REASONS WE SHOULD SUPPORT ALLOWING THE MOSQUE TO BE BUILT
1. The First Amendment
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution declares that all citizens have freedom of religion.
More than that, the state constitution of New York also allows such freedom. In a country which, along with all its fifty states, has codified freedom of religion, all private citizens should be able to practice their religion freely, within the bounds of the law. Building a mosque is a prime example of private citizens, practicing their religion, within the bounds of the law.2. Private Property
Private property has been jealously guarded by Americans for centuries. As long as people are operating according to local laws and ordinances, they should be allowed to do whatever they want on their own, private property. To deny this right is to deny one of the fundamental - if not THE fundamental - principles of our country (remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing...). This includes building a house of worship.
3. Precedent
The group that wants to build this new mosque and community center has already been worshiping, in a mosque, on the same property, for years. This "new" mosque is basically a major expansion, not a new thing. Furthermore, another mosque exists just two blocks further from this site (4 blocks from Ground Zero), and this mosque predates the construction of the twin towers. Why has no one been protesting this mosque the last four decades?
ANSWERING COMMON OBJECTIONS
1. This is a Christian nation; we shouldn't be allowing mosques
This is a big issue, but I'll focus on the most important part. The vast majority of the Framers of the Constitution supported freedom of religion in society. Most of them would have personally identified with Christianity, but fought hard to make it legal for anyone, of any religion, to practice freely in the United States. This included Muslims, with whom they were all well-acquainted when they wrote the Constitution.
2. This is hallowed ground
Ground Zero should absolutely be set apart as a special place, a place of memorial, a place of mourning for our country.
No question. Building a mosque - or anything - on that property would not be a good thing.But the proposed mosque is NOT being built on Ground Zero; it's being built two blocks away, on different ground. Have you ever been to Manhattan? Need I list the other sorts of places which are only two blocks from Ground Zero which certainly do not qualify as holy...
3. This is just Muslims "rubbing it in," "twisting the knife," etc.
These Muslims tell us that they are trying to establish a peaceful place of worship, and a service-center for the community. If all (or even many) Muslims disputed this, and meanwhile claimed that they supported the 9/11 attack, this objection might be true (this, of course, assumes that you don't think that all Muslims are secretly liars and terrorists. If so, this sort of post is not going to work for you).
But we must remember: terrorists committed this crime, not Muslims. I know that they claimed to be Muslims, but it does not, therefore, logically follow that all Muslims supported this. If this logic held, we would have to blame the Catholic Church for the Oklahoma City bombing and Southern Baptists for the murder of abortion doctors and the bombing of abortion clinics (because the respective terrorists at those sites claimed those religions). Of course, this is ridiculous.
4. Saudi Arabia won't allow any churches. Why should we allow one more mosque?
You're right - Saudi Arabia doesn't allow Christians to build churches. That's because it's the law there. They also don't allow freedom of assembly or freedom of the press like we have. Again, it's their law. It may be wrong, but it's their established law. But our law guarantees freedom of religion for all, regardless of creed.
So be honest: Do you want to respect the law, or do you want your particular views on religion to be the law. Just be careful what you wish for.
5. This is not particularly wise, especially considering the timing.
This objection is the only one I've heard thus far that holds any water. Constructing the mosque may be legal, but it may not - may not - be wise at this time.
My only problem with this argument is that it has no expiration date. If you object based on this, I ask you - In your estimation, when will it be good timing? When will it be wise? If you answer "never," then the issue for you isn't wisdom; it's something else lurking beneath.
I would love to hear your comments. But please, be kind, and be on-topic.
11 comments:
As I've said before, the arguments focused on the constitutionality and legality of the issue are missing the point--as is the discussion focused on sensitivity.
What is at issue is the danger posed by a religiously pluralistic society. 'He who does not gather, scatters.' We are slipping into syncretism (as if we are not already there regarding our civil religion) and outright abandonment of the true faith.
Lastly, the widespread support for the mosque and Islam in general bodes ill for our society--especially for Christians. They are pursuing (and succeeding thus far) in conquering us through demographic warfare which, make no mistake about it, will result in the persecution and/ or outlawing of Christianity. Does anyone actually believe that, when they finally have the numbers, they will be so tolerant towards Christianity? One need only look at the theocratic caliphates around the world to answer that question.
To me, it has less to do with the civil religion aspects of Ground Zero's 'hallowdness' than it does with it being just another picket in the Mohammedan conquest.
Brian, I really appreciate the time you spent on this article. I think too often we don't look at the whole picture and only the corner we want to see. I think you did an excellent job of capturing the entire picture, the good, the bad and the ugly. Thanks again, Mike Methven.
THANK YOU, Brian, for this well-reasoned, well-spoken, even-tempered and loving argument articulating what should be the ONLY response to this maddening question. Those who call themselves patriots while simultaneously denying constitutional rights & freedoms to other citizens only succeed in perverting both the definition of patriotism and the spirit of our Constitution. Well-said, my friend. Write on. M.K.Irwin
Irwin sent this to me and I would say mostly a good set of arguments. The answer for the government ends at point 1 with the first amendment. That prevents all government action.
I have a couple of questions of clarifications I would suggest though:
I would like to see a source on the fact about the building being used as a mosque. As far as I have know the building was a Burlington Coat Factory retail store. From what I had read in the NY papers, on the morning of September 11 the staff was in a meeting on the lower level when the landing gear of the jets crashed though the several floors of the building (also why I think a claim that this as part of the wider "ground zero" can be defended). The structural damage was such that it needed extensive repairs and is why the group behind the Cordoba House was able to acquire it for a song.
I am not sure about the claim about McVeigh. He has been proclaimed a Chistian/Catholic by numerous speakers such as Louis Farrakhan and Atheist Don Baker. However, McVeigh was an agnostic at best according to his few interviews and according to his biographers often told friends “Science is my religion.”
Read this in the J-post today based on Cordoba being the first European city conquered and this was commemorated by the original Cordoba mosque. The editor ended it this way:
"The American people should build a huge Church near Ground Zero and call it the Tours Church. Why Tours? Because Tours is the French city where Charles Martel defeated an invading Muslim army in 732, thus halting the Islamic expansion to Europe. By doing this, Americans will not only show that they too know History. They will also prove to themselves and to the world that they've learned from it."
But the venom from many on this issue is sad and short-sighted.
@McRawley - Thanks for the read, and for the good comments. Let me address your couple questions.
First, I'll look for a source on the building being used as a mosque. I've read it in several places, so it didn't seem to me to be an issue I would need a source on.
Second, you make a good point about McVeigh. McVeigh spoke about his Catholic upbringing, but by the time of the bombing, he was more agnostic than anything. A much better illustration would have been something like blaming all Catholics for the pedophile-priest cases that have come out over the last few years.
Your post aligns with what I understood of your President's speech.
I think it true. Principles of "freedom" does not and should not prevent the construction of the mosque.
If your country is like mine, then it is probably because many feel the need to uphold Christian name and Christian values even though they don't want to be Christian themselves.
Alex: I don't know where I stand on this at present, but I certainly understand the negative public reaction, and I think people on both sides are reacting with a knee jerk and too ready to plant their feet in concrete. As usual, it's not that simple. There are several issues beyond those I've seen discussed. Here are a couple.
1. Radical Islamists are at war with us whether we accept that fact or not. They do not define Islam, but based on their significant influence among Muslims at large (recall the reaction on the streets of Jordan after the twin towers fell; the people there appeared to be ecstatic), their very significant numbers around the world including here in the U.S., and the fact that many moderate Muslims (including Rauf, the Imam of the proposed Mosque) have appeared to be sympathetic to or at least reluctant to condemn the views and/or actions of radical Islamists, we are foolish if we blind ourselves to the possibility that the people behind this building are more than just a beneficent religious group. Religious freedom does not extend to smoking peyote, and it certainly doesn't extend to sedition or incitement. The circumstances surrounding this -- location, timing (a Sept. 11, 2011 construction start date; please!), etc. -- smack of a victory dance in honor of the impending caliphate. Let's look into this.
2. The federal government recently denied the sale of a major port to a Dubai-owned company. No rights, including the right to private property, are absolute. Our governments forcibly purchase property under imminent domain and deny sales of property for various reasons including zoning, national security, etc. If it were determined that a potentially hostile foreign entity were behind the funding of this building (as the Saudi government is of madrassahs around the world), could this not conceivably be grounds to deny the sale and construction? Is it worth knowing where the funding comes from, or whether the Imam in question might be acting as an agent of a hostile foreign entity? I don't suggest this is the case, only that recent history in my view dictates deliberate consideration of the possibility.
Alex: I don't know where I stand on this at present, but I certainly understand the negative public reaction, and I think people on both sides are reacting with a knee jerk and too ready to plant their feet in concrete. As usual, it's not that simple. There are several issues beyond those I've seen discussed. Here are a couple.
1. Radical Islamists are at war with us whether we accept that fact or not. They do not define Islam, but based on their significant influence among Muslims at large (recall the reaction on the streets of Jordan after the twin towers fell; the people there appeared to be ecstatic), their very significant numbers around the world including here in the U.S., and the fact that many moderate Muslims (including Rauf, the Imam of the proposed Mosque) have appeared to be sympathetic to or at least reluctant to condemn the views and/or actions of radical Islamists, we are foolish if we blind ourselves to the possibility that the people behind this building are more than just a beneficent religious group. Religious freedom does not extend to smoking peyote, and it certainly doesn't extend to sedition or incitement. The circumstances surrounding this -- location, timing (a Sept. 11, 2011 construction start date; please!), etc. -- smack of a victory dance in honor of the impending caliphate. Let's look into this.
2. The federal government recently denied the sale of a major port to a Dubai-owned company. No rights, including the right to private property, are absolute. Our governments forcibly purchase property under imminent domain and deny sales of property for various reasons including zoning, national security, etc. If it were determined that a potentially hostile foreign entity were behind the funding of this building (as the Saudi government is of madrassahs around the world), could this not conceivably be grounds to deny the sale and construction? Is it worth knowing where the funding comes from, or whether the Imam in question might be acting as an agent of a hostile foreign entity? I don't suggest this is the case, only that recent history in my view dictates deliberate consideration of the possibility.
I totally agree with you and I am thankful for people who aren't getting all caught up in this. Tired of all the "1,000,000 people against a masque at ground zero" posts on facebook as well!
Very interesting, serene and well presented article. God bless.
"The true faith..." I favor interfaith dialogue and a respectful honoring of many faith traditions.
On the surface, religions bear their distinctions. In depth, we're heading in the same direction, give or take an Armageddon or two... a metaphoric rather than literal reality...
Post a Comment