Chapel Hill, North Carolina — Calling Feisal Abdul Rauf an “imposter imam” who “would again victimize the families of 9/11” by building the Ground Zero mosque in Manhattan, retired New York City firefighter Tim Brown labeled the building a Muslim “victory tower” that should never be built at the site where nearly 3,000 people died.

Brown found a receptive audience for his comments at the Carolina Inn on Wednesday night, delivered as part of a free program offered by the Christian Action Network and ACT! for America.

About 60 people applauded in support of GOP U.S. Rep. Peter King’s congressional hearings on Islamic radicalism. They jeered to express their scorn over Rauf’s contention that the U.S. Constitution is Sharia law compliant. And they dabbed their eyes during the screening of the emotional documentary movie “Sacrificed Survivors: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque,” which focused on families of 9/11 victims.

Brown, a decorated first responder whose fire unit colleagues perished in the World Trade Center rescue, said the radical Islamic terrorists who “smashed the planes into the buildings and killed nearly 3,000 innocent people … have the same belief and same ideology as Imam Rauf, who is speaking across campus right now. They just have different ideas on how to impose that ideology in America, Sharia law.”

“Imam Rauf says the United States Constitution is Sharia compliant”, Brown said. “They fell for that in England. They fell for that in France, and they fell for that in Germany, and all three of them now say multiculturalism is a failure.”

Durham Herald Sun, 17 March 2011

Over the road at the University of North Carolina, nearly 600 people came to listen to Feisal Abdul Rauf speak. CAN and ACT! held a protest outside the lecture hall after the end of their own poorly attended meeting and a counter-demonstration was organised by the International Socialist Organization.

Shariah, or Islamic law, is like an infection that could quickly spread and undermine Missouri’s judicial system, and a proposed state constitutional amendment is the way to stop it, the bill’s sponsor told a House committee yesterday.

Rep. Don Wells, R-Cabool, said his measure, which has more than 100 co-sponsors, is like a vaccine. “Did you get a polio vaccine?” Wells asked during an exchange with Rep. Jason Kander, D-Kansas City.

“So Shariah law is like polio; it is a terminal disease?” Kander asked.

“Absolutely,” Wells said.

When making decisions, state courts shall “uphold and adhere to” the Missouri Constitution and laws, the U.S. Constitution and laws, and if necessary, the law of other states when guidance is needed. “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures,” the proposal says. “Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

Shariah law guides Muslims in food and moral choices, prayer and, when used as a judicial system, can result in harsh punishments. And radical Muslims want to force it on nonbelievers, Wells said. “Shariah law is being pushed right now,” Wells said. “A few weeks ago, there was a cleric pushing Shariah law, and he said that is what the law should be throughout the whole world. This is push back. … It is a statement that we don’t want this in Missouri.”

Under questioning from the outnumbered Democrats on the committee, Wells said he sees no reason why anyone would be offended by his bill specifying that a Muslim form of law was banned in Missouri. “I am not anti-Muslim, people, believe me,” Wells replied. “This is a protective law, opposed to an oppressive law. Do you not realize how oppressive Shariah law is?”

Vanessa Crawford, representing Missouri Immigrant and Refugee Advocates and several other groups, said the bill shows how little many Americans understand about Muslims living in their communities. “For American Muslims, what Shariah is is a prescription for course of action during daily life,” she said. “They are not trying to subvert the law. This bill does nothing except trying to score political points off of fear-mongering. And that undermines the basic values of American democracy.”

The committee did not vote on the proposal. The chairman, Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, said he was “taking it under consideration.”

Columbia Daily Tribune, 17 March 2011

‘Ground Zero mosque’ protest in August 2010

A State Supreme Court judge heard arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit meant to block development of Park51, the proposed mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. But he often seemed skeptical of arguments made by the plaintiff and suggested he did not want to challenge the authority of city administrators who had cleared the way for the controversial project.

The lawsuit was brought forth by the American Center for Law and Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based group that fights for conservative causes and has argued that a mosque near Ground Zero would be “deeply offensive to many Americans.”

An attorney for the ACLJ, Brett Joshpe, was joined in court by attorney Jack Lester, who represents the plaintiff, firefighter and September 11 first responder Timothy Brown. Arguing the other side were attorneys Virgina Waters, representing the city, and Adam Leitman Bailey, who represents Park51 developer Sharif El-Gamal.

Lester told the court that the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission had made an “arbitrary and capricious” decision when it declined to designate 45-47 Park Place as a landmarked building last summer. The address marks the location which will house Park 51, and landmarking would prevent developers from proceeding with their plans.

He also argued that the building, located two blocks from the World Trade Center, deserved to be landmarked because it had weathered the September 11 attacks, and because landing gear from the planes had dropped onto the building. “That building is a monument to that day because of what happened that day, because of its proximity,” said Lester.

Judge Paul G. Feinman, referring to a map showing buildings affected by the World Trade Center attack, noted that “a fair number” of buildings had been damaged. “Are every single one of those buildings to be landmarked?” he asked Lester.

One of the central issues of the lawsuit is the “standing” of the plaintiff, and whether he is in a position to bring a challenge in a neighborhood where he neither works nor resides. According to the complaint, Brown “is an American hero whose courage and bravery on September 11, 2001, exemplifies the American ideal.”

But Feinman suggested the connection between Brown and 45-47 Park Place was insufficient. “It’s not like he went into this building to carry out a rescue operation,” said Feinman.

In his closing arguments, attorney Bailey, who represents El-Gamal, said “the 800-lbs. gorilla in the room is freedom of religion,” and argued that the ACLJ’s true aim was to block construction of a mosque.

WNYC, 15 March 2011

The Associated Press reports that a Christian prayer on the Minnesota Senate floor on Monday made non-Christian members of that body uncomfortable. Pastor Dennis Campbell’s prayer was highly Christian, as opposed to the nonsectarian prayers that were commonplace under DFL control.

“We pray, lord, that you help us show reverence to the Lord Jesus Christ,” Campbell prayed. “Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our savior, we pray.” That prayer sparked non-Christian members of the Senate to cry foul, the Associated Press reports.

Rep. Arlon Lindner, instead of acquiescing, attacked those members. “You know, we’re told there’s one God and one mediator between God and man. That man is Jesus Christ. And most of us here are Christians. And we shouldn’t be left not able to pray in the name of our God… And if you don’t like it, you may have to like it. Or just don’t come. I don’t come sometimes for some prayers here… We have that privilege, and you need to exercise it. But don’t impose your irreligious left views on me.”

Following that statement, an ethics complaint was filed against Lindner, one of many in his career in the Minnesota Legislature.

Pastor Campbell came under fire for religious intolerance last summer when his church took out ads in the St. Cloud Times. “What happens when Moslems take over a nation?” asks Campbell in the ad. “They will destroy the constitution and force the Moslem religion on the society, take freedom of religion away, and they will persecute all other religions.”

The ad also said, “Moslems seek to influence a nation by immigration, reproduction, education, the government, illegal drugs and by supporting the gay agenda.”

He later said he is not a racist and that he was simply trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Minnesota Independent, 15 March 2011