Justice Department sues on behalf of Murfreesboro mega-mosque, federal judge orders it to open

U.S. District Judge Todd J. Campbell was obviously attacked by Allah...Allah located a hole in his head, went in and possessed him...'When someone asks, 'What in the world possessed you to do that'? The answer is 'Allah made me do it'...People with holes in their heads should wear a hat to protect them from Allah possession...Obviously Todd was hat less...Watch for Murfreesboro to quickly turn into Deaborn
under Allah's rule #6...'If you build it, they will come', and they will keep coming...

It sounds to me like the case for opening the mosque is pretty consistent with US statutory and case law regarding the building of private buildings, especially places of worship.

In order to do anything significant against the building of mosques such as this one, the US would have to significantly change its laws and practices regarding the freedom of worship. For example, the funding of a mosque is simply not up for legal scrutiny that the funding of, say, a political interest group is. Even funding from Saudi Arabia would not invalidate the right of the mosque to be there under our present legal system.

Are we supposed to blindly follow our laws while we are infiltrated by a religion dedicated to wiping out our freedoms and our way of life? If a mosque is prevented from being opened because of hostility to Islam, we are using exactly the same tactics that prevents churches from being built or maintained in Pakistan or Indonesia.

We have to figure out a way to isolate our treatment of Islamist Muslims, prevent the immigration of any more Muslims, prevent the infiltration of Islamists into our political process, and open a real discussion of what Islam is. And, we want to do so while maintaining our real traditions of religious freedoms and individual rights.

An ominous ruling by Judge Campbell. Murfreesboro Tennessee will be the last straw, which will ignite widespread unrest, throughout the south. I hope I'm wrong.

"This is a great victory not just for the Muslims of Murfreesboro, but for people of all faiths. No house of worship should be kept from meeting just because the neighbors don't like their religious beliefs," said Luke Goodrich…

CORRECTION Mr. Goodrich, of the Washington-based fund.

This mosque is not a "house of worship" but a supremacist Political Power meeting-center representing 1400 years of Arab conquests and subjugation, of conquered peoples through genocide, enslavement and rape, murders that continue unabated into today, the 21st century in the world. This political power is not "religious beliefs" but a Foreign Power operating freely n our soil under the umbrella protection of Freedom of Religion, per our Constitutional First Amendment. Islam is a War Machine and should not be categorized a "religion" just because it claims to be.

Islam has had a world conquest imperative, since inception, to conquer and convert the whole world for Allah, as first formatted by the Third Caliph Uthman, a program it has assiduously followed for fourteen centuries; it was only interrupted by the fall of the Ottoman Empire to European forces a century ago. This world conquest imperative is now again revived, fueled with their ill gained petrodollars, into a neo-dream of the new modern Islamic Caliphate. The Murfreesboro mosque, like the Ground Zero mosque, are beachhead centers representing this Political Power seeking to establish itself in our free United States. They are a Foreign Political Power, and to support and aid such foreign power encroachments into our nation is to aid the enemy, an act of Treason.

So Mr. Goodrich, of the Washington-based fund, you are supporting a Foreign Political Power with intent of subduing and subjugating our US Constitution and nation to their world conquest imperative as dictated by the teachings of the Islam War Machine, to subjugate the American people, pay jizya taxes, and bow humiliating homage to the newly self-proclaimed designs of an Islamic World Caliphate. And that is supporting a foreign invading power, so not a "great victory" but an act of Treason.

Their law suits should be thrown out of court, and the issue investigated by the State Department for possible breach of US security, and Treason. State should be called on this by Congress.

Ah ... the Obama Department of Justice at work.

That would be the department of Racial Justice and Historical Retribution ... more commonly referred to around JihadWatch as Lawfare.

Meanwhile, Christians and those of other faiths in Muslim countries are regularly denied the right to build their houses of worship, to preach their religion of choice to Muslims and, in general, to be treated as equal human beings by Muslims. Both the hypocrisy and parasitism of Islam stink to high heaven. Only the ignorant or the complicit will assert otherwise. Ah, Islam is so repulsive.

"Are we supposed to blindly follow our laws while we are infiltrated by a religion dedicated to wiping out our freedoms and our way of life?"

Reminds me of this dialog from "A Man for All Seasons":

"So now you give the devil benefit of law!"
"Yes. What would you have me do? Cut a wide road through the law to get after the devil?"
"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that?"
"Oh, would you? And when the devil turned round on you, where would you hid then, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

The idea that, because Muslims deny religious freedom to people in their countries, we should deny it to Muslims in ours, reminds me of nothing so much as these words of G.K. Chesterton:

"[I]t is utterly wrong to employ the argument that we Europeans must do to savages and Asiatics whatever savages and Asiatics do to us. I have even seen some controversialists use the metaphor, 'We must fight them with their own weapons.' Very well; let those controversialists take their metaphor, and take it literally. Let us fight the Soudanese with their own weapons. Their own weapons are large, very clumsy knives, with an occasional old-fashioned gun. Their own weapons are also torture and slavery. If we fight them with torture and slavery, we shall be fighting badly, precisely as if we fought them with clumsy knives and old guns. That is the whole strength of our Christian civilisation, that it does fight with its own weapons and not with other people's. It is not true that superiority suggests a tit for tat. It is not true that if a small hooligan puts his tongue out at the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice immediately realises that his only chance of maintaining his position is to put his tongue out at the little hooligan. The hooligan may or may not have any respect at all for the Lord Chief Justice: that is a matter which we may contentedly leave as a solemn psychological mystery. But if the hooligan has any respect at all for the Lord Chief Justice, that respect is certainly extended to the Lord Chief Justice entirely because he does not put his tongue out.

"Exactly in the same way the ruder or more sluggish races regard the civilisation of Christendom. If they have any respect for it, it is precisely because it does not use their own coarse and cruel expedients. According to some modern moralists whenever Zulus cut off the heads of dead Englishmen, Englishmen must cut off the heads of dead Zulus. Whenever Arabs or Egyptians constantly use the whip to their slaves, Englishmen must use the whip to their subjects. And on a similar principle (I suppose), whenever an English Admiral has to fight cannibals the English Admiral ought to eat them. However unattractive a menu consisting entirely of barbaric kings may appear to an English gentleman, he must try to sit down to it with an appetite. He must fight the Sandwich Islanders with their own weapons; and their own weapons are knives and forks. But the truth of the matter is, of course, that to do this kind of thing is to break the whole spell of our supremacy. All the mystery of the white man, all the fearful poetry of the white man, so far as it exists in the eyes of these savages, consists in the fact that we do not do such things. The Zulus point at us and say, 'Observe the advent of these inexplicable demi-gods, these magicians, who do not cut off the noses of their enemies.' The Soudanese say to each other, 'This hardy people never flogs its servants; it is superior to the simplest and most obvious human pleasures.' And the cannibals say, 'The austere and terrible race, the race that denies itself even boiled missionary, is upon us: let us flee.'"

"So Mr. Goodrich, of the Washington-based fund, you are supporting a Foreign Political Power with intent of subduing and subjugating our US Constitution . . . "

Mr. Goodrich's organization was founded, and continues to be led, by Kevin "Seamus" Hasson, a faithful Catholic who no doubt has a historical memory that recalls how these kinds of arguments were made against Roman Catholics in this country. (I can hear the arguments now: "But those arguments are TRUE when they're made against Muslims." As if the First Amendment distinguishes between good religions and bad ones.)

"Why is a huge Muslim compound going up where there are very few Muslims?"

Maybe they've been tipped off by the State Dept that another 10,000 or so Somali "refugees" are going to be brought to the U.S. and settled there. Aren't there already quite a few of them in and around Nashville?

Look for hizzoner Campbell -- a big Algore supporter, appointed to the bench by Clinton -- to be nominated for the Appeals Court by Obama.

ImNoDhimmi:

So I take it you disagree with Chesterton when he says that "[i]f [the ruder or more sluggish races] have any respect for [Christendom], it is precisely because it does not use their own coarse and cruel expedients."

The Bloods Crips and MS-13 can be deemed religions with a definitional slight of hand.

Capital punishment for apostasy from Islam is a defining feature of Islam that transforms it from religion to something not protected as a religion. It is enough to deny recognition as a legal entity any and all Islam-based organizations. It can be that simple.

Capital punishment for apostasy is capital punishment for treason against the Ummah nation by another name.

If someone abandons American citizenship in favor of French citizenship we would not need to paint the particular convert as uniquely evil as a predicate to expelling them. Likewise a happy jovial Muslim convert can be (and eventually will be) expelled.

And, of course, the H.M.S. Wellington is in "general agreement" with RonaldB. What a surprise. With idiocy like this, we deserve to be mass-murdered and conquered.

we are past the tipping point and soon bho will give the brotherhood the keys. There is nothing we can do but kneel and submit to the islamist. They will rape out infant sons and stretch there own anuses with our teenagers penis's while we look on and praise the moon god. We are now paying for the sin and corruption of our country. God's blessings and protection have been lifted and the democrat, liberal, communist party of sin has their LBGT party at the planned parenthood fetus burning ceremony. Hooray for the USA.

This is just heartbreaking. We just can't seem to learn. We get kicked in the ass...then turn around and ask for more.

Just for the hell of it I went to a Human Relations Commission meeting here in Riverside CA. It was beyond disgusting. It wasn't like they couldn't find any real issues to address they had to actually make up some "pat yourself on the back" awards. In this case it was some kind of "heroes of the community" awards and "scholarships". I was hoping to meet the representitive from CAIR they have sitting on their board but no luck.

They talk about homeless and "multiculteral" issues and oh yeah! "Day of Inclusion". Wow! From the Riverside Multiculteral Council.

It was like a little clique. About twelve people sat around the table, ignoring me, I was the only citizen who attended, in their own little world... ...which I pretty much told them when my "three minutes" came for me to speak.

I asked them about their CAIR member. Mentioned their ties to terror and arrests. Asked if they were going to try and model their commission after the one in Canada.

I asked especially, while they had all this emphasis on minorities and the homeless, if they were addressing the fact that the courts were inflicting economic genocide on fathers for profit. That the courts and child support employees were actively and purposely destroying the two parent family for the purposes of their "cash cow" the created and made up "dead beat dad". "Islamophobia" isn't the only thing that's made up.

I asked what about the millions of black fathers that are left destitute because of "awards" that are far far more than most of them can afford to pay?

I never got an answer of course. And like before the meeting, they ignored me after the meeting. It was weird, I could almost SEE the affect my "voice of conscience" was having on them. They looked almost...subdued? Or I think it was seeing that they wanted to be anywhere but where they were at the moment.

Anyway it was crystal clear that members of the public are definately not something they want to see at their meetings. Let alone participating.

Well, it's late. And I'm rambling. (and tired. its 3:43 in the AM)I'll look at this in the morning and see how silly I sound.

Oh, and I also mentioned the fact that the three minute speaking limit they had on the agenda is a "tactic" to discourage people from participating in local government. It's an intimidation tool. Three minutes is obviously ridiculous and unreasonable. Like I said, I was the only one at that HRC meeting but I got the unmistakable impression that the limit woudl be strickly enforced as much as they tried to come off as a bunch of buddies at an "informal" meeting.

It appears that in the interest of "freedom of religion" they have the right to build the Mosque. In any case a person or company would also have the right to open an outdooor BBQ stand on one side of it and a liquor store on the other side.

Angus,

I'll make a bold prediction and say that you will not be denied.

Heavens no, Robert. Then we would "become like them" and we would have to live with all the shame and guilt of our actions as we nevertheless continue to progress on all levels including morally; just as we did in the decades after we did what we had to do to win WW2 against an enemy horrific enough but arguably less fanatical, less evil and less deadly in the long run than Muslims (for, no matter how wicked any individuals or groups may be, Muslims always find a way of manifesting a Satanic nadir heretofore unimagined).

In actuality, pace Entonces and his likely cherrypicked Chesterton, we could never "become like" Muslims in a million years -- even if we rounded them all up and beheaded them all; we would still be morally superior.

What than bunch of Fools and clown. First Islam is than religion of peace, many illeducurate muslum donot understand they own religion. The arya before the one that that say all who donot believe in Islam will goto hellfire say all religion founder by than messager of Allah is Islam, Jesus is than messager of God so his true religion is Islam.

I contend that Islam can be banned from treatment as a religion under the First Amendment so long as Islam recognizes that it is lawful for any Muslim to kill apostates from Islam.

Suppose the French declared that it was the duty of any French citizen to kill any former Frenchman who immigrated to the US and became a US citizen?

Islam can remain a label, just as we label Bloods Crips and MS-13. The labeling itself does not make it lawful.

If the articles of incorporation for the Democratic Party included a provision mandating that when they are a majority that traitors who leave the party are to be killed by another member then this would be a feature that would make it unlawful to grant legal recognition to the Democratic Party. The fact that capital punishment for traitors from Islam will not be killed in the US until after Muslims are a majority is not grounds to deny legal recognition today. Can any judge say that it is not an allowable governmental interest to ban legal recognition of any organization who's governing documents contains such a death for apostasy provision? Indeed, today, incorporation laws already prohibit recognition of entities who's governing documents advance unlawful ends. No statutory change needs to occur. All we need is legal recognition of the obvious, against a wall of PC idiocy.

Shall I seek to incorporate Death Cult Org. as a test case, as a membership organization, with a repugnant death for apostasy provision?

Does any organization have a religious right? No. From the opinion is this marvel: the "Islamic Center’s free exercise of religion".

The valid question is does the organization fit a statutory definition of religion, which can exclude organizations with offensive apostasy provisions -- a universally applied restriction on religious and non-religious organizations. (See Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145, for an attempt to define religion.)

Here 42 USC 2000cc is a statutory right, not a constitutional right, and thus the statute could also define and constrain the definition of institutions, religious or otherwise, that can invoke the statute. Demand amendment to exclude organizations prescribing death for apostates.

Heck, even the tainted UN makes a pretense of recognizing the right to change one's religion free from threat from anyone. Here in this case it is the United States of America, by name, that is promoting the acceptability of death for apostates from Islam.

"In actuality, pace Entonces and his likely cherrypicked Chesterton"

Here's the entire essay: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11505/11505-h/11505-h.htm#THE_ERROR_OF_IMPARTIALITY . Please feed free to show me how I've cherrypicked him.

"Very good point, that if a religion prescribes "death for apostasy', is it really a religion?"

Are you trying to suggest that the ancient Hebrews, who proclaimed the dictates of Deuteronomy 13:6–10 as divinely ordained, were *not* adhering to a religion?

This all boils down to a local zoning issue. The government can dictate where to put a Dunkin' Donuts and it is done by local boards comprised of citizens. Not enough Muslims/Dhimmis/free thinkers on the board? Too bad.

There is no carte blanche to build ANYTHING, even a religious structure, without zoning. If the mosque was being built absent permits, then it should be shelved.

The Feds, i.e. Holder, need to be ignored in the name of states' rights. Now that they weren't, we'll see a lot more mosques. This is not a question of reciprocity, "They don't have basilicas in Saudi Arabia." But it is a question of the rights of a community to elect representatives (republic form of government) to carry out their will.

Islam is using our own laws to defeat us. Allah and his Prophet and Messenger must be laughing their heads off.

Leave it to "Entonces" to respond exclusively to my least important point and ignore the rest. Typical troll.

The crucial important points are that a) Muslims follow an ideology of deadly sedition; and that b) we cannot tell, with reliability sufficient for our primary purpose of defending our societies from terrorism, the difference between the harmless Muslims (if, indeed, they exist) and the deadly ones.

All else is obfuscation -- either witless (as evidenced by many even in the "Counter-Jihad") or clever.

Like Israel,I believe we're beyond the point where we can afford the prospect of relying on others to do what we must do. I can assure you, Israel will not rely on us or anyone else to do, what they themselves have to do.

First and foremost, our house must be put in order. liberals and republicans alike, (our Citizens) must recognize that political Islam has an agenda, detrimental to our existance and the will to bipartisanly, do something about it. This is our greatest challenge, the rest is easy.

How can we fight an enemy, when we are enemies of ourselves?

The single biggest problem that devides our country is, "OUR PARTY, RIGHT OR WRONG" edict. It presumes and predicts outcome, weather it's RIGHT OR WRONG for America.

For the record, when I wrote above that the idiocy exemplified here (and elsewhere) about the problem of Islam makes me feel that we deserve to be mass-murdered and conquered by Muslims, that eminently reasonable outburst does not necessarily mean I actually think, and worry, that Muslims will succeed in their inveterately imperialistic desideratum. However, unlike Wellington and Battle of Tours among others, apparently, I have acquainted myself sufficiently with the mountain of data about Muslims and their Islam to come to the unremarkably reasonable (yet still rare) conclusion that what Muslims can and wish to do, and will likely do -- and already have done -- is horrific and deadly enough to justify our taking extreme measures against them ASAP.

I.e., Muslims (and, again, for the eternal sophomores among us, we cannot tell the difference, with reliability sufficient for the primary purpose of our self-defense, among the deadly and the ostensibly non-deadly Muslims among us), merely in trying but failing to succeed in their conquest-lust, will wreak unacceptable levels and kinds of violence throughout the West, unless we take effective pro-active measures. I expect that Wellington's leisurely diffidence would provide cold comfort to the grieving family members and friends of the thousands who will be mass-murdered (and tortured) by Muslims in the decades ahead -- not to mention those who already have been.

The "S" in our general Western memo's ASAP continues to be delayed by what Wellington referred to as our general ignorance of Islam (but yet again he fails to understand the subtlety of the situation, for it is not mere ignorance, but rather a more complicated problem resembling ignorance, which I have termed Quantum Ignorance, that is continuing to retard our Great Reawakening and recovery of our former rationality in this regard). And yet, Wellington's and Battle of Tour's remedy for this general retardation about Islam in their society is to help reinforce and perpetuate that retardation; and apparently one motivation for that is that they don't worry too much about Islam -- because they are only (or mainly) looking at Islam as a repellant ideology that they trust will someday soon be generally condemned in polite society; rather than as a psychocultural motivator for ultra-violence that has already resulted in an unacceptable number of horrific mass-murders and assorted tortures, along with an unacceptably escalating number of same, whose qualitative increase (let alone its quantitative increase) we can, and should, reasonably expect -- and damn well worry about, and try to stop.

But if people even in the "Counter-Jihad" aren't worrying about all the myriad violence which Muslims are perpetrating (and continuing to plot worse), nor worrying about how to stop it; then how on Earth can we expect the general, and generally numb, citizenry and its "elites" to ever stop hitting the snooze button and get the fuck out of bed and get to work on this?

Sounds like "The Final Solution" in reverse.

Also like classic overkill. Indiscriminate and disproportional, to say the least; in any case, immoral.

Absurdly, outrageously intemperate comments such as yours only serve to discredit this website and its worthy purposes. Stop!

You've stated your case quite well LemonLime, so much so that I too find myself among those who offer a less than convincing answer to your impassioned argument.

What I will say, is that we need to start uniting instead of deviding our citizens, in order to effectively, stop this scourge.

Respectfully,
Domenick

I don't remember anytime in my lifetime, or within 'recent' history going back, say a thousand years, of Hebrews stoning to death someone who tried to persuade a deeply religious Jew to change his or her religion. Did the MSM fail to report on it, not even in the gossip column? Yet, in Islam it is virtually daily news. So what's your point 99? Are Jewish 'apostates' stoned to death, per Deuteronomy 13:10? You have references?

The point was a very simple one: It's foolish to suggest that a belief system that calls for death to apostates is not a "religion," because if that were true, then the religion of the ancient Hebrews would turn out not to be a religion after all.

The point that the first amendment doesn't protect the killing of apostasy is a red herring. Of course it doesn't, just as it doesn't protect the practice of polygamy. (To that extent, the citation of United States v. Reynolds was correct.) But the *advocacy* of the death penalty for apostasy, like the advocacy of polygamy and even the advocacy of "the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" *are* protected by the first amendment, unless that advocacy "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.". See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (emphasis added; footnote omitted).