Obama’s DOJ Sues Small Town for Nixing Rezoning Plan to Build Mosque
The Obama Justice Department is suing an Illinois town for denying a rezoning application to convert an office building into an Islamic temple. Anywhere American law and Islamic law conflict, it’s American law that has to give way.
Islamic supremacists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations like CAIR have once again called upon their running dogs at the Department of Justice, to impose the sharia and usurp American law for Islamic law. The DoJ has become the de facto legal arm of terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood groups in this country. What small town can go up against the U.S. government’s vast resources and endless taxpayer-funded muscle?
In a striking violation of the establishment clause, Obama’s lawless administration is imposing the Shariah nationwide, allowing the rampant construction of rabats and jihad recruitment centers at a time when we should be monitoring the mosques and restricting construction of Muslim Brotherhood beachheads and Islamic State madrassas.
I describe this stealth jihad in my book, “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”
It is time to repeal RLUIPA. It has long been abused by Islamic supremacist groups to construct beachheads, mega mosques tied to jihadist groups in small tiny neighborhoods.
Millions of Muslims come to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government, and establish parallel societies based on Islamic law. Back in 1999, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) provided enhanced religious liberty protections in two specific situations: the use of land for religious purposes and religious liberty claims by prisoners passed. RLUIPA gives churches and other religious institutions “a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.” Ironically, it was legislation largely backed by Republicans, and was meant to scale back on the enormous implications of previous legislation passed under “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” during the Clinton administration. Like most legislation the government passes, the law of unintended consequences comes back to haunt us in spades. The original intent behind the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” while applied to all religions, was “most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. In Native American religion the land they worship on is very important. Often the particular ceremonies can only take place in certain locations because these locations have special significance.”
By introducing this religious accommodation into law, the Republicans paved the way for the Islamic supremacists to destroy our freedoms and individual rights. The genie is out of the bottle, but RLUIPA ought to be repealed.
In passing these sweeping laws there was concern that “while intended to safeguard the core constitutional principle of religious liberty, could undermine another fundamental constitutional concern, that of ensuring equal protection under the law.” Well, it has and it did. Religious liberty for all? What if a religion is supremacist is steamrolls over the rights of non-believers, oppresses women, calls for the annihilation of Christians and Jews ….”
The movement should be led by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) who introduced in the Senate as S.2869 by on July 13, 2000.
“DOJ Sues Town for Nixing Rezoning Plan to Build Islamic Temple,” Judicial Watch, October 2, 2015 (thanks to Christian):
In its latest effort to protect Muslim rights in the United States the Obama Justice Department is suing an Illinois town for denying a rezoning application to convert an office building into an Islamic temple.
Failing to approve plans for the Islamic worship center violates a 2000 law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit filed this week in federal court. The accused are lawmakers in Des Plaines, a Chicago suburb with a population of about 60,000. In 2013 the Des Plaines City Council voted 5-3 to reject a rezoning request made by the American Islamic Center (AIC) to make a vacant office building in a manufacturing zone to an institutional zone that would allow a worship center.
The plan called for 3,661 square feet of worship space that would be used for prayer services on Fridays and Sundays as well as nightly prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan when Muslims fast and commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad. The new temple would also be used for youth group events and other gatherings, according the rezoning application. In nixing the plan, Des Plaines aldermen expressed concern about the loss of tax revenue since religious institutions are nonprofits that don’t pay taxes. They also cited traffic and safety issues for voting against the project.
In its lawsuit the DOJ dismisses those issues and claims that the city’s “treatment and denial of AICs rezoning requests constitutes the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on AICs religious exercise.” Denying a city zoning change to accommodate a Muslim temple also discriminates against the Islamic group on the basis of religion, according to the feds. Attorney General Loretta Lynch wants the court to issue an order forcing Des Plaines to let AIC construct its worship center in the city.
“The ability to establish a place for collective worship is a fundamental protection of the First Amendment and our civil rights laws,” said Vanita Gupta, head of the DOJ’s bloated civil rights division, in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “The Justice Department will remain vigilant in its mission to ensure that all religious groups enjoy the right to practice their faiths freely.” The federal prosecutor handling the case in Illinois said “the freedom to practice the religion of one’s choosing is a precious right in our country” and the DOJ will continue to “enforce the laws that protect this important right.”
The DOJ’s enthusiasm for protecting Muslim rights is in a class of its own, however. Back in 2010 Obama’s first Attorney General, Eric Holder, personally reassured Muslims of DOJ protection during an address at a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations. It was a first for the nation’s top federal prosecutor to publicly condone illegal behavior. A few years later the DOJ warned against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims and threatened that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.
One of the biggest and most unbelievable moves by the DOJ came in 2012 when it issued a broad order changing the way the U.S. government trains federal agents to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) actually destroyed instructional material that characterized Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism and hundreds of pages from the 9/11 attacks were purged because they were considered offensive to Muslims under the new initiative. In 2013 Judicial Watch published an in-depth report documenting and analyzing Islamist active measures and influence operations targeting anti-terrorism training in the U.S.
*Article by Pamela Geller