Even if erecting the mosque is insensitive to the pain of 9/11, the Constitution doesn't require people or groups to be sensitive to others' concerns in order to enjoy religious freedom.
The American media, and to a lesser extent the world media, focus on symbolism at the expense of underlying reality. And sometimes they can't even make sense of the symbolism. The artificially generated controversy over a proposed mosque within about two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks is illustrative of this ignorance.
The "liberal" media, which can't pass up a chance at controversy, has allowed conservatives, who often claim to be defenders of Philadelphia freedom, to shriek that this is not an issue of religious freedom but one of callousness and insensitivity in putting a mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center. The conservatives, however, were certainly leaning on government to use its power to prohibit the building of the mosque using zoning rules, a clear violation of the founders' intent to ban any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
Meanwhile, liberal President Barack Obama, in speaking about the mosque, first defended religious liberty, implied that opposition to the mosque violated such freedom, and then later seemed to back off by saying that he wasn't commenting on the wisdom of building the mosque — just defending the right of a construction permit. Another liberal, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, also defended religious freedom theoretically, but insisted that the mosque should be built somewhere else. These comments flung the door wide open to conservatives to use public pressure to preempt the building of the mosque.
Yet conservative opposition to building the mosque is based on ignorance. Even if erecting the mosque is insensitive to the pain of 9/11, which I would argue that it is not, the Constitution doesn't require people or groups to be sensitive to others' concerns in order to enjoy religious freedom. For example, some Christians hold Jews responsible for killing Christ, but that does not preclude Jews from worshiping freely in the United States. Furthermore, the mosque is being proposed by the Cordoba Initiative, which is dedicated to improving Western/Islamic relations and promoting interfaith dialogue, and the leading person behind the project is from the most liberal and tolerant group in Islam, the Sufis. Lastly, two long-standing mosques are already in the neighborhood of "ground zero."
Some proponents of building the mosque argue that mainstream Muslims should not be punished for the actions of militant Islamists. Since zoning laws or public pressure have not been used to prohibit the construction of evangelical Christian churches near the sites of abortion clinic bombings, these advocates have a good point. Moreover, not allowing this mosque to be built, whether because of government zoning restrictions or mere public pressure, could help radicalize moderate Muslims around the world. Muslims around the world pay close attention to how American Muslims are treated, because they fear a "war of civilizations" between the Christian and Islamic worlds. When they hear Newt Gingrich say that the mosque would be an example of Muslim "triumphalism," they are fearful of such a cross-civilizational conflict or may be more likely to become radicalized and say "bring it on."
Most important, stifling the construction of this mosque would further add to the delusions of the American public about the causes of the 9/11 attacks. Radical Islam had less to do with those attacks than retaliation for long-standing American meddling in and occupation of Arab and Muslim countries. At the time of the attacks, those delusions were fostered by then-President George W. Bush, who, while professing that he wanted no war against Islam, blamed the attacks on al-Qaeda's jealousy of American freedoms (you know, the ones opponents of the mosque are trying to subvert). Osama bin Laden's adamant denial of Bush's assertion, and the al-Qaeda leader's repeated statements that American intervention in and occupation of Arab and Islamic countries motivate his attacks on the United States, have not yet penetrated the psyche of the American public. Neither has empirical research done by Robert Pape from the University of Chicago, which shows that suicide bombing has a lot less to do with religion and more to do with throwing out foreign occupiers (especially democratic occupiers).
So the media's and public's attention to trivia, such as the creation of a third mosque in the neighborhood of "ground zero," crowds out a national discussion that is sorely needed about why terrorists are heinously attacking the United States in the first place. Perhaps then the contributory negligence of the U.S. government would be exposed to its own people, and an unnecessary, outdated, expensive, and dangerous interventionist foreign policy would be reined in.
Republished with permission from the Independent Institute.
If we were intent on denying the religious freedom of Muslims, the other three mosques wouldn’t exist in NY and neither would any of the others in the U.S.
Since zoning laws or public pressure have not been used to prohibit the construction of evangelical Christian churches near the sites of abortion clinic bombings
Setting aside the fact that you are equating the planned and coordinated hijacking of 4 airliners and their subsequently being flown into 3 buildings that resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 people with anti-abortion violence that has resulted in the deaths of 8 people in the United States, do you have any examples of cases where an evangelical church was constructed within 2 blocks of an abortion clinic bombing, or is this a fabrication and a red herring?
Muslims around the world pay close attention to how American Muslims are treated, because they fear a “war of civilizations” between the Christian and Islamic worlds.
Regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not, most Muslims around the world do not “fear” a “war of civilizations” – they believe that they are already engaged in such a war, whether it manifests itself as literal conflict through terrorism or as spiritual and cultural conflict with secularism, and that they are on the side of the literal creator of the universe. It is you, sir, who is ignorant of the tenets of Islam and routinely demonstrate it by ascribing secular rationalist motivations to Muslims, including terrorist organizations and terrorism-supporting nations.
I would add that an oft-overlooked fact in this case by the people who argue from a property rights perspective is that half the land that this mosque and “cultural center” is proposed to be built upon is owned by the local public utility and will be perpetually leased to the group behind the planning and construction of the mosque. This is not being built on “private property”, and leases of public land to private organizations are routinely revoked in response to political or social pressure. Philadelphia, for example, decided to revoke its lease of a building to the local Boy Scouts of America chapter, built and paid for by the Boy Scouts and donated to the city in exchange for free use of the land in perpetuity, due to the Boy Scouts organization’s policy forbidding membership by gays, resulting in a 7 year legal battle.
Leonard and Amy Peikoff have also written an Objectivist defense of opposition to the planned mosque, addressing the property rights of the builders of the mosque, which are summarized here and here.
Patrick Mulligan:
Mega dittos!!!!
Sorry, but the “war of civilizations” is already here. Of course, we can distinguish between Muslims who plan and carry out acts of war against the US from those who do not. However, I find it impossible to believe that the building of the mosque will not be seen, in much of the Islamic world, as a triumph of Islam, a successful penetration of American society. If the Imam and his associates who want to build the mosque truly want their action to amount to a gesture of reconciliation, then they will not build the mosque close to Ground Zero. I think it’s really that simple.
As to that ‘war,’ it is difficult for most Americans to understand that Islam as such, as the religion it is, exists in a state of war against the US and all other parts of the Dar al-Harb (the ‘House of War’= all parts of the world not Islamic). The ‘war’ is built into the doctrines of Islam. Most American Christians who seek conversion of the rest of the world to Christianity envision conversion as a process of showing or persuading non-Christians to accept the true faith. Islam, of course, can and has spread this way, but conquest is also a legitimate path for Islam, to an extent that has never been true for Christianity. Of course, the Islamic ‘war’ has its militants (‘Islamists’) and its not-so-militants (Muslims who can and do live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors).
How many such militants are there in the Islamic world? 10%? 15%? Whatever the number, that adds up to a lot of people who want us to go Muslim and install sharia. If American can’t understand this, then we are in trouble.
The Crux of Leftist Hypocrisy
On his TV program, “Life Is Worth Living,” Bishop Fulton Sheen once posed the question, “Where are your sox?” To answer that question, we in the West turn to reality to determine the truth of where your sox are and conclude that they are in your dresser drawer. Communists [and Leftists in general] would answer, “Wherever the party says they are!”
So it is with any question; in this case, who has religious freedom in the U.S.? To the Leftists, it is whoever the “party” [i.e., their ideology] says. Did the pope cover up sex abuse scandals? Did Bush cause Katrina? Was 9/11 and inside job? Do individuals have a right to own guns? Is the human fetus a person?
If it [whatever “it” is] fits their ideology, it is true; if not, it is false. As Selwyn Duke once said, “Ideology isn’t rejected when it conflicts with their truth; truth is rejected when it conflicts with their ideology.”
The primary function of Leftist altruistic, selective arguments of religious freedom, “separation of church and state,” free speech, gun ownership, the person-hood of the unborn, etc. is to conceal that fact.
Gestell:
Re: “…it is difficult for most Americans to understand that Islam as such, as the religion it is, exists in a state of war against the US and all other parts of the Dar al-Harb (the ‘House of War’= all parts of the world not Islamic). The ‘war’ is built into the doctrines of Islam.”
If the natural state of the world is perpetual war between Islam and the rest, then the question has not been adequately addressed of whether Islam is a true religion.
reply to sedonaman:
Your final sentence reflects a typical American belief that I think needs to be questioned if the US is to understand Islam. You assume a premise instead of offering evidence to support it: that any ‘religion’ must resemble an idealized version of Christianity and teach only peace and love. If a belief system fails to resemble Christianity, then, by definition, it is not a religion.
Of course, you can hold whatever opinion you want about such things, but I’m urging that you consider the possibility that a belief system can (a) be a religion and (b) incorporate permanent war into its doctrines. War is not absent from the Jewish and Christian traditions. Consider the wars God sanctions and supports in the Old Testament. And, while there have been relatively few examples of Christians waging wars that involve their religion, such have happened. Consider the forced conversions of Jews to Christianity in Spanish history, or the forced conversions of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas by the Spanish. So, no Western religious tradition is completely blameless.
However, Islam requires that the entire world become Muslim. Persuasion and conversion are great, but conquest is also permitted and encouraged. The logic Islamic rulers and theologians have used is this: once any non-Muslim people or nation has heard of Islam, then it is obligated to convert. If it does not, then it is in a state of offensive war against Islam, and Muslims are justified in waging what amounts to a defensive war. This thinking explains why we occasionally read of some imam talking about a Western ‘war’ against Islam today. So, in Islamic terms, we are in the wrong when we persist in being Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. To hear Islam correctly is to know it is the true faith. To deny this is to wage war against God himself.
Gestell:
I reject the suggestion that a religion can “incorporate permanent war into its doctrines” unless it is the type [spiritual warfare] discussed by Fr. John Corapi.
The Golden Rule predates both Christianity and Judaism. It is found in ancient Egypt as far back as 2000 BC and the Code of Hammurabi [1800 BC]. Obviously, things in a category or class must all possess at least one common characteristic, so a religion would have to resemble Christianity [et al], in at least one respect, and I suggest it would be the Golden Rule.
Then there is the whole matter of truth. Islam claims to have the truth. But where is the truth in treating believers one way and non-believers another? What, if anything, is true about Islam? This analysis http://www.biblestudying.net/islam1.html rejects Islam because it contradicts itself.
I think you have made my case here. If Christianity didn’t exist, this would be enough to disqualify Islam since your statement shows it refuses to accord non-believers what it demands for itself, IOW, fails to acknowledge the Golden Rule.
While it has been argued that Islam has incorporated the Golden Rule, closer scrutiny shows its application has been between believers only, otherwise why is “conquest permitted and encouraged”? Would Muslims like to be conquered? Obviously not.
Another thing: Understanding is a two-way street. I don’t see Muslims rushing to “understand” the West.
reply to sedonaman,
I think you put far too much emphasis on the Golden Rule; unless you believe it to be something given to man by God, then it is, at best, an anthropological/cultural generalization. Why assume that every nation, every culture, believes in it? I make no such assumptions about even our own society, let alone that of Islam. Why assume that all religions must believe in it?
A devout Muslim would have absolutely no problem defeating your argument that Muslims refuse to accord to non-believers what they insist upon for themselves. The simple answer is this: The true God has commanded those who are truly followers of him to make the world Muslim. Why should non-believers be given any special status at all? Many Islamic theologians refuse to grant even the label of ‘religion’ to any belief that is not Islam. At best such so-called ‘religions’ are horrible errors, made by persons who, if only they knew the truth, would give up their fables instantly.
As for Muslims ‘understanding’ the West, many Muslims believe they understand it only too well: a collection of non-believing societies and peoples who should know the truth, but will not acknowledge it. God has made his will very plain on what needs to be done, and that is why I say that war is a fundamental premise of Islam.
Gestell:
“I think you put far too much emphasis on the Golden Rule; unless you believe it to be something given to man by God, then it is, at best, an anthropological/cultural generalization.”
Mafiosos have said they are legitimate businessmen. Does that make the Mafia a legitimate business? What you have said here is the same as saying the law puts far too much emphasis on honesty for a business to be legitimate.
“Why assume that every nation, every culture, believes in it? I make no such assumptions about even our own society,…”
I never assumed anything of the sort. We are discussing what constitutes a religion.
“Why assume that all religions must believe in it?”
There has to be something common among the class we call “religion”, just like there is something common in everything we group into a class. And I chose the Golden Rule. You have something better in mind? If so, what is it, and why did you choose it?
“A devout Muslim would have absolutely no problem defeating your argument that Muslims refuse to accord to non-believers what they insist upon for themselves. The simple answer is this: The true God has commanded those who are truly followers of him to make the world Muslim.”
And I would have no problem defeating his argument: Who told him that? His mother? His father? His imam? Who told his mother/father/imam, as the case may be? If we extend this question all the way back, the answer ultimately is Mohammed. And how did Mohammed know? Why, he’s the prophet. And who said he is the prophet? Why Mohammed, the Bootstrap Prophet, did. And so they make more “true” followers by waging war on them until they submit? Like I said, where is the truth in Islam?
“Why should non-believers be given any special status at all?”
The Golden Rule does not ask for special status for anyone, only the same treatment you would like for yourself. Muslims claim to believe in Judeo-Christian scripture. Fine. Genesis says that man is made in the image and likeness of God. This is the level that we are all the same and is where we get the idea of equality. Where does the Bible say that God created humanity and divided it into Muslim and unbeliever? In one of my debates with a Muslim, she said they were told not to say that man is made in the image and likeness of God … and probably for good reason: they wouldn’t be able to rationalize mistreatment of infidels.
“Many Islamic theologians refuse to grant even the label of ‘religion’ to any belief that is not Islam. At best such so-called ‘religions’ are horrible errors, made by persons who, if only they knew the truth, would give up their fables instantly.”
I am willing to grant religion status to belief systems that are not Christian. If they have the truth, then their theologians should have no problem proving it is true.
“As for Muslims ‘understanding’ the West, many Muslims believe they understand it only too well: a collection of non-believing societies and peoples who should know the truth, but will not acknowledge it. God has made his will very plain on what needs to be done, and that is why I say that war is a fundamental premise of Islam.”
And who are they to judge others? This is why war is a necessary component of Islam – because it can’t convince dar al harb the truth of its message.
And that is why I say Islam is not a religion, true or otherwise.
reply to sedonaman:
One of the things that drives me crazy about conservatives is their bizarre belief that we nasty liberals are restricting anyone’s freedom of religion. As a factual matter, the answer to your question of who has religious freedom is answered by the occurrence of the worship services of Jews, Christians of all sorts, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Now I know you probably don’t believe this, but there really is not some liberal high command that prevents religious believers from worshiping. So show me some evidence for your claim or stop making it.
As for the question of whether the pope covered up sex abuse scandals, again, this is a factual matter. Those who believe he did can point to evidence, as can those who reject this claim. The issue is not settled. Evidently, you can’t consider this an acceptable answer. Now as far as Bush causing Katrina, I can’t think of any liberal who has said that. Even the wackiest of my fellow liberals don’t believe Bush could start a hurricane and aim it at New Orleans. Actually, this one sounds more like some right-wing looney rather than a left-wing looney. Now as for the right of individuals to own guns, there are very, very few liberals who would contest that. What many liberals do think—and this is what you really object to—is that there should be strict regulation of the availability of guns . As a practical matter, the Supreme Court has settled the issue for now, and I’m surprised you haven’t noticed.
Was 9/11 an inside job? Again, which liberals claim this? Do you find the writers for “The Nation” and “The American Prospect”—liberal magazines—making this claim? Are there congressional Democrats who make this claim? I doubt it. I do know that there are at least 16 Republicans in Congress who don’t believe Obama is an American citizen. Now on to the human fetus. The pro-choice position is usually argued on the basis that the foetus should not be regarded as a person until after some specific point in fetal development. Pro-choice liberals argue about where this point is. What most liberal pro-choicers will not agree to is the doctrine, maintained by most conservative anti-abortionists, that the rights of the person begin with either conception or at some point very early in development, like the blastocyst (look it up). For most liberals, this is absurd. And so the debate goes on, and there is really no plausible compromise.
So, you posted a typical piece of conservative boiler-plate, as full of holes as the target on a Marine firing range. You have to be able to bring more than that.
Was 9/11 an inside job? Again, which liberals claim this?
Alan Grayson, Democrat representative from Florida, for one. Former White House green jobs advisor Van Jones, for another. Five term former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, for another. Also Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Code Pink co-founded Medea Benjamin, prominent “celebrity liberals” Ed Asner and Janeane Garofalo, and many other lesser-known liberal academics and activists.
Now as far as Bush causing Katrina, I can’t think of any liberal who has said that. Even the wackiest of my fellow liberals don’t believe Bush could start a hurricane and aim it at New Orleans. Actually, this one sounds more like some right-wing looney rather than a left-wing looney.
I haven’t heard that exact argument made by anybody. However, Hillary Clinton sent out a blast email during her presidential campaign in 2008 attributing Katrina in particular, and powerful hurricanes in general, to global warming caused by George W. Bush’s environmental policy. On HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Spike Lee responded to Louis Farrakhan’s contention that the levees in Katrina were intentionally sabotaged by the Bush government by saying it was “not far-fetched”. One contends that Bush’s environmental policies caused the storm and the other contends that the Bush government caused the bulk of the damage done to New Orleans as a result of the storm. Hillary Clinton, Louis Farrakhan and Spike Lee aren’t generally known to be “right-wing looneys”.
Those quotations were mostly tangential to Sedonaman’s overall point, but since you wanted to hammer on them, there you have it. I’m sure it is shocking – shocking! – for you to hear this, but there are lunatics among “you liberals” just as much as there are on the evil right.
I think the real point Sedonaman was making was whether a religion in which warmaking is an integral part should properly be afforded the rights, as well as privileges like tax exemption, of a “religion” as discussed in the constitution. If, as you contend, war is integrated into the philosophy and world view of Islamic theology, and it consequently views itself as being “at war with” the West in general and the American government in particular, then acknowledging it as a legitimate expression of religion is certainly a valid question, is it not? There has been a long standing debate about whether certain religions like Rastafarianism who violate federal drugs laws in the practice of their religion are entitled to claim such protections and exemptions. Certainly a religion whose theology, by your estimation, may be subversive, or even treasonous at worst, should be open to the same type of questioning as comparatively minor drug law violators, no?
Patrick Mulligan:
Re: “Those quotations were mostly tangential to Sedonaman’s overall point, but since you wanted to hammer on them, there you have it.”
Yes, I think he missed my point entirely. Thanks for your help.
Gestell:
My main point was not to open debate on other issues but to show that liberals determine truth by checking with their party ideology, not with reality, as was captured in Duke’s quote. I’m surprised you missed it completely. As far as boilerplate is concerned, the only quotes I used were two short ones from Bishop Sheen and Selwyn Duke; the rest were my own thoughts derived from their observations. Since liberals have made freedom of religion a claim in support of the GZM, let me add that you have a somewhat limited concept of it, consisting only of being allowed to attend the house of worship of one’s choice, or not attend any, as the case may be. This is typical liberal, for they cannot conceive of an individual being allowed to express his religious views [especially Christian] in a
traditional public forum.
In addition, I used the above point to imply that liberals came out all for “freedom of religion” as an excuse to built the GZM and how ironic it is since liberals have for decades waged war against free exercise of Christianity. The ACLU is a salient example, for they are on an endless quest to tie so much as a single government dollar to anything that can remotely be Christianity. They don’t mess with Islam, of course. Ex: They have yet to file a lawsuit for the government’s paying the GZM imam’s trip to Egypt. Hence my term “selective arguments”.
My other main point is whether Islam is a religion. As Patrick Mulligan states, it is a valid question for reasons given. He observes that “…it consequently views itself as being ‘at war with’ the West in general and the American government in particular…” At the risk of repeating myself, this is private warfare, which is a war crime according to the International Law of Armed Conflict. Only nations are allowed to wage war. And what Islam is doing is also genocide as defined by international law:
Do legitimate religions engage in genocide?
According it “the rights, as well as privileges like tax exemption, of a ‘religion’” is a minor consideration. It should be recognized for the international criminal organization that it is, hiding behind a claim of “religion”, Bush’s “Great Religion of Peace” notwithstanding.
For some reason, the “traditional public forum” link didn’t go through. Here it is: http://www.bsalegal.org/access-to-government-forums-cases-223.asp