Freedom? Yes! Mosque? No!
800 Miles from Ground Zero
The Islamic center in Manhattan is not the only mosque that has received opposition. Muslims have also faced opposition in Wisconsin and California. Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) News Erick Stakelbeck, who is described as a "terrorism analyst," went to Murfreesboro, Tennessee, this week to report on another Islamic center. According to Stakelbeck, the controversy is not the existence of the "mega-mosque." He said that there are questions about funding sources for the center, ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and support for Hamas.
American Family Association's (AFA) Bryan Fischer said that this and plans for all other new mosques should be banned because "each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."
"If a mosque was willing to publicly renounce the Koran and its 109 verses that call for the death of infidels, renounce Allah and his messenger Mohammed, publicly condemn Osama bin Laden, Hamas, and Abdelbaset al Megrahi (the Lockerbie bomber), maybe then they could be allowed to build their buildings. But then they wouldn't be Muslims at that point, now would they?" said Fischer.
In response to Fischer, AFA's Elijah Friedeman wrote that mosques—including the Islamic center in Manhattan—should be allowed to be built. "If we ignore the legal foundation of our nation, we will be left in a legal quicksand with no protection from others who want to suspend our freedoms when they feel like it. I would give the Devil the benefit of the law, if for no other reason than my own safety," wrote Friedeman.
Accusations of Prop. 8 'Junk Science'
Activists have been featured on several shows to respond to the Proposition 8 ruling on same-sex marriage in California. Last week, Concerned Women for American president Wendy Wright was a guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and on CNN. On Sunday, FRC president Tony Perkins debated David Boies on CBS's Face the Nation.
During the exchange, Perkins said the judge in the case "ignored a lot of the social science on the issue." Boies responded that Perkins and others were presenting "junk science."
"There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science," said Boies. "And it's easy to say that on television, but a witness stand is a lonely place to lie, and when you come into court you can't do that. That's what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost."
Perkins responded by saying, "This is so relatively new that there is not a conclusive evidence to suggest that children who grow up with two moms or two dads fare as well as children who grow up with a mom and a dad." He then said there was evidence that no-fault divorce affected children, but that the judge "just ignored all of that and said that there is no evidence that any of the policy that's been adopted on no-fault divorce and other liberal-leaning policies have impacted marriage."
"The judge did deal with it," said Boies. "And he pointed out, which is obvious, is that no-fault divorce doesn't have anything to do with [the] issue that's here. The empirical studies that do exist and they're based on what's happened in Canada and Sweden and Spain and other countries and other states where you are able to have marriage equality demonstrates that there is no harm. There are--there are studies going back for twenty years that's--that demonstrate this. The problem here is that unlike a court, people don't stick to the facts."