Newt Gingrich on the NYC mosque

Overview

Just as I was updating my previous criticism of Newt, I discovered that he had said more things for which he deserves criticism, and that would be what he has said about the Muslim community center and mosque scheduled to be built a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City.

I will have plenty to say about that general topic in the next few days, but what I will say next will give you a good idea of my views...Newt Gingrich is so full of shit. His statements about the Muslim community center and mosque are complete bullshit and show what a bombastic, self-serving douchebag he is.

Too strong to start? Well, too bad.

This will be the first of three posts on Newt's dumbass statements on this matter.

Newt's first bullshit statement

Let's start with this gem from Newt:

There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

Where to start? There are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. And here's why:

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy in which Islam is the official religion. Although no law requires citizens or passport holders to be Muslim, almost all citizens are Muslims. Proselytizing by non-Muslims is illegal, and conversion by Muslims to another religion (apostasy) carries the death penalty, although there have been no confirmed reports of executions for apostasy in recent years.

In other words, "Religious freedom [in Saudi Arabia] is virtually non-existent." And that is not going to change. You see, the ruling family in that Islamic theocracy, the House of Saud, has long had a more than close relationship to the Wahhabis, the extremely fundamentalist Sunni Islamic sect. As stated in this Frontline timeline,

1744--The Holy Alliance

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of "Wahhabism," an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to "pure" Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab's austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab's followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. But in 1818, forces of the Ottoman Empire sack the capital, Riyadh, and execute many of the religious and political leaders. Over the next eighty years the Al Saud attempt to reestablish their rule on the Arabian Peninsula without success.

1902--Abd al-Aziz and the Ikhwan

In 1902, a direct descendent of Muhammad ibn Saud, twenty-year-old Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, rides out of the desert with 60 of his brothers and cousins to restore the rule of Al Saud. He captures Riyadh, the ancient capital of the Saudi kingdom, but to conquer all of the Arabian Peninsula, he seeks the help of nomadic Bedouins, the Ikhwan, or Muslim brothers. Renowned warriors, the Ikhwan are also fervent Wahhabi Islamic puritans who want to spread their form of Islam throughout the Middle East.

1924-25--Abd al-Aziz Captures Mecca and Medina, Crushes the Ikhwan

With the Ikhwan by his side, Abd al-Aziz captures province after province of the vast desert. He captures Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925, becoming the ruler of the Two Holy Cities of Islam.

*******

1932--The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud declares himself king and gives his name to the country: Saudi Arabia.

In other words, the House of Saud gained power and created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because of the alliance with and assistance of Wahhabis. And that alliance continues today. Put another way, if the House of Saud were to try to end this alliance, the House of Saud would likely no longer rule. The Wahhabis will never want other religions in Saudi Arabia, and that means the House of Saud will never want other religions in Saudi Arabia. Freedom of religion is not going to exist in Saudi Arabia.

Consequently, Gingrich's statements are utterly meaningless.

Even if there was any possibility of religious freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, Newt's statement would not do anything to help cause that. You see, there are already lots of mosques all over America (due to the fact that we already have freedom of religion). So why would the House of Saud want to end its autocratic grip on religion just so one, and only one, more mosque could be built in America? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And there is another reason why Newt's statement makes no sense. Essentially he is saying "O.K., Saudi Arabia. Until you have some religious freedom, we are going to restrict our freedom of religion."

What a douchebag.

Newt's second bullshit statement

Right after his first bullshit statement Newt said this:

The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

I'll say it again: We already have freedom of religion. That means that any religion in this country can make just about any kind of demands it wants. It does NOT, however, mean that we as a country have to submit to those demands. For instance, one religion could demand that we as a country restrict our freedom of religion. I doubt seriously that we as a nation would submit to such a demand. I'm not so sure about Newt. After all, as shown above, he has already shown that he is willing to restrict freedom of religion in the case of the Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero. One could make the argument that it seems that Newt is implying that we as Americans are not strong enough to stand up to demands from specific religions. Oh why does Newt hate America by thinking we are weak?

Newt is the one using a double standard here. By tying his "double standard" claim to the Muslim community center and mosque, he is saying that America has freedom of religion--but that the group of Muslims who want to build the community center and mosque do not have complete religious freedom. So, Newt is saying there is one standard for everyone in America--except these Muslims in New York City.

Again, what a douchebag.

Newt's third bullshit statement

From the same screed:

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca.

(emphasis in original). Newt is basically right on the facts. There are numerous mosques in NYC (in fact there is one just a few blocks from Ground Zero). And non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca.

And those facts have absolutely NO bearing on freedom of religion in THIS country. Again, we already have freedom of religion here. What does or does not happen in Saudi Arabia does NOT change that fact. Thus, for Newt's statement to make any sense at all, his term "Those Islamists" would have to apply to the Muslims in New York City that are seeking to build and use the proposed community center and mosque. I'd wager that many of those people are not Saudis but rather Muslim-Americans. And as Muslim-Americans, they are guaranteed freedom of religion because that's the way we roll in America. The lives and rights of Muslim-Americans are not determined by the House of Saud or Wahhabis. They are determined by American laws and the American Constitution.

Let me put this another way. The issue is not religious toleration around the world. The issue is religious toleration in THIS country. And THIS country is the ONLY country to determine that issue. What happens in Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to the right of Americans to religious freedom. Apparently Newt thinks that actions by other countries should have some influence on what we do here.

Again, what a douchebag.

As I said in my previous post, this whole matter is really about the First Amendment and American freedom of religion. Newt's statements focus on circumstances in another country which cannot possibly have an effect on our Constitutional rights. Newt's statements do not support the First Amendment right of religious freedom--his statements seek to limit that freedom by suggesting that it is dependent in some way on foreign countries and by utilizing a double standard.

And I'm just getting started on Newtie...