it’s on the opposite side of the old Trade Center location where all the 9/11 memorials have been created.

          I agree that “because someone has the right to say or do something, doesn’t make it morally right.” However, Manhattan is a crowded place and there are all sorts of businesses and organizations located pretty near ground zero. The whole of Lower Manhattan can’t be sanctified. It’s just not practical.

          Those of us who live in Southern California really have no more right to dictate land use 3000 miles away in another state, any more than New Yorkers have the right to say where Comic Con will be. Let’s let the locals sort it out. We owe them our silence on the matter.

    • barragan
      August 19, 2010 at 3:44 pm

      “Meanwhile, former George W. Bush solicitor general Ted Olson backed the project. Olson, who recently won his case to strike down California’s gay marriage ban in federal court, [LOST HIS WIFE ]In the 9-11 attacks.
      “I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices, or structures, or places of religious worship or study, where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing,” he said on MSNBC. “We don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith.”

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100819/pl_yblog_upshot/do-islamic-center-developers-have-the-funds-to-build

  2. August 16, 2010 at 11:34 am

    14th Amendment to the US Constitution

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

    The key word is “and”.
    Slaves were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
    Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

    • Francisco Barragan
      August 17, 2010 at 6:35 am

      @ RL:

      Yes, the key word is “AND”; AND immigrants even if undocumented ARE SUBJECT TO our laws. They break a law, they face the consequences.

      What the “SUBJECT TO” referred primarily was that there were really TWO types of classes of people whose children born in the US were NOT US Citizens:

      1) The children of Foreign Diplomats…they were subject to a foreign power.
      2) The children of parents engaged in HOSTILE Actions (war) against the US, or if born in invaded territory.

      • August 17, 2010 at 5:30 pm

        The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 and applies to the slaves. The 3 paragraphs below are from: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

        “Put simply, “jurisdiction” is merely the lawful authority to act. Jurisdiction may arise from geography or subject matter. [See Federal Jurisdiction within this site.] In the case of the 14th Amendment, the jurisdiction is based on subject matter, not geography.

        The issue being addressed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is plainly “citizenship”. So where does citizenship come from? [See Citizenship within this site.] Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, citizenship could only be obtained at the state level. Any rights, privileges and immunities [main body of the Constitution] obtained under the federal Constitution were based exclusively on one’s status as a citizen of a state of the Union. It is still that way today for Americans who are within that original class of citizenship.

        With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the citizens of the states of the Union agreed to give Congress a hitherto unpossessed power; the power to grant a form of federal citizenship to those “persons” who had been born in any state of the Union, who’d been held in slavery, and under the Constitution of that state could not become a citizen thereof. The states also agreed to consider this new form of citizen as a citizen of a state if the person were to reside within a state.”

        • barragan
          August 19, 2010 at 1:34 pm

          @ Robert L:

          You are going back to 1868, and you neglect the fact that about 30 years later, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled and clarified this.

          IT HAS BEEN SETTLED LAW since 1898 that those born in the US even if born to ILLEGAL/unauthorized immigrant parents are US Citizens by virtue of their birth in the US. And in general, when the parents’ status applies and that their child would not be automatically US Natural born citizens, would be if the parents were serving in an official capacity for a foreign government, or if they were members of foreign forces engaged in hostile occupation against the US.

          QUOTE:
          “United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.

          SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Ruled In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

          The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) – and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that “…during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.

          Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. [AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE MAJORITY HELD, DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION]; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.”

          Furthermore, in further ruling Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents — not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court’s majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment’s phrases “[SUBJECT TO] the jurisdiction thereof” and “[WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION]” [WERE ESSENTIALLY EQUIVALENT] and that [BOTH REFERRED PRIMARILY TO PHYSICAL PRESENCE].

          It held that illegal immigrants residing in a state are “within the jurisdiction” of that state, [AND ADDED] in a footnote that “[NO PLAUSIBLE DISTINCTION] with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ [CAN BE DRAWN] between resident aliens [WHOSE ENTRY] into the United States was LAWFUL, and resident ALIENS WHOSE ENTRY WAS UNLAWFUL.]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=457&page=202#f10

  3. August 16, 2010 at 11:52 am

    President Barack Hussein Obama and Attorney General Holder support the drug cartels.
    View video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo

  4. Riff
    August 17, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Mr. Asad, Your twisted logic is old school propaganda. Does not work on the well educated that is finally stepping up in this country.

  5. foraveragejoe
    August 17, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    @Riff:

    So when the Republicans completely dominated the Congress and the Executive from 2000-2006, where were these “well educated” that should have stepped up in this country?

    Or when we had a Republican President from 2000-2008?

    And who are these “well educated” that are finally stepping up?

    How will we recognize them and their superior education? Will they be showcasing their “pedigree degrees” from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc so that the rest of Middle Class America can “recognize” their “greatness”?

Comments are closed.