we are before this court this morning, upon hearing of lawyer mommar ratsazzi's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order sought of behalf of plaintiff imam al-waki.
lawyer ratsazzi has filed copious briefing before this court, ... , while, as per usual, the attorneys for the municipality of new orleans have done little except avail themselves of every whim of plaintiff, ... , and has made lengthy argument before this court why it should change its cracker mind, ... , attorney's ratsazzi's characterization of the court, for which previous summary adjudications on contempt have been entered and terms administered.
the gist of attorney ratsazzi's remarks and arguments, to the extent i am capable of lending logic and credance to them, seems to be that this society, indeed, this civilization which has come to exercise its influence over this little part of the world, should exercise great deference to islam, and where in conflict with islam, should give way to the dictates and wishes of islam.
the lawyer for plaintiff argues that freedom of speech and freedom of religion insist, nay, demand that this be so. but, he makes no cogent argument as to why islam is entitled to such deference as he demands, within the context of our domestic law. cuz, is about as good as he comes up with. and, cuz, does not persuade me why the wishes of one group, recently come to these shores, should have superior thrall over the views which already predominate in this society. is the tiger, simply to lie down before the lion, and expire, and give up his place in the sun?
quite frankly, i do not see it this way. freedom of speech and religion, to my mind, have always held in intellectual thrall, the notion that in matters of value, and politics, and in religion, this society is a free and open market place to competitive views, and that legislatures and courts and governments shall not interfere nor cast favor to one religious impulse to the detriment of the other. the right to compete does not confer the right to dictate, or to seek unfair subsidy or advantage, nor to apply the influence and power of the court against one for the advantage of the other.
in short, i do not see in the texts that lawyer ratsazzi cites any stricture that one civilization give way to another in the interest of the intruding or johnny come lately view of the world. quite frankly, i find the good lawyer's assertions repugnant to my view of things. he wants islam's way in the world, let islam earn it, and not seek to have the earning conferred upon it by idiot judges.
lawyer ratsazzi, his client the imam, and islam shall not simply march in here, and demand to run the show. and, western civilization is under no burden to give way to islam, nor more than ford may demand market concessions and advantages over chevrolet in that market place.
finally, we have the interests of a free citizenry. that citizenry is free to live by its values, values it has honed over century and millennium, values for which wars have been fought and blood shed, and values that have established their predominance fair and square. this citizenry is under no obligation, and plaintiff establishes no obligation under the law, that the citizenry abandon values it holds to and which have won their hold. this citizenry has not to give voluntary sway or pay obedience to other values, not of its choosing, nor will this court impose the same upon them.
in short, none of the deference to islam and imam al-waki sought by plaintiffs is warranted under any law with which i am familiar. in this court, we apply the domestic law of this municipality, and of this state.
motion for reconsideration denied. orders to that effect shall be entered, forthwith.
john jay @ 04.21.2011
Comments