Steve Hayes latest to cover up?conservative attacks on Muslims’?religious freedom
On Fox News Sunday, Steve Hayes joined a long line of commentators whitewashing conservative attacks on Muslims’ religious freedom by falsely claiming that “[n]obody’s making the argument” that the organizers of the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan “don’t have the constitutional right to do it.” In fact, opponents have advocated using government intervention to restrict construction of the center or have asserted that the planners don’t have a right to build it at the proposed location.
Hayes latest to claim “[n]obody’s making the argument” that Park51 doesn’t have the “right” to be built
Hayes: “Nobody’s making the argument that they don’t have the constitutional right to do it.” On the August 22 edition of Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard columnist Steve Hayes falsely claimed of criticism of the Park51 project: “Nobody’s making the argument that they don’t have the constitutional right to do it. Nobody’s making that argument.”
Hayes joins long line of conservative pundits pushing that claim. Numerous conservative media figures have similarly claimed opponents of the project have not talked about restricting Muslim’s religious freedom, such as Fox News’ Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and ;Peter Johnson Jr., as well as National Review Online, blogger Pam Geller, and theWall Street Journal editorial page.
But Park51 opponents have advocated for government intervention to stop construction of the center
NY gubernatorial candidate said he would appoint commission members who oppose plan to build the community center. As NRO’s Josh Barro noted, “[C]onservative figures have continued to push creative ideas to throw red tape at the mosque.” Barro highlighted New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio’s pledge to appoint members to New York’s Public Service Commission who oppose the community center and would block the sale of the property to the center’s organizers.
Opponents wanted landmarks commission to prevent project from advancing. The New York Times reported on August 3 that “the project received its final city approval when the landmarks commission voted 9 to 0 to deny granting historic protection to the building in Lower Manhattan where the $100 million center would be constructed.” The report noted:
Opponents, who have turned out in large numbers to speak out against the plan at public hearings this summer, seemed resigned to losing the vote, and few showed up to protest. After the commission voted, scattered members of the audience shouted “Shame on you!” and “Disgrace!” One woman carried a sign reading, “Don’t Glorify Murders of 3,000; No 9/11 Victory Mosque.”
The New York Observer reported that Lazio appeared at the hearing to “urge the commission to grant landmark status” to the building currently at the site and “he acknowledged that this discussion must take place in the context of the proposed mosque.”
ACLJ filed lawsuit to block construction of center. After the New York City Landmarks Commission voted that the building at which organizers plan to construct the community center did not qualify for landmark status, Newsday reported that the conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) “argued in papers filed in New York State Supreme Court that the commission’s decision was invalid because it violated its own rules and procedures in part by failing to allow sufficient public input.”
Wash. Examiner: “Can there be a higher civic purpose than preventing construction of a Muslim propaganda and recruiting center so close to the murder site of 3,000 Americans?” In an August 13 editorial, The Washington Examiner asked, “Can there be a higher civic purpose than preventing construction of a Muslim propaganda and recruiting center so close to the murder site of 3,000 Americans?” The Examiner further stated:
Local governments everywhere in America routinely regulate location and construction of religious facilities without impinging on the First Amendment right to worship. There are also volumes of federal, state and local historic preservation laws that could be invoked to force GZM to a different site. We hope Bloomberg accepts Newt Gingrich’s invitation to debate this issue. Maybe then the mayor will explain why he disdains historic preservation of the area immediately around the site of the worst domestic attack in American history.
Wash. Examinerop-ed: “The federal government has at its disposal dozens of land preservation methods that could delay or even halt development of the Islamic center.” In an August 11Washington Examiner op-ed opposing the community center, Cheryl K. Chumley wrote that “[t]he federal government has at its disposal dozens of land preservation methods that could delay or even halt development of the Islamic center.” From the op-ed:
Instead of decrying, condemning and reproving, politicians like Rep. Peter King, D-N.Y., who called the mosque project “particularly offensive,” have opportunity to take action.
The federal government has at its disposal dozens of land preservation methods that could delay or even halt development of the Islamic center.
King, for instance, could introduce legislation extending the National Memorial designation currently affixed to the World Trade Center Site and in so doing, have a say in future development. Congress and the interior secretary could set the wheels in motion to preserve the property under the Historic Sites Act of 1935, a federal code that allows the National Park Service to “restore, reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve and maintain” properties of historical significance.
Or, Congress could introduce legislation to expand the boundaries of the coincidentally close-by Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, or NHA, a preservation tag that runs from New York City to Albany.
Opponents have also claimed that community center organizers don’t have a right to build it at planned location
Gingrich: “Nazis don’t have a right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum” … “There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.” On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich said that “[p]eople have the right to free religion if they want it. I’ve said it openly, if they want to build this mosque in the South Bronx, I’m all for it.” He later stated: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”
Sekulow: “[Y]ou don’t get to build a mosque on a site that’s part of Ground Zero.” On the July 22 edition of Fox News’ Hannity (accessed via Nexis), the ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow stated his opposition to the Islamic community center and said, “[Y]ou don’t get to build a mosque on a site that’s part of Ground Zero.”
Limbaugh: “[T]he Constitution does not guarantee you can put your church anywhere you want it.” On his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated: “If you’re going to bring the First Amendment into it, that’s where your argument’s going to fall apart. There are 23 mosques in New York. The government — the Constitution does not guarantee you can put your church anywhere you want it. It just says you cannot be denied the practice of worship.”
Richard Land: People “have the right to have these mosques” but “don’t have the right to have them any particular place they want them.” On Public Radio International’s To the Point, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land stated that people “do have the right to have these mosques. Now, they don’t have the right to have them any particular place they want them. You know, the Supreme Court in the [City of] Boerne [v. Flores] decision said that a Catholic church couldn’t expand because of the objections of the historical district that it would bother the historical nature of the town square in Boerne.”
![Share This icon](http://static1.firedoglake.com"/plugins/share-this/images/share-icon-16x16.gif"){kind=icon}
