There is considerable chatter on the blogosphere this morning that Muslim leaders are ready to change the location of the proposed Ground Zero mosque and community center. The rumor is two-pronged. One version says that it is due to the outcry of protest against the plan. Another version suggests a lack of funding to build in the proposed location, in part due to the outcry of protest.
Muslim leaders supposedly feel that moving the location of the mosque will net them additional funds to go ahead with building. Again, this is all speculation at this point.
Some key Muslim leaders have begun to deny these rumors saying that the rumors are misinformation and that the original plans are still underway. Time will tell.
In the meantime, liberals continue to get it wrong regarding this. In fact, their arguments for the planned mosque are phony, lying, and completely miss the heart of the matter.
On her Facebook page (remember I hate Facebook), my wife changed her status to one voicing her opposition to the mosque. A "friend" of ours (note the quotes) then went on a short soliloquy about how this nation was founded on religious freedom. Funny, because this same guy would be against lots of other religious freedoms, but on the Ground Zero mosque he is all for it.
That he misses the real argument is of no surprise. After all he is just parroting what his friends on the left, and the president he voted for, have been saying. Religious freedom is not the issue here. We all know they have a right to build the mosque. But merely having the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.
For instance, I have a right to eat a whole large pizza for lunch today. Or an entire cheesecake. Or all the fried food I can find. That is well within my rights to do. But the question is: should I? Would it be prudent? Would it be good for me and those around me?
The mere existence of a right doesn't necessarily mean that the exercising of that right is the RIGHT thing to do. I have many rights that I choose not to exercise for prudence sake. I could continue to enumerate many more examples but I think you get the point.
But liberals will continue to hammer on this "religious expression". In the meantime they will be selective regarding where they apply the "right to religious expression".
For example, remember this story: Mojave Cross still gone, but controversy remains
Quick summary: VFW erects cross to honor fallen soldiers in 1934. Cross stands for 75 years with no problems, then ACLU decides to fight against it under the guise of "separation of church and state". Issue is that cross is on public land. Compromise proposed to exchange another piece of land for the plot in the Mojave where cross is so that it can be "privatized". Opponents don't like that plan, that want the cross down. SCOTUS rules 5-4 cross can stay. Week later a vandal cuts down and steals cross. VFW erect new one but it is ordered removed and remains removed due to liberal opposition (IE the ACLU).
Where are the liberals screaming for for religious expression in the Mojave Cross case? For years they are anti-religious expression, but suddenly take up that cross (pun intended) in regard to the Ground Zero mosque? Please.
Bottom line is that the mosque is a slap to America's face, and liberals are all about slapping the face of the nation they despise. As are Muslims. Muslims standing arm-in-arm with liberals against the USA should surprise no one.
Liberals say YES to this: