What a lot of disappointing commentary.
You have to distinguish between issues of law/rights and issues of prudence. What do the families of the victims think, what do those in New York think should be crucial questions to be answered if they choose that site to build a Mosque on at this particular time. In theology, there is a principle of subsidiarity–those closest to a problem issue are often best equipped to handle the decision about it and the responsibility for it–KSH.
The key word is in the second paragraph: “think” We need to use that word instead of “feel” which is the norm today. How you feel about something is interesting, but it is a terrible way to make decisions. Thinking is harder and often painful when it tells us that our quick “gut feeling” is wrong, however right it “feels.”
I do get alarmed when Americans clammer to deduct from or dilute the liberties vouchsafed in their Constitution. In an odd way it plays into the hands of those who do not take its language seriously and treat it in the same manner as revisionists do Holy Scripture.
And if one is to persuade a group to re-think a plan which, while constitutional may be inopportune, the worst way is to attack them or question their patriotism.
I am alarmed by the mean-spiritedness of what passes for conservative or traditionalist opinion nowadays, and my alarm springs from the depth of my own natural conservatism and traditionalism. Now if a mosque were to appear near the 9/11 site dedicated to peace and reconciliation, a sort of voluntary atonement, then I could see no objection.
WVParson, I agree with you. I spent a long while in the middle east where both Jews and Muslims equate Christian evangelism with the crusades. I wonder how many of the many christians on this site would call for an end to evangelism or the cessation of the building of churches in culturally sensitive lands such as Israel or Saudia Arabia?
We know that Muslims, Jews and Christians died in the world trade center. And yet we will single out peaceful muslims who explicitly reject violence and espouse peace and interfaith dialog (http://www.slate.com/id/2264046/) from praying and exercising in the area. As Christians we are called to go the extra mile. When one of our enemies requests our coat, we are to give our shirt also. Where we are slapped on the one cheek we should be opening our lives and homes to them. Instead we blame the blameless and small-mindedly besmirch our witness.
Someone likened the current situation to Germans wanting to hold an Oktoberfest in an area that had had an Aryan Nation attack. This man sees no irony in conflating the actions of innocent, peaceful Germans with the few thugs. This is exactly what the Germans did to my ancestors in Germany: they found a bad apple and blame all those with the same skin color or religion.
How can the comments being made come anywhere close to being Christian?
And in response to Kendall’s question:
“What do the families of the victims think, what do those in New York think should be crucial questions to be answered if they choose that site to build a Mosque on at this particular time.”
I’m assuming you are including in your question the muslim families of victims in 9/11?
RE: “I do get alarmed when Americans clammer to deduct from or dilute the liberties vouchsafed in their Constitution.”
Zoning issues have long long been locally decided — I have no problem with NYC deciding these things based on what they locally want — and that is *thoroughly* Constitutional.
RE: “I am alarmed by the mean-spiritedness of what passes for conservative or traditionalist opinion nowadays . . .”
Really? I’m not.
Nor do I see much if any mean-spiritedness.
What I don’t know and you don’t know is whether the Muslims who want to build the mosque there are innocent peaceful Muslims. Would you expect them. if they were not, to admit it? Those innocent peaceful muslims sound very much like those committed monogamous homosexuals that TEC is always promoting, these are an advertising gimmick. Remember “The first time shame on you, the second time shame on me? ”
Do a few bad apples spoil the barrel? Sure. But how do you tell the apples before they’re in the barrel – which is presently the case? And after the spoilage, are the rest corrupted? You throw out the whole barrel of necessity. Think: Put a few bad apples in that mosque, and what will likely happen? Can you think of a few bad apples?
The Constitution here is irrelevant, believe it or not. The Constitution is NOT meant to take the place of social norms or cultural icons.
The most interesting part here is the President (the State) telling everyone what they must do with religions. The First OUGHT to make sure he keeps his mouth shut. Larry
Incidentally, I don’t find the commentary here disappointing as Kendall does. It has seemed to me measured and diverse. Larry
Sarah wrote:
“Zoning issues have long long been locally decided. I have no problem with NYC deciding these things based on what they locally want—and that is *thoroughly* Constitutional.”
In a few months, on this site, we’ll read an article about a zoning board, probably in California, which denied a church the right to build. Much wailing and nashing of teeth will ensue, and people will approve of lawsuits against the town. …And no one will see the rank hypocrisy.
Someone recently commented that Americans are great civil libertarians — but only when it comes to their own civil liberties. They want to subjugate the freedoms of others (think gamblers, pot-smokers, gay marriers, and now muslims.)
I thought this was an excellent and very thoughtful statement by a former U.S. Navy officer, medical doctor, and Muslim:
And interesting information here on two mosques already in lower Manhattan that no one is protesting. From the post:
Local zoning ordinances cannot violate the First Amendment. New York City cannot permit, say, Trinity Wall Street and St. Nicholas Orthodox Church to build where a Muslim group cannot.
Larry Morse, #6, you’re engaging in dangerous logic when you say that “some Muslims are dangerous, and these are Muslims, how do we know they’re not dangerous?” That’s language that has been used before — for example against Japanese Americans in WWII.
There is NO documented link between this Imam and his followers, and the 9/11 terrorists. A shared religion is not a link, or we would all be apologizing for Westboro Bapstist Church.
Has anyone looked at what [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_a_sea_of_filth_near_ground_zer0_mosque_gets_all_the_press_but_porns_around_corne.html]else[/url] is in the neighborhood?
Branford’s link at #9 is very helpful.
The calls for toleration, discussion and interfaith dialogue have a hollow ring to them.
The day that Saudi Arabia (believed to be the source for funding) allows the construction of a Christian Church *anywhere* in their nation is the day I’ll take the stated “interfaith” intentions of those Muslims pushing this mosque seriously. (In fact, I’ll even settle for de-criminalizing possession of a Bible…..) They can’t seek peaceable discourse in the USA while at the same time violently suppressing other faiths in their own back yard.
And as to “religious freedom” – yes, I’ll agree that it would be wrong to prohibit construction of a mosque at the proposed “Ground Zero” location just because it is a Muslim facility. And in the name of multiculturalism and freedom rights on private property, I also strongly support the construction of a pork barbeque restaurant and gay bar adjacent to the proposed Mosque, because that would be a demonstration of the same degree of sensitivity and respect that supporters of the Mosque are showing to the USA and the families of the 9/11 victims.
What is legal and what is proper are two entirely different things, and this is a perfect example of that concept.
Uh Clint, do you really want the US to model it’s religious freedom laws after Saudi Arabia’s? That’s a bad standard — if we go down that route, the terrorists really do get what they want. You say “They can’t seek peaceable discourse in the USA while at the same time violently suppressing other faiths in their own back yard” but you realize that the leaders of this project are not Saudis, right? They are Americans.
Clint and Larry, I am curious: what is the difference between:
One black man raped a white girl, so all black men are potential rapists, not to be trusted.
And
Twelve fanatics destroyed a building murdering thousands, so all muslims are freedom hating, potential terrorists.
I am curious also as to how even one such as Kendall advocates subjecting the freedoms of completely unrelated, innocent people to the whims of the victim’s families, knowing full well that these families are struggling to overcome grief, hatred, and bias. Kendall, in law we would call this a stacked jury.
Dear people, I am someone who still feels the loss of several college classmates and two career colleagues, as well as a neighbor’s son, all of whom perished either in the Towers or on the crashed airplanes on 9/11. And I know the pain felt by at least one New York Fire Dept. family for the loss of several of their men on that day. Nevertheless, it makes no more sense to believe that Islam attacked the United States on 9/11 as to believe that Judaism attacked the Weimar Republic. It was not a religion that brought about Ground Zero and the flights that crashed in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, but some conspiring nut jobs with evil destructiveness in their minds and hearts. Therefore I am embarassed and outraged that any American, faithful to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, is critical of the development of the proposed Islamic cultural center in Lower Manhattan. The best of Islam – its emphasis on the sovereignty of God and egalitarianism, compassion, and charity among all people – deserves to be taught and promoted in New York City just as it deserves to be taught and promoted everywhere else. What’s more, if you have recently walked the street two blocks away from Ground Zero where the Islamic center wishes to open and know what else is already around, you will surely agree that the Islamic center will certainly improve the neighborhood.
Should I be able to build a Shinto shrine near the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor? Sure, but would it be the right thing to do?
There are two problems that bother me about this argument. It is a blatant infringement of property rights. The other issue i have is what I call the tyranny of the suffering. That is allowing a group that suffers license to infringe the rights of others for example banning peanuts and balloons because on lost a kid to allergies, Prohibitions because of a drunk driver, or in this case 9/11 attacks.
Umbridge, did you know that thousands of Shinto Japanese Americans fought the Japanese in WWII. Did you know that they were recruited right out of the concentration camps where they and their families were imprisoned because, as you seem to imply, “shinto” = “murderous, slant-eyed Japs.”
As Christians we are commanded not to bear false witness. Accusing or punishing an innocent, unrelated person for another’s crime is sinful.
The question above is ludicrous. Neither the religion of Shinto, nor Japanese culture, planned and carried out the Empire of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
I am disappointed that Kendall found our prior commentaries disppointing. I my opinion, they were well-reasoned and stated on all sides, without any rancor or name calling. And his call for subsidiarity may be appropriate, if this were Westchester, Boston, Norfolk or probably any place other than Ground Zero. That is not just a local place … it is a place we all lived in and suffered from on 9/11. How many of us who never lived in NYC or never even visited it sat with tears running down our cheeks as we watched those buildings burned and toppled and began to understand what had really happened? It is right that we all should have opinions about this and speak them, for we all hurt when this unspeakable thing happened.
As I mentioned in another thread, if peace and reconciliation is really the aim, build a non-denominational facility for all religions to worship in – why just a mosque? Or if a mosque, build a Christian chapel within it – follow the example of Coventry Cathedral – in the ruins of the old cathedral, they built an international center to welcome all the world after WWII, and they committed to having two German students live there all the time to help man the center (can you imagine bringing Germans to England right after WWII).
As a final thought on Kendall’s principal of subsidiarity, I would reflect back to the 70s, when NYC was going bankrupt, and Congress asked why the American taxpayers from FL or MT or AZ, etc should bail out NYC, and NYC responded that it was not just a city within NY State, but it was an international city, a city representing our entire country to the world, a city that was charged with welcoming the world to our country. I simply don’t think this issue is purely local, no matter how much we now want to put that genie back in the bottle.
I was not referring to the comments here but rather the column inches on it in the newspapers–ed..
Justinmartyr #20: Shame on you. As a Christian, you should not use hyperbole or demagoguery to label someone else’s argument born out of their real fear or concern as being racist. That concern is about an uneven playing field as to what is the important standards for religious freedoms in this country. Where do you stand on the right of racist whites using the Confederate flag as symbolism. I guess that boils down to your own political agenda about what should be free or politically correct speech. I have Muslim friends who are moderate and I have had to endure working with Muslims who were not. They were not my friends because of their opinion that all Jews needed to be wiped from the face of the Earth. There are too many people in this world that want to continue the Arab-Muslim conquest. They are fanatic and the driving force behind 911. So the argument is not what the government should allow with the property, but rather what the concern is about the symbolism and who is behind it. A lot of innocent people died in lower Manhattan, and they still are currently dying in places like the Sudan, etc, because of a morality that excuses any atrocity in the name of an Arabian born religious agenda. If Islam was primarily moderate, this would not be such a concern. Unfortunately it is a ticking time bomb and we can’t always discern between the moderate and the fanatic. At least an honest discussion should not be censored.
[blockquote]As I mentioned in another thread, if peace and reconciliation is really the aim, build a non-denominational facility for all religions to worship in – why just a mosque? [/blockquote] This is *exactly* what it is. It’s a multi-purpose building with basketball courts, a swimming pool, and cooking classes [i]all open to the public[/i]. The top two floors only are reserved for Muslim prayers. It’s not “just a mosque” at all; that’s a small part of it’s purpose.
Shame on me? For calling racists racist? You are right: racism is based on fear. The people who are trying to shut down this mosque are not motivated by the unconquerable love of Christ, but by fear.
You talk a lot of “symbolism” and “what is behind it.” And yet you have not listened to how the people who want to build the mosque want to use it. Xenophobia and racism requires segregation. If you sat down and listened to these people, you might lose your fear and befriend them. Who knows, you may even find an opportunity to be Christ to them?
Christ commands us to do to others as we would have done to us. This means that if I want to build a church, I must let others build mosques. If I want to be able to evangelize, I must not forbid others from doing likewise. Christ calls us to go beyond this and do to others specifically what they are not doing to us. Where they hate us, we are to love them. Where they forbid us, we are to permit them.
So I guess this Muslim is racist as well.
Thanks again to Branford for an instructive link at #26.
There are two schools of thought on these threads about the mosque with which I disagree. First, the idea that all Muslims are crazed Islamists who wish to destroy Western society. Second, the idea that no Muslims are crazed Islamists with the exception of the few who flew those planes into buildings and into the ground. Now I’m un-Christian, a racist and xenophobe if I don’t agree with the second proposition, and in some commentaries, not necessarily here, I’m an ignorant fool if I don’t agree with the first.
The truth is that while Islam did not fly those planes, Islamists did. There are still Islamist organizations and individuals out there who wish to commit evil acts against Americans and America. This particular project, its organizational ties, its funding sources, and, for those who are familiar with radical Islamist propaganda, its disturbing references to the re-establishment of the caliphate and sharia (Cordoba Initiative, bin Laden’s lament about “the tragedy of al Andalus“), all make this project inappropriate at this near proximity to the mass murders of 2800 people. As Branford points out, sensible Muslims are aware of what’s at stake here. We should join them in their skepticism.
I regret to say that just because the developer says this is a project of reconciliation doesn’t mean we should believe that. Like the al Arabiya manager quoted above, we should look at the underlying facts.
#25: I used the word racist in reference to your “shinto†= “….†(I’m not going to repeat it.) There was a reasonable fear of a fifth column during WWII in the government’s foresight, even if not in their hindsight. The motives were not as wicked as you imply, even if the results were very harmful.
[b]So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.[/b] I know this passage is more complex, but I am taking the phrase at simple face value. I guess it is “not Christian†to point out insensitivity toward the victims as possibly being a sin. It depends on the motives behind the mosque and one’s perspective. It is reasonable for there to be a dialog about it. When people are dismissed in their motives for having an honest discussion or opinion, you are setting yourself up as a judge and jury. I’ve seen this all too often. To write every person (now I guess it is about 70% of the United States) as being racist, or in a more general sense violating the Second Great Commandment, you are using political opinion rather than fair discernment to characterize their motives. Unless you are one hundred percent sure of what is in their hearts, you may be bearing false witness.
By the way, I have sat down many times and had discussions with Muslims. I have invited them into my home for holiday dinners and respected their prohibitions against pork and alcohol. I have invited them to visit my church where they were surprised that the OT made so many references to Zion. As a Christian, I respected their traditions with sensitivity. Is it not appropriate for there to be a public discussion about the need to also be sensitive to the victims of 911?
See my comments preceded by >>>>
Umbridge, did you know that thousands of Shinto Japanese Americans fought the Japanese in WWII.
>>>> and there are Muslims in the US military fighting in the current wars for us. What is your point?
Did you know that they were recruited right out of the concentration camps where they and their families were imprisoned because, as you seem to imply, “shinto†= “murderous, slant-eyed Japs.â€
>>>> I did nothing of the sort. It would be poor taste to choose the location I just mentioned as a spot for a Shinto shrine. A lot of people would be offended by it, just like people are being offended by the proposed mosque. The parallel I was trying to describe is that each group had people who “represented” them that did atrocious things, yet both also have peaceful members as well. Building a structure that represents that group near a monument to something that was destroyed by people “representing” that group would be taken offensively by many.
As Christians we are commanded not to bear false witness. Accusing or punishing an innocent, unrelated person for another’s crime is sinful.
>>>> Which is what you just did to me.
Please see my comments preceded by >>>>
The question above is ludicrous. Neither the religion of Shinto, nor Japanese culture, planned and carried out the Empire of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
>>>> The question above is ludicrous. Neither the religion of Islam, nor the Islamic culture, planned and carried out the Al Qaeda / Taliban attack on 9/11.
>>>> Yet, doing either of those two things (build a shrine/mosque in the “wrong place”) would be offensive.
#16 – I think a better example would be :
12 members of the Klu Klux Klan burned a cross on the yard of a black family’s house, so therefore most members of the KKK are, to some degree, racist?
It doesn’t matter whether or not a few of them were caught in a racist act. Most KKK members, by the very nature of them joining the KKK, are, to some degree, racist!
So lets say back in 1955 an American bought a small plot of land in Hiroshima, Japan, just a block or two away from ground zero of the Little Boy detonation. He decided to open an American Tourism shop there, which would describe to everyone who visited how great America is, why they should visit America, and would certainly include an entire wall which touted America’s superiority in technologies such as transistors, medicine, and nuclear research.
Would that be insensitive then? Would that be insensitive today?
Kevin, it would be insensitive 🙂 And I imagine his business would go broke pretty fast.
The difference is that these Americans want to go about their living their lives much the way they did before twelve idiots stole the world’s attention. They are not selling one-way airline tickets or posters of smoking buildings. They are praying and advocating peace.
I heard also that the terrorists ate falaffels and wore sandals. In the spirit of lumping similar groups of unrelated people together, I suggest banning all falaffel and sandal shops near ground zero.
See #16. Now this should probably be ignored because is such a reduction. Unfortunately, this argument is common, the one bad apple, implying that the number of bad apples is very small.
But the violence we see now is systemic for Moslems, starting in the 7th century. There is no need to review history – and no sufficient space- but from the moment the Muslim world began its expansion, such violence has been commonplace. Even the most elementary view of the present world and shariah law shows in magnified numbers how deep the violence runs, both religiously and practically.
We are talking about thousands and thousands of bad apples, and they are everywhere. #3’s example is simply false on its method and utterly false on the evidence. Larry
Two things. Uh Clint, up above there somewhere, does not think that we should be like the Saudi entity but that the Saudi entity should join civilization and be like us. If religious tolerance is a virtue and religious intolerance is a sin, we have every right to condemn intolerance wherever it occurs no matter who is indulging in it.
The other thing is that if Barack Obama had said something like the following:
the political controversy, at any rate, would be over. For that is exactly the stance to take.
But the President didn’t. He gutlessly voted Present once again, trying to finesse a statement which didn’t offend Muslims because God knows any mildly critical words directed toward Muslims whatsoever is an attack on the Islamic religion.
Does anyone seriously think that this center, when it is completed, will improve the image of Islam in the West? Because we see from the actions of the people backing this project that the Islamic religion has to have its own way all the time, could not grasp the concepts behind 1 Corinthians 8 if it spent a year studying it and doesn’t care whatsoever about the feelings of others.
I didn’t think it was possible but this whole affair has made me respect the Islamic religion even less than I previously did. And my respect level for that religion was not all that high to begin with.
#11- Actually, zoning laws within certain set parameters CAN regulate free speech if that is the argument you are advancing. Zoning laws help determine whether an area is a closed, semi-public or public forum and as such what regulations are allowed on the dissemination of free speech. There’s an abortion case where a residential zoning ordinance prevented pro-life protestors from picketing an abortion doctor’s home. The court upheld the free speech limitation.
If you are considering the freedom of religion-free exercise portion of the First Amendment, that too can be regulated by zoning laws. Just ask the Catholic Church that tried to build an addition after their property was recognized as a historic building. If you wish, I can dig up cites to the Supreme Court precedents, just not tonight.
Despite the above, the point several people have attempted to make is not whether they have the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, but whether they should. These are questions with different possible answers.
Here’s a question that occurred to me today: why is it that Ground Zero is “hallowed ground,” because of the lives that were lost there, but New Orleans is not?
Point 1: It’s okay if someone opposes building a Muslim mosque (or facility or whatever it is). People don’t have to have a politically correct reason to oppose it. That’s a right, too. The city’s actual reason for rejecting the proposals, however, do need to be lawful. Point 2: It’s naive to think there isn’t an ulterior motive for building this facility at “Ground Zero.” And it’s irresponsible to pretend that there’s not a seed of Muslim extremism embedded in the proposal. We can wish that it were not true, we can hope for the best, but if you had to bet your Christian (or non-Muslim/infidel) family’s safety on it, would you? To put it more simply, would you bet your Christian/infidel family’s safety on it in any Muslim-controlled part of the world? Just asking.
RE: “why is it that Ground Zero is “hallowed ground,†because of the lives that were lost there, but New Orleans is not?”
Um — the same reason that Gettysburg is? It was the death of hundreds committed in an act of war on our land. Obviously, every place where a person dies is not “hallowed ground” — it’s obviously in the minds of Americans at crucial turning points in our history surrounding acts of war.
That, of course, is fairly obvious to most, even revisionists. I expect it was obvious to you as well, Ross.
We Americans cannot avoid the simple fact that this is about our Constitution, and the specific amendment to it that absolutely guarantees religious freedom in this great country.
True, evil men used airplanes to stick a finger in the eye of America. True, they were all Moslems, and true, they all claimed their religion as one of the reasons for their self-described “martyrdom.”
None of these facts changes the ultimate fact that our Constitution protects other Moslems in the practice of their religion. Not in the perpetration of violence, but we cannot arrest someone because we suspect that they may eventually commit violence! The fact is simply – – if a group of fruitcakes who worship a walnut stump wanted to build a “temple” somewhere, they have a protected right to do it. And they can legitimately call it a house of worship, and we will exempt it from taxes.
Come on, Americans. Let’s quite talking about our “feelings” here. That is why we have a Constitution in the first place, so that we do not let our feelings get involved with how we treat our neighboring Americans.
#40: Amen.
I have no problem with American Muslims building a mosque at “Ground Zero” in NYC. I trust that American Muslims will have no problem if people get a permit and protest radical islamic terrorism in front of their new mosque by burning korans. This is America. They have the freedom to build and their neighbors have the freedom to step on korans or pour pig blood on them.
You see, the same first amendment protects both groups rights. The American Muslim group has a right to offend their neighbors by building the new mosque in an insensitive manner, but their neighbors have a right to offend them by desecrating the koran which acted as the inspiration for the unprovoked murder of over 3,000 of their fellow Americans.
Now just maybe, a Muslim group that claims to want to promote tolerance and coexistence among religious groups, will see that though they have good intentions, many others would be highly offended by their choice of building site. Maybe, they would change the site so as to fulfill their stated intent. That would go a long way toward helping their fellow citizens see Islam as a caring and compassionate religion that was highjacked by radicals. Their sensitivity to the suffering and loss would surely serve them better than what is being perceived as a “victory dance” on the graves of the murdered.
I don’t see any Shinto shrines at the Arizona Memorial. The Japanese and the US are very good allies now. We are friends and business partners. Maybe there is a future where tolerance is exercised and rights give way to consideration. Time will tell.
These folks – the Cordoba Institute – have been in this same neighborhood for decades. They’re not even the same faction of Islam that attacked the towers. They have a long peacful history in lower Manhattan. There is [i]nothing[/i] linking them to any acts of violence or intolerance, other than the fact the are Muslims. #31 Keven, comparing all Muslims to the KKK is frankly offensive and racist. Would you accuse all Germans of being Nazis? All Catholics of being pedophiles?
I hope we can all agree that legally, constitutionally, they have every right to build this cultural center on the hallowed ground of the former Burlington Coat Factory. Shame on us for pressuring them to voluntarily move it elsewhere out of misunderstanding and fear.
RE: “why is it that Ground Zero is “hallowed ground,†because of the lives that were lost there, but New Orleans is not?â€
Um—the same reason that Gettysburg is? It was the death of hundreds committed in an act of war on our land. Obviously, every place where a person dies is not “hallowed groundâ€â€”it’s obviously in the minds of Americans at crucial turning points in our history surrounding acts of war.
That, of course, is fairly obvious to most, even revisionists. I expect it was obvious to you as well, Ross.
That’s a really odd assertion Sarah. At least one I have never heard. Hallowed ground is ground blessed by a priest, rabbi, shaman, religious leader, etc. It doesn’t require the presence of death or a cemetery. All churches, regardless of whether they have a cemetery, are considered to be on hallowed ground. All cemeteries are hallowed ground, regardless of the cause of death of their inhabitants.
Even if we grant that the WTC cite is hallowed ground:
1. This site is nearly a quarter mile away
2. Its an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory
3. There are strip clubs, fast-food joints, and pharmacies in closer proximity. Why is it okay for these places to be built near hallowed ground but not a community worship center?
#45 see “Shinto shrines at the Arizona Memorial” above.
#43 How do you feel about the Church in Florida sponsoring the national “Burn the Koran Day” on September 11th? They have a constitutional right to do that, don’t they? Shame on anyone for pressuring them to voluntarily forego their rights to religious expression out of misunderstanding and fear. The Florida Church never sponsored terrorism or took up arms against Muslims in their community. They truly see the Koran as a book that promotes evil and denies the divinity of Christ. So, you are on board with the Koran burning, right?
I have no problem with Shinto shrines two blocks from the Arizona either, assuming the area is appropriately zoned. Do you think Catholic Churches should not be built next to playgrounds?
[b]#43 How do you feel about the Church in Florida sponsoring the national “Burn the Koran Day†on September 11th? They have a constitutional right to do that, don’t they? Shame on anyone for pressuring them to voluntarily forego their rights to religious expression out of misunderstanding and fear. The Florida Church never sponsored terrorism or took up arms against Muslims in their community. They truly see the Koran as a book that promotes evil and denies the divinity of Christ. So, you are on board with the Koran burning, right? [/b] Under the First Amendment, they have a right to burn the Koran. And under the same amendment, people have a right to protest it. The protesters in that case are not acting out of “misunderstanding and fear” because they are protesting the actual people who are burning the Koran.
If people started protesting at [i]all[/i] Florida churches because ONE of them had a Koran-burning, that would be irrational and a symptom of misunderstanding and fear — like protesting this project in NYC.
Sorry for my failed coding in the post above.
Hi Scott,
I think you are missing my point. We have rights. The Muslims can build their mosque no matter that it highly offends millions of their fellow Americans. Should they do that? Muslims are not a monolithic group. Check. Got that. These Muslims didn’t commit the terrorist act. Check. Got that. This Mosque they want to build is an emotional issue, not a logic debate and the offended folks are not going to sit back and patiently, calmly, reason this through. They are going to respond emotionally and it could get carried away very quickly. So, I am advocating consideration for the offended parties while recognizing the rights of the Muslims that want to build there. I am also pointing out that rights are not necessarily the correct basis for decisions. There is such a thing as judgement and prudence. The single Church in Florida could become thousands and thousands doing the same next year. This Mosque could trigger that sort of backlash. Can they build it? Sure. Should they build it? No.
#39 Sarah says:
No, it was an honest question. So let me pose another: what is it about an “act of war” that makes the spot hallowed ground, as opposed to natural disasters like Katrina?
Parallel to #51, for many years a neighbor of General Seminary was the ILGWU, many of whose members had been in Nazi concentration camps. Accordingly, the GTS organist was under orders never to play “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken” because so many of the neighbors might mistake this for the German national anthem (same tune). So while zoning (NOT the Constitution) will determine whether they can build, if indeed they profess reconciliation, their own faith would tell them that they should not build.
RE: “what is it about an “act of war†that makes the spot hallowed ground, as opposed to natural disasters like Katrina?”
Good question — something in the human makeup I suppose. No scientific rationalist explanation I expect.
RE: “Hallowed ground is ground blessed by a priest, rabbi, shaman, religious leader, etc. . . . ”
Nah — that would be *consecrated* ground. ; > )
The “quotes” around Ross’s words “hallowed ground” little question revealed that he wasn’t talking about *consecrated* ground but rather about what makes something “hallowed” in the minds of even non-religious people.
Of course . . . you knew that.
But nice snark attempt! ; > )
re: #53, the analogy to the “neighbors” of the site is interesting, because they aren’t the ones who have a problem with it. Looking at the [url=http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/nycpolls/c100728/Bloomberg_RV/Views_Toward_Construction_of_Mosque_Near_World_Trade_Center_Site.htm]Marist poll results[/url], New Yorkers in general oppose the project less strongly than Americans as a whole, and the project is actually supported by a MAJORITY of those polled in Manhattan.
It seems the opposition is strongest from those who are not at all “neighbors” of the project.
Sick & Tired, I appreciate your point about sensitivity to the folks who are strongly offended and responding emotionally. However, I think the better response to that offense is education — helping people understand that these aren’t the people who attacked us. This is not a “radical” imam (although Fox News keeps repeating it). These are the types of muslims we should be encouraging, not banishing. Giving into those who are offended instead of helping them get past the offense only reinforces negative stereotypes and rewards destructive behavior. And, furthermore, plays into the hands of the real terrorists who want nothing more than to drive a wedge between peaceful Muslims and the rest of us.
If the Muslims want to reach out to us Americans, they aren’t going to do it by offending us. In the US, people don’t like to be forced to do or accept anything. If they do build the mosque, which I do agree is their right, it will be seen by many that it was forced upon us.
Do you think I could buy some land next to a Native American reservation and build a historical museum dedicated to the US westward expansion? I had nothing to do with the slaughter of Native Americans, but I represent the same country that the murderers killed in the name of. These Muslims in NY had nothing to do with the slaughter of thousands on 9/11, but they represent the same religion that the murderers killed in the name of.
The difference between your theoretical wesward expansion museum (which yes, you would have the right to build) and Park 51 is one of purpose. Although you did not personally participate in the slaughter of Indians, you would be directly honoring it. Park 51 on the other hand is a community center featuring baskeball courts, a swimming pool, and cooking classes all open to the public, along with some worship space. If they were opening a museum dedicated to the spread of Islam or celebrating the 9/11 “martyrs” your analogy would be accurate and the offense justified.
It all comes down to the fact that people are offended not because of anything the Cordoba group have done or said, but because they are Muslim. That’s their only connectino to 9/11. As Americans (let alone as Christians) we should be appalled by that kind of discrimination.
If you are an Anglican, how would you feel about people protesting your building of a new soup kitchen near a school because of the Catholic Church sex scandals? Would you give up that land and voluntarily move to a less desirable part of town because people from other parts of the coutry were offended by your original plans?
Or would you try to explain to them that 1) most Catholics are not child abusers, 2) you are not Catholic, and 3) the soup kitchen is good for the community?
RE: “Hallowed ground is ground blessed by a priest, rabbi, shaman, religious leader, etc. . . . “
Nah—that would be *consecrated* ground. ; > )
The “quotes†around Ross’s words “hallowed ground†little question revealed that he wasn’t talking about *consecrated* ground but rather about what makes something “hallowed†in the minds of even non-religious people.
Of course . . . you knew that.
But nice snark attempt! ; > )
No snarking…I simply think you don’t know the definition. Check an Oxford Dictionary (or any dictionary for that matter). Hallowed ground is sanctified or consecrated. This is easily verified and your usage (or Ross’s if that is what he indeed intended) is too broad.
RE: “your usage (or Ross’s if that is what he indeed intended) is too broad. . . . ”
Nope — my usage is perfectly respectable and it’s precisely what people mean when referring to Ground Zero has “hallowed ground.” First online dictionary I surfed to had that broad definition . . . “regarded with great respect or reverence” as the second definition.
That’s what people mean when they refer to Ground Zero as “hallowed ground.” Obviously they don’t mean something that has been “consecrated” as the average American doesn’t even know what that means.
Ground Zero is indeed hallowed ground. It is hallowed for the same reason that Gettysburg is considered hallowed. A massive amount of American citizens lost their lives at Ground Zero in an act of war against a civilian population of a country not at war.
Sarah: I agree with most of your posts. I want to pick up on your phrase:
[blockquote] “… an act of war against a civilian population of a country not at war.â€[/blockquote]
The trouble is that radical Islam is at war with our country and the West in general. Sometimes an Old Testament view is more appropriate than the New to understand the situation. Where is Joshua when we need him? I was listening to Fox News this morning and Dick Morris was talking about what was really behind the expansion of Mosques like the one proposed near Ground Zero. If any of what he said is true, look out. It wasn’t about freedom to peacefully worship, but about Jihad. Wake up America! You will loose your freedom to worship your Christian or Jewish religion like Anglicanism lost The Episcopal Church. For those who will say this is ridiculous, I invite them to take a trip to Darfur. Arguing about what is Hallowed ground or Constitutional freedom of religion is not the point. Many people see the danger and want to stand up and push back. I’m not talking about discriminating against peaceful Muslims. I’m talking about protecting against the radicalizing of peaceful Muslims toward Jihad.
FYI: As for what New Yorkers think: [url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2010/08/16/who-hates-the-ground-zero-mosque-the-most.aspx]residents of Manhattan apparently favor it, 55% to 32%, with 13% undecided.[/url]
Re #57: “If the Muslims want to reach out to us Americans, they aren’t going to do it by offending us.”:
This (presumably unintentionally) illustrates one of the key underlying flaws in the case against the proposed community center; the Muslims in question here [b] are [/b] Americans. The distinction made here between “the Muslims” and “us Americans” is a false one, but a highly revealing one.
Btw, with all this talk of hallowed ground, it’s not even necessary to point to the porn shops and strip bars already woven into that urban landscape. No one died on 9/11 at the former Burlington Coat Factory where the Islamic community center will be located, but the [b] true [/b] hallowed ground, where both Americans and non-Americans, and Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists alike died, and alike tried to rescue victims, [b] that [/b] ground is being turned into a crass and quotidian commercial concourse space.
If anything dishonors the memories of the victims, it will not be the nearby prayers of American Muslims who reject the violence of 9/11 but rather the decidedly matter-of-fact operation of a McDonald’s, a Kinko’s, and a TGIF’s, as well as untold numbers of offices rising above it all, amid the very soil where the dead were lost. Where is the outrage about [b] that [/b]?