Renee Ellmers for Congress; No Mosque at Ground Zero

We concur with North Carolina’s Renee Ellmers that “The terrorists haven’t won. We should tell them in plain English, ‘No; there will never be a mosque at Ground Zero.'” Ellmers spoke with Freedom Radio about the mosque and her campaign to unseat Congressman Bob Etheridge:

Last year, eight Muslim residents of her Congressional district were arrested for plotting to attack the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia which demonstrated the threat posed by the rise of radical Islamists here is a national security concern.

Her opponent for North Carolina’s 2nd District seat, Congressman Bob Etheridge, reportedly “has never thought building this mosque and community center so close to Ground Zero is a good idea.” Yet his campaign spokesman Mike Davis “acknowledged that Etheridge has never offered his opinion publicly, but said that’s because ‘he’s not going to get involved in it. … That decision is for New York.'”

We join Renee Ellmers in her call for the leadership of the Republican and Democrat caucuses in Congress to support a resolution opposing the Ground Zero Mosque.

Ceding ground to those who promote the establishment of discriminatory sharia law here in America would encourage both the violent and “non-violent” jihad being waged against our Nation.

America was attacked on 9/11; the Stars and Stripes is the only victory flag that should ever fly over our sacred ground.

  1 comment for “Renee Ellmers for Congress; No Mosque at Ground Zero

  1. Nolan
    October 6, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Religious Liberty Rightly Appreciated

    The current news cycle contains two issues, which allow one an accurate understanding of religious freedom in this country. Concerning the mosque at ground zero, New York City seeks to use a distortion of tolerance to transform a civic responsibility into a religious freedom issue. Concurrently deliberations over California’s Proposition 8 also veer off into the restless human concept of social justice, thereby hiding the central issue of religious freedom.

    The mosque debates are being carefully drawn by the press and politicians into a false dichotomy of 1) yes, it is their right or 2) no, they don’t have the right. Obviously it isn’t that simple, because our country has already decided religious freedom functions within the reasonable pursuits of this country.

    Is it reasonable to suggest a Christian organization can purchase any piece of downtown property it likes and build a church on the spot? Whether or not you think that is reasonable, it is clearly unreasonable considering today’s zoning realities. Across America governments exercise their powers (rightly or not) to enforce land use policies that do or do not allow things like the construction of churches in certain places, notwithstanding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

    The Manhattan property clearly functions in its highest and best use as a commercial skyscraper. In order to remain consistent, New York has every right to deny a building permit for this mosque, because to do so imposes no substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person. The Muslims have every right to build their church… but they have no more right to that location next to the Twin Towers than any other religious group does to build in the same spot.

    This is a case of liberal politicians perpetrating intentional controversy, to avoid a clear civic duty. They would love to see the “right” lodge a complaint against the establishment of a mosque, so that the court system and the press can beat them senseless for a first amendment violation. All the while it is perfectly reasonable and universally understood that the city, could at anytime, deny the permits and end the discussions.

    The only church, which can bring a superior case before the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is the Greek Orthodox, which was destroyed by one of the falling towers on 9/11. Even when the highest and best use of a piece of property is high density commercial, land use regulations routinely include provisions giving governments the latitude to allow restoration of structures at their previous location when they suffer catastrophic destruction. The Port Authority has taken the most restrictive understanding of land use, when it comes to dealing with people from the Greek Orthodox Church and has not allowed the restoration to occur. However, they suddenly discovered such a heartfelt appreciation for the First Amendment as to override all zoning regulations in regard to a Muslim structure, which never existed at ground zero. Here is a link to one article.

    In contrast the repeal of Prop 8 represents not a fabrication of, but repression of core religious beliefs. Indeed Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers find their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion threatened by overturning Prop 8. For many followers of the desert religions homosexual behavior is unacceptable. Instead it resides among the myriad sins entrapping humanity that lives in a fallen world with a fallen nature.

    For them foundational scholarship concludes homosexual relationships separate believers from God. The Old Testament, holy to “People of the Book”, speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God in a manner, which continuously addresses homosexuality. God is spoken of as masculine, and all humans become feminine in relation to Him. In addition to creating all things, God created the single institution of heterosexual marriage as the earthy manifestation of the relationship of absolute unity and love He seeks with each person.

    Classical Semitic theology emphasizes searching for and identifying with God in the spiritual dimension. In order to be worthwhile actions and thoughts must reinforce the faith commitment to spiritual relationship. Therefore, when believers enter into heterosexual marriage here on Earth there is not a more profound affirmation and acceptance by faith by humans of God’s promise of eternal relationship. All other forms of sexual union must be considered a rejection of God’s promise for relationship with Him. For tens of millions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers any subsequent reasoning from scriptures must proceed from that basic understanding. Therefore, instituting gay marriage, when believers reject homosexuality, means placing these people outside the Constitutional boundaries guaranteeing religious freedom.

    The words of Jesus in Matthew are appropriate here when He says render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars; and to God the things that are God’s. Zoning laws allow governments to make reasonable decisions allowing the functioning of society, while guaranteeing religious freedom. Governments can also make reasonable laws guaranteeing functional utility for civil unions, without contravening religious freedom.

Leave a Reply

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