Browse By

Hallowed Ground?

Sarah Palin, Harry Reid and their right wing allies say that a Muslim community center and mosque must not built in Manhattan because the area around where the World Trade Center used to be, because that area is “hallowed ground”.

Hallowed? I’ve been wondering what that word really means. Is it like Halloween, that holiday when people like to dress up in costumes, and grown women wear outfits like Sexy French Maid or Slutty School Girl?

If that’s what the anti-mosque crusaders mean by “hallowed ground”, then maybe they’ve got a point. Consider, for instance, this photograph taken by Daryl Lang, of the New York Dolls Gentleman’s Club, which has been built an equal distance from the September 11, 2001 “Ground Zero” as the proposed Muslim community center.

I bet there are some very hallowed costumes to be found in there.

17 thoughts on “Hallowed Ground?”

  1. Tom says:

    Any burqas there?

  2. Jacob says:

    Id be OK with this going away as well

  3. Bill says:

    I’m ok with the mosque near ground zero..On the opposing corner of the street, I prefer a giant golden statue of George Bush be erected..He should be extending his middle finger and gazing toward the heavens. Caption: “Up your Allah ass!” God bless America. In no other country can complete insensitivity and lack of empathetic soul be protected by a document intended to promote tolerance, respect, and love our differences.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      Bill, the Constitution is not intended to promote respect and love. It’s intended to protect liberty and set rules for the nation.

  4. Melissa says:

    You do realize that the Hallowed Ground quote reached Obama’s lips as well?

    “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground, but..”

    1. J. Clifford says:

      It’s not the place of the President to declare where sacred ground exists, or to promote observation of such religious observances. He’s not Guru in Chief. I wish that Obama and Reid and Palin would all take a moment to remember the First Amendment, and cut the religious sermonizing from their speeches.

  5. Kevin says:

    It’s the site of one of the finest false flag operations to ever succeed. I think that deserves our respect.

  6. Bill says:


    I’m talking about the spirit of the document. “Rules” and “rights” become rather trite when the torch of liberty is extended by the Lady with no moral compass to guide her. A society minus civil regard and sensitivity thy neighbor puts a heavy burden on any intent the meaning “freedom”. What Constitution can protect a man without constitution?

    1. J. Clifford says:

      Bill, there is no moral “spirit” of the Constitution. It’s a legal document. It says what it says, and to suggest that the Constitution somehow secretly includes the idea that liberty needs to be restrained to accord with what makes the whiny majority unhappy is contrary to the clear promises the document makes.

  7. Bill says:


    You’re spinning. I’m not talking about a whiny majority. Freedom is most constrained when we glass case the Constitution and forget the underlying fact that we should strive to relax the grip on liberty by striving to be tolerant our differences.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      No, Bill, it’s you who’s spinning. The Constitution is not a moral document that tells people how they SHOULD act. It doesn’t tell people that they should have tolerant personalities It’s a legal document that restricts what the government can do, establishes certain government powers, and promises the people that certain liberties will be protected. It’s absolutely consistent with the Constitution if individuals choose not to be tolerant of people who are different from them – just so long as those individuals don’t grab government power and impose their intolerance on the system.

  8. Bill says:

    I merely think that freedom can be corrupted. And you are right, the Constitution is not a moral document. May we flourish in a land desensitized to any act proceeded upon with decency in heart. And I doubt any fireman or policeman that entered the burning twin towers could be viewed as imposing their intolerance on the system. Saving a life at the risk of your own has very little use for the supreme “legal document” and I’ve yet to see a Constitution that extends liberty to a dead man buried under a hundred stories of rubble. In god we trust a few good men protect what most take for granted.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      I’m sorry to be blunt in saying this, but what you wrote doesn’t make sense. You want us to flourish in some land that is desensitized to decency? I don’t get it. Who’s accusing firemen of imposing intolerance? No one accused firemen of violating the Constitution, but actually, firemen DO depend upon the Constitution, because their organizations depend upon a general civic culture that can only be healthy when democratic culture fostered in liberty is strong.

      Your final sentence doesn’t even have sensible grammar. What’s your point?

  9. Bill says:

    It’s sarcasim, Clifford. I must say that I’m very impressed by the promptness of your responses. I work midnights and upon returning home from work early this morning I posted the comment that made no sense. I rarely do make much sense. I shut my computer down and went to sleep. I took in about 3 hours shuteye and turned my computer back on with pure astonishment that you had responded 14 minutes after my 5:25am post. Hope I’m not keeping you awake. Are you a sports fan? My point? I guess you got hung up on the “tolerance, respect, and love our differences” in my initial comment. I don’t mean to sound moralistic…Instead of “love” maybe I should have used “embraced the uniqueness our varied beliefs”..? The Constitution is an unbiased document. And though failing in eloquence of expression, I’m thankful to live where those liberties are protected and the Bill of Rights honored even in the face of gross insensitivity, malcontent, and complete lack of the same unifying spirit that brought our Founding Fathers together to guide us along the pathway of the ever-evolving melting pot of tolerant(and intolerant) inhabitants that can choose to spit in the face, or kneel in grace, while living in the breast of her American freedom.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      The Constitution doesn’t call for the embrace of anything, and the Founding Fathers certainly didn’t have a unifying spirit. They waged war against Native Americans and enslaved African Americans, and engaged in duels and generation-long arguments with each other, and created the conditions through regional rivalries that set the foundation for the Civil War.

      Americans are free to have whatever attitudes they want, embracing or non-embracing. THe Constitution sets up a government that stands apart from such individual matters of conscience.

      I think that this point is essential, because of the arguments people make that it’s more important to make sure that people are “nice” or “appropriate” than to make sure that constitutional rights are respected. When it comes to government, and candidates asking to join the government, it’s the constitutional rights that matter more.

      When government power is used to try to enforce a code of “appropriate” or “nice” behavior, the process is always inappropriate and rarely nice.

      As for time, well, I believe in the odd clock nature of our web site’s logo. Regular sleep doesn’t happen for irregular writers.

  10. Bill says:

    “embraced the uniqueness our varied beliefs”..I believe that means the freedom to have “whatever attitudes they want”. And I think a statue of George Bush extending his middle finger to Allah’s ass would be a fine example of thinking whatever I want.

  11. Bill says:

    Just wanted to say I enjoyed your thoughts on the Constitution. Thanks for engaging. I stumbled upon your blog while clicking on your great football shots..(maybe that explains the “are you a sports fan” question). Hope you don’t mind a nonsensical nincompoop coming back to Irregular Times to be enlightened. Seems like an interesting refreshment stand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!