Definition of phobia

  1. :  an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Merriam Webster Online

I wish I could say I was surprised by this story:

A LOCAL council has banned the construction of a synagogue in Bondi because it could be a terrorist target, in a shock move that religious leaders say has caved in to Islamic extremism and created a dangerous precedent.

The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places.

The Land and Environment Court backed the decision by Waverley Council to prohibit the construction of the synagogue in Wellington St, Bondi — just a few hundred metres from Australia’s most famous beach — because it was too much of a security risk for users and local residents.

And this story is a twofer for those who believe in liberty, because it’s a great example of Bureaucracy gone wild to wit:

Ironically, the council and the Land and Environment Court appeared to use the proposal’s own risk assessment and security measures in the proposed design — including using setback buildings and blast walls — as evidence the site was too much of a security risk.

Yet in a classic catch-22, the council also said if the design was changed to boost security this would be unacceptable because it would be too unsightly.

Or to put it simply, the steps you’ve taken to increase security at the site prove that it’s too much of a security risk to allow you Jews to worship here.

The folks at Elder of Ziyon says this is all about obeying the overriding rule of the middle east:

The entire history of Middle East peace attempts are based on this rule. Not international law, not justified claims, nothing like that. it is all a smokescreen to cover what the real imperative is: Don’t Piss Off the Muslims.

Newspapers, TV news and Hollywood have all enthusiastically adopted this rule above all others, using the excuse of “preventing Islamophobia.”

Editorial cartoonists and newspaper editors censor themselves because they embrace the rule of Don’t Piss Off the Muslims. Depictions of Mohammed, only forbidden under Sharia law, are now effectively illegal anywhere because of the rule, Don’t Piss Off the Muslims. 

President George Bush made sure that he fulfilled this rule by specifically going to a mosque while the World Trade Center was still burning and Muslims around the world cheering over the death of thousands of Americans, saying that “Islam is peace.”

Even the Prime Minister of Israel embraces this rule, removing non-obtrusive detection technology at the entrance to a holy site and severely limiting the freedom of worship of Jews and Christians there, claiming – exactly like the Australians – that undefined, nebulous security concerns are more important than basic human rights.

But the real reason is the rule: Don’t Piss Off the Muslims.

And if you judge by the attack/body count at Religion of Peace™ you might think that make a lot of sense.

But if you think about it, isn’t what the Bondi council ruling actually saying.

It’s saying that it is not possible to protect Jews in their community because Muslim Terrorist would target them

It’s saying that attacks by Muslim Terrorists are so much of a threat that the current residents of  the community can not be protected if Jews are worshiping nearby.

It’s saying that the  security measures taking by Jews at worship only confirm that Muslim Terror in Australia is a clear and present danger to the citizens in Bondi.

Maybe it’s just me but wouldn’t’ such assertions, by definition, be considered Islamophobic?

If I was a leftist I would organize protests, hold marches, and shout slogans against this.   I would enlist local Muslims and national known Imams.   I would condemn most strongly the decision of the council, I would stress that such a ruling implies a perception of Islam as something other than peaceful and that it’s imperative that said synagogue be allowed to be built, preferably without the extra security measures,  in order to counter the exaggerated, inexplicable and illogical fear of Islam , people who follow Islam and  so called “Islamic Terror”  which the west has defined as “Islamophobia”  has no basis in reality.

Because to do otherwise is a  public declaration to the world. that the “phobia” concerning Muslims and terrorism is not so irrational after all.


The Layoff bleg continues. with 5 days to go we’re $1515 away from the goal to make August dedicated to the blog, the new radio show (shows?) and events.

This blog is a venture in capitalism that depends primarily on readers. You can help finance this by picking up my new book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer is now available at Amazon

A portion of every sale will go to WQPH 89.3 Catholic Radio) or show your approval by Hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

and if you really want to help for the long term consider subscribing and get my book as a premium


Choose a Subscription level



And as I’ve said before if you can’t spare the cash we will be happy to accept your prayers.

Red Oak MosqueBy John Ruberry

It’s easy to dismiss Arsalan Iftikhar, an American Muslim human rights lawyer of Pakistani descent who uses the TheMuslimGuy handle on Twitter as something you’ll find under a rock, but the reality is far worse–the self-appointed expert who rails about Islamophobia is an eel living off of sewage.

The apologist for radical Islam, following up on Newt Gingrich’s comments that belief in Muslim law, known as Sharia, should be cause for deportation from America, eloquently but dishonestly tells readers on Time.com that there is nothing to fear about Sharia. In this defense, Iftikhar cites a New York Times Magazine article written by a Harvard professor, and a Yale professor opining in the Times proper.

Wow. I’m so not impressed.

In that Time piece about Sharia, Iftikhar doesn’t mention amputation as a punishment for thieves. But you’ll find it in Sura 5:38 in the Quran:

[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

If you are a Muslim, what do you believe more–what is written in the Quran or the New York Times?

Wife-beating was left out of Iftikhar the Eel’s treatise, but it can be found in Sura 4:34 of the Quran:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

That’s right, strike them.

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

I could go on and on, but I’ve made my point. But I do want to mention Taqiyya, an Islamic concept that permits believers to lie to infidels in order to advance the greater cause, which of course is the advance of Islam.

To be fair, many Muslims leave the Middle East to escape Sharia and its 7th century legal codes.

What about them, Iftikhar?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.