August 19, 2010--Nazis Again

You know that someone is on thin ice, desperate, or being demagogic when he trots out any Nazi analogy to make his case.

By doing so he reveals he has run of ideas or logic.

Nazis should only be mentioned when talking about real Nazis. The ones who caused the Second World War, perpetrated the Holocaust, and killed tens of millions of people. Not those who hold opinions with which you disagree.

So when disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich the other day lowered himself to compare what might be going on in downtown Manhattan regarding the planned Islamic cultural center and prayer space (as opposed to “mosque”), it was transparent even to legitimate Republican conservatives such as Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan that something was spinning out of control with Newt.

They speculated it might be ambition--to position himself to the right of everyone already scrambling for the Republican presidential nomination for 2012; or greed--to show he could be as outrageous as Rush Limbaugh and might thus be hired for big bucks on Fox News or for a radio talk show of his own. He is after all married to a third or fourth wife and has to pay alimony to the previous ones he egregiously abandoned.

From the New York Times, here's what Gingrich said:

“There is nothing surprising in the president’s continued pandering to radical Islam,” he said. “What he said last night is untrue and inaccurate. The fact is this is not about religious liberty.”

Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”

(Full article linked below.)

To show he's smarter than other GOPers such as Sarah Palin he used one of those fancy words du jour--"triumphalism"--and to show he's an alleged professor of history he evoked the Nazi era.

Scarborough and Buchanan are of course right. This previously-failed GOP presidential contender is not only giving it one last try before slinking further toward irrelevance; but even about the historical facts--something he used to pride himself about knowing--he is wrong.

The proposed mosque, which is not a mosque, is not at all about Islamic “triumphalism.” In fact, the lead person behind it is a moderate and envisions it as being a place for intercultural activities, not just things Islamic, including a small place for prayer.

And Moslems are far from being Nazis as Gingrich’s slimy quote suggests. Yes, there are too many who are engaged in a perverted form of jihad and want to bring down everything Western; but the vast, vast majority of Moslems, including virtually all the millions who live here and are American citizens, are more the victims of this form of fanaticism than we. Many, many more Muslims have been slaughtered by these terrorists than were murdered on 9/11.

Then, of course, self-proclaimed constitutional scholar Gingrich is conveniently ignoring his 1st Amendment which was enacted primarily to preserve and protect the rights of minorities in the United States to practice (or not practice) their religion against the potential dictates of the majority.

Exactly what we are seeing now—Gingrich and his under-the-rock colleagues are doing exactly what their revered Constitution set out to forbid: denying religious rights to those with whom they disagree.

That cherished 1st Amendment, as it pertains to religion, says—

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The “establishment clause” portion was included to insure that governments here not be allowed to subsidize a state-sanctioned religion. Not a Church of England, as in England, or, as in the case of six U.S. states when the amendment was ratified, one form of Protestantism or another.

And then the so-called “free exercise” clause was intended to protect the rights of individuals to worship, or not worship, in any way they choose. Minority faiths above all were to be protected.

So I guess while Gingrich and his ilk are busy trying to repeal the 14th Amendment (the one that defines what it is to be a U.S. citizen—to deny citizenship to the children of non-citizen immigrants and residents) they probably should add repealing the 1st Amendment to their to-do list. Or minimally stipulate that we already have enough mosques in America, as has been claimed by some on the lunatic right.