Our Constitution may or may not be more concerned with justice than sensitivity. Interestingly, there is a portion of Scripture that addresses this. In both chapters 6 and 10 of Paul’s letter, First Corinthians, he instructs his fellow Christians with this admonition: “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.” In that context, if Paul is urging Christians in a pluralistic society to be sensitive to others whose views and values may be different from theirs, he is also urging those same Christians to not be overly sensitive when their sensibilities are offended. Indeed, it is a Christian ethic that admonishes both offender and offended alike.
My life has been enriched by relationships with people different from myself, religiously or otherwise — enough, in fact, for me to conclude that the surest way to rob any of us of our humanity is to pay too much attention to how we have been labeled. The First Amendment reflects the highest and noblest vision of our great nation. And for many of us, at least, that means we are most Christian when we understand, accept and respect those who aren’t.
“Dr. Monty Knight is a local pastoral counselor and president of the Charleston Chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.” Enough said.
I though he was arguing towards another conclusion. Namely that many things fall within the bounds of the law and are nevertheless imprudent.
Where does the Great Commission fall into Dr. Knight’s idea of “most Christian” The Baptismal Covenant in the 1979 BCP calls for us to respect the dignity of every human being. We are most Christian when we can do that, spread the Good Word and bring people to Christ. Certainly not easy, but it wasn’t intended to be.
Theologically, he has the verse backwards.
This is pious nonsense. The issue is practical, not religious or constitutional. We know that there are an enormous number of Moslems who wold be willing to do as much damage as possible in the US. This much is obvious. But how to tell the difference? The only practical way is to keep all the apples away from the barrel until one can be reasonably sure the barrel of apples is sound. This become an issue of probabilities. And so the question is, what is the probability that a terrorist will make himself part of this mosque, given its location and the Imam? The answer has to be, “Very high” as compared to a mosque in Ishpeming. This isn’t intolerance, this is self preservation. Larry
It seems to me that it is Muslims, not Christians, that have the biggest challenge…and decision to make here. And I’m referring to Muslims that are not jihadists, but the vast majority who, I am told, want only to live in harmony with Christians in the west. They need to decide if they are going to tolerate leadership that continues self-destructive, “in your face”, behavior that only serves to drive a wedge deeper into the troubled relationship they have with the vast majority of Americans, Christian or otherwise.
If the problem is with us, and with our “incorrect perceptions” of Islamic motives, then this does nothing to alleviate that, and in fact, dumps more salt into a very deep and still very fresh wound, and only reinforces our perception.
Peace loving Muslims currently have the biggest “PR” problem in the world and with good reason. So what are they going to do to start working to change that? That’s why this is their challenge.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection of that passage is that it is in the context of how Christians were to act toward other Christians. It is not an invitation to being a doormat for other religions. Paul was encouraging Christians to be thoughtful of each others areas of weakness so as not to be a stumbling block to a brother in Christ. (Note: This is between brothers, not neighbors. All men are my neighbors (ref. the good Samaritan), but not all men are my brothers. Only Christian men are my brothers in the Lord.) To try to make this into an appeal for Christians to lay down in the face of Islam is eisogesic nonsense.
Fortunately, #6, building the mosque is not meant to force Christians to lay down in the face of Islam, but an opportunity to see if Americans really believe in the constitution.
I’m getting tired of this line about the Constitution. Building rights are surrounded by all sorts of restrictions — zoning, best use, community objections, building codes, and so on. In my area, in the heart of the South’s Bible Belt, a large Baptist church, one of whose prominent members was Billy Graham’s daughter, was prevented from building a new church on property it owned because of the vociferous objections of nearby property owners. To say that the surrounding community has no say in what gets built where is nonsense.
What apart of the constitution are you talking about #7? Surely not the First? The first has nothing to say about church construction and, for some reason, doesn’t speak about zoning regulations (and the like) being unconstitutional. What can the reason be? Come to think of it, how does the First apply to this situation anyway? I read it again, and I do not see the connection. Larry
Larry, please. You obviously missed the 28th amendment:
[blockquote] Private citizens, including public officials acting in the role of private citizens, shall not call on certain politico-religious organizations to act responsibly and with sensitivity.[/blockquote]
#8 Well, that’s true. And the community – that is Tribeca – has had a say. Mayor Bloomberg had a say. Local Rabbis have had a say. And they support the construction. Its the political ideologues stirring this up for future elections who are raising the issue.
Fortunately, the Republicans passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2000.
[blockquote]Fortunately, #6, building the mosque is not meant to force Christians to lay down in the face of Islam, but an opportunity to see if Americans really believe in the constitution. [/blockquote]
#7 I guess you didn’t read the same article that I did. This was an appeal to Christian Scripture viz the “Ground Zero Mosque”. As such, it failed. As for the appeal to the Constitution…see posts #8 and #9.
“Its the political ideologues stirring this up for future elections who are raising the issue. ”
No, it’s almost 70% of the American population that are raising the issue.
#11, I’ve seen reports of a lot of New Yorkers carrying protest signs, and of a lot of construction workers who say they won’t touch the project. Are people who agree with you “the community” and people who don’t, “ideologues?” In the case of the Baptist church here, the zoning people gave their approval but it was the non-official uproar that stopped the plan.
Beg pardon Robroy, I DID forget this essential matter.
For Mr. Wilkins however, I still want to know how the First is engaged in this matter. That is, I want to see a clear connection between the declaration that the state should not support a religion, and the declaration that The First is being violated if a mosque is not permitted here – or any where else for that matter. What IS a violation of the First is the state’s intervening AT ALL – see POTUS’s intervention – on this issue.
And now, in this context, see today’s NYT in which the Greek Orthodox Church wonders out loud why IT can”t rebuild its own church actually destroyed in 9/11. Do you see equal treatment here?
Crimus, where’s the First when you need it? Has POTUS spoken out on this issue? Larry