"Ground Zero Mosque" protected by Constitution?

Americans are divided on whether or not we should allow the building of the mosque at ground zero, and, of course, by, "mosque at ground zero," I mean, "building that is not a mosque and is also not at ground zero." (It's actually an Islamic community center two blocks away from Ground Zero, and if I can get fired for including work as an artist on South Park on my resume when I really only worked as a graphic designer at a sign company on South Park Street, which shouldn't have happened because I wasn't even technically lying, then there's no way I should get away with calling this a mosque at ground zero.) But here are the details:
Now, first, the space was designated with the name, "Cordoba House," which its organizers claim was invokes 8-11th century Cordoba, where Muslims, Christians, and Jews are said to have co-existed peacefully. But critics say the name is in honor of the Muslim conquest over the Christian city in Spain. But the stubborn organizers wouldn't have any of it! They gave a proverbial finger to critics and said, "We're keeping the name whether--" Oh wait, no, they changed it. Organizers changed the name of the space to Park51 to avoid association with conquest while subtly hinting that they're hiding UFOs there.
But what is in a name? That which we call a Cordoba House, if by any other name, would it smell as subversive? Newt Gingrich knows what I'm smelling. He said, "It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America..." Exactly! If we don't act now by taking away religious freedom in this country, then this country might lose its religious freedom.
And don't try to argue equality under the law because that's not the issue here. As the constitution says, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Wait a minute, this isn't the constitution. This is George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM!
Okay, the Bill of Rights actually says "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," which pretty much means that it would be unconstitutional to legally interfere unless it could be demonstrated conclusively that it's a terrorist group.
But as New York Daily News writer S.E. Cupp points out, the argument for the constitutional right is a straw man. She wrote, "No one in serious circles who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero is suggesting it should be made illegal to build a Muslim house of worship near the site of the 9/11 attacks."
Exactly. No one is actually suggesting that we actually take legal action to prevent them from building-- oh, okay, well there's that. And that. And, okay a lot of people are. ;
But what about the people who recognize the legal right to build the community center, but feel they should voluntarily avoid doing it. The man heading up the project said that he wants the location near ground zero to "push back against the extremists," demonstrating the ability of peaceful Muslims to thrive in a community of mutual tolerance, a spirit opposite of that which was behind the 911 attack.Many prominent Muslims, including Akbar Ahmed and others with names that are even-more difficult to pronounce have publicly opposed the building of the mosque saying that it has the appearance of "fitna," or "mischief-making" that is forbidden by the Koran. Some peaceful Muslims worry that violent extremists would point to it as a symbol of victory despite the intent of those behind the project.
For those reasons, I honestly don't know whether the project is a good idea or not. Those of you who have been following FAILocracy for a while may remember when I received death threats a few months ago for criticizing violent Muslims while displaying images of Muhamad created by Persian Muslims. (Of course, I did literally draw a target on my forehead.) The video has been removed from YouTube, not because I was afraid of radical Muslims; I knew what I was getting in to when I drew the target, but because YouTube rejected my revenue-sharing application because of it. It's okay to be a broke martyr, but if I'm going to stay alive, I've got to make some scratch.

More episodes of FAILocracy

Featured episodes in Comedy


Satire, comedy, and commentary about political FAILs!