Mosque Near Ground Zero? Why Not?

Some Christians (most notably Sarah Palin) oppose plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque in New York City, two blocks away from Ground Zero. Some Christians support it. I support it, after initial worries that I'll explain.

As an American, I love the symbolism: a building devoted to a religion that many Americans and millions around the world practice peacefully, so close to a place where terrorists claiming that religion tried to make a monument to hate. The attackers' message was that the United States is hostile towards Islam as a whole; this would be a great way to prove them and their followers wrong.

As a religious person, though, when I saw heard the phrase "Ground Zero mosque" in a headline, I figured it was about a mosque to be built on the site of Ground Zero itself as a memorial, and that made me squeamish. Not because a mosque doesn't belong on the site of a national public memorial—but because no house of worship belongs there. Putting a house of worship on public property amounts to a government endorsement of a religion. That's why I oppose nativity scenes in public plazas and the Ten Commandments in city halls. And in these cases what I'm worried about is the independence of religion: I worry government will succumb to exploiting religion and religious devotion for its own purposes. Given that a mosque near Ground Zero would have a huge political upside for the U.S., the risk is real.

But then I learned that the mosque wouldn't be on Ground Zero itself, but on private property down the street (which opponents are now cynically trying to get landmarked to derail the plans), and I felt better. This would be a great sign of the health of religious freedom in this country. And religious freedom means that religion doesn't use government for religious purposes, and government doesn't use religion for political purposes.

Login to comment

IMPORTANT Did you have an account on the old ThinkChristian.net site? Click here transition your account. This will sync all your comments with your email address.

Comments (95)

In Israel Muslims have strategically purchased (or politically maneuvered for) land and erected Mosques next to every biblically historical sight. The goal is to plant a mosque that is so large that it will be included in any photo of the landmark or landscape. It seems that the idea is the same here. Wait and see if this doesn't happen in other significant places that are hit by terrorist or where culture clashes occur with Islam. The result is a land war waged to erect the largest structure in order to blind people to the other religion’s building.

I’m not suggesting a solution, simply stating that the issue is larger than it appears.

So we should do something more proactive like bring back the crusades, witch burnings, or say, the Inquisition? Such glorious Christian acts perpetrated on the world!
I fully agree with you!!! What would happen if we try to build a protestant church in Saudi Arabia? One thing is to be fair and another very different is to be naïve and careless about opposing the atacks from muslim, not only to america's way of life but to christianity itself
Narriag,

Are you implying that the U.S. should only allow Christian churches?
For Ryan.
I don't mean that, not in USA nor in my own country, Chile. I believe in freedom of worship for everybody, but we must be careful that such freedom become a threaten to our own possibility of worshiping our God in our way. I don't understand why many people is so prone to give full rights and privileges to groups that clearly don't believe in giving the same rights to christian individuals or groups (let alone churches) in their countries, all the contrary christian and jews are persecuted id try to worship in public. You are in great risk trying to pass a christian pamphlet in a street in Saudi Arabia.
The goal is to plant a mosque that is so large that it will be included in any photo of the landmark or landscape. It seems that the idea is the same here.

If the idea is the same here, then it's a rather incompetently-executed idea - since the proposed community center is (a) only 13 stories tall (rather small for Lower Manhattan), (b) a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero and the new tower that is going up, and (c) on only one side of said tower - meaning that there will be many, many, many more photographic angles for the new tower that will not include the community center, than there will be that do include it.

If the plan really was to put in a mosque so large that one couldn't photograph Ground Zero without it, then it was a pretty poorly-conceived plan.
That line of thinking will not work. How long will Christians pursue a policy of appeasement? And to what result?
It has proved to be so disastrous. America must wake up, and fast!
I agree with the author of the post with the disaproval of religious buildings or items on public lands/property.

Most of the complaints and cries of foul strike me as xenophobia that Americans have historically displayed throughout our wonderful history.

Take a look at the prison camps for our Japanese citizens during WW2; McCarthy's pursuits against supposed communist sympathizers; the stripping of habeas corpus; pulling out of the Geneva Convention and the list goes on.

We (the USA) are wonderful and being a reactionary society who doesn't care who it will step on when something is different and oh so scary.

Opposition to the mosque for the reasons given by Palin and others of the same ilk done with either a perverted motivation (either using it as a means for attention and money), xenophobic, or both.

Opposition to the mosque for the reasons given by Palin and others of the same ilk done with either a perverted motivation (either using it as a means for attention and money) or just plain xenophobic.
I'm not so sure memorializing "Ground Zero" is a good thing. For what purpose? As a cemetary, a mass grave for those whose remains were never found and have become part of the cityscape, perhaps.
As a rallying point for patriotism? For Christian-culture-America? I have trouble with that. The police and firefighters who died to save lives did not so waving flags, they did so to rescue fellow human beings in peril, in automatic response to their training.
How many blocks away from "sacred ground" does the mosque/Islamic center need to be? How many secular businesses, those promoting America's other religion of enterprise and wealth, must act as the buffer inbetween the mosque and Ground Zero?
NYC's Mayor Bloomburg had excellent remarks on the issue---did I miss 2001's Mayor Giuliani's comments?
Nathan, you can’t be serious. Is this really a building devoted to a religion that many Americans and millions around the world practice peacefully? Islamic law enshrines the worst kind of abuse of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews and non-muslims. Where are these peaceful Muslims? Their xenophobia, hatred and abuse of Christians, Jews and non-muslims is enshrined in their Holy Book which is memorized word for word and chanted everyday by faithful muslims. Here are a few quotes. These are the tame ones;

Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. Sura 5:51

Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them. For you must know that Allah is forgiving and merciful. 5:33-34

Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain the. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they disobey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. Sura 4:34

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29 Jizya is the money that non-Muslims must pay to their Muslim overlords in a pure Islamic state.)

The Jews call Ezra a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:30) (See also Bukhari 8:427), one of the last things Muhammad ever said on his deathbed was "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians.”)
Didn't Jesus say simply "loving your neighbor as yourself" or did that come with a caveat?
Then I guess the Pharisees (ye are of your father the devil) weren't Christ's neighbor? Or all the money changers that he drove out of the temple with a whip? We don't have to allow or endorse insanity.
There is righteous anger and then there is hatred. What you are talking about is hatred, not righteous anger. You can hate the evil but love the person.
I accidentally hit "Like" to this...but I disagree with you completely. I meant to hit "Like" on Rick's comment.
Now the devil was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said....

Paul said. we are not ignorant of his(the devil) devices.

Seems to me that America is selling our birthright and are about to miss our blessings also.

Terry
This comment sounds too cryptic. Could you clarify, please?
Anyone objecting to the Ground Zero mosque should also, in all fairness, condemn any church built near the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City and Olympic Park in Atlanta, sites of Christian terrorism. The only possible reason one could object to the mosque in NYC and not to churches in those areas is religious bigotry and hypocrisy.
There is no comparison. James, this is a group that officially believes and promotes the subjegation of women (read their laws concerning women), beating wives, forcing them to wear black tents with a peep hole to see out of while men go free, cutting off the hand of thieves, stoning adulters, beheading heretics, hating jews and christians, sending homosexuals to prison, war against infidels and cartoonists, and they don’t stop until a whole country is under Shariah law. Parts of England are now under Shariah law. Even conservative muslims spend hours memorizing every word of the Koran and chanting it back. You read the few brief quotes I included from the Koran? This has nothing to do with religious bigotry. This is organized insanity from the dark ages acting out in the 21 century. Don’t you agree?
I don't agree at all - that is, of course, unless you're willing to own the acts of Christian fundamentalists and terrorists, and their interpretations of Scripture (which are no less barbaric than anything Islam has ever come up with), as the acts and interpretations of all of Christianity. To ascribe a monolithic quality to Islam (which, as is obvious to anyone who bothers to do even a scintilla of research on the topic, is anything but monolithic) while at the same time distancing yourself from Christian terrorists like Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder, Randall Terry, Eric Rudolph, etc. is an act of extreme intellectual dishonesty. If you are going to claim that the most extreme fundamentalist interpretations of Islam represent the whole of the religion, then you must ascribe each and every one of the abuses of the very worst of Christianity to yourself and your own church.

And speaking of those abuses: Islam would have to do about a thousand times more than it's done in its entire history to get anywhere near to the atrocities committed by so-called Christians in the name of Christ. The global imperialism of Northern Europeans (and their descendents in the U.S.) of the past five hundred years - an imperialism that has led to genocides and land thefts and starvation and epidemics and now to the possible destruction of all of human civilization by means of climate change - is miles beyond anything the conquering Ummayads could have considered in even their wildest imaginations. If you want to use empirical historical evidence to talk about dangerous religions, then Christianity has to be miles away at the very top of your list.

And because you consider all religions to be monolithic and represented by the very worst of their religion, then it is you, personally, and your church, that are responsible for every single atrocity ever committed in the name of Christ. Perhaps it is your church, not an Islamic mosque, that we should be concerned about housing in our free and secular country.
So, I'm a religious bigot and a hypocrite, then? If that's the "only possible reason" you see for objecting to the mosque near Ground Zero, you are close-minded and you don't think critically. Sorry to be so blunt. We are a nation founded on Christian principles and beliefs, not Islamic principles. Unfortunately, we seem to be losing ground daily on this issue.
If you believe a mosque shouldn't be built near Ground Zero, but have no problem with churches near sites of Christian terrorism like Olympic Park and the Murrah Building, then yes, you are a religious bigot and a hypocrite. If the shoe fits, intellectual honesty demands that you wear it and own it. You either support or oppose all religious buildings near the site of acts of terrorism committed by practitioners of those religions, or you single out some religions that are acceptable and others that are not. There is no description for the latter attitude other than "religious bigotry and hypocrisy."

Oh, and please do find me the so-called "Christian principles" in the Constitution. Find me a single passage of the founding document of our nation that makes any reference at all to Christianity, aside from the standard "year of our lord" dating. The reference should be clear and plain, not a citation to the long-debunked pseudohistories of the hack David Barton or any of his charlatan ilk.

Because what I find in the Constitution are these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That principle is pretty clear: It means that those who want to build a mosque on their own private property have every single right under the USA's very highest law to freely practice their religion.

Those are the principles this nation was founded on - that every single person would be able to exercise his or her own religion in peace. If you want to circumvent that by enshrining your religious bigotry in law, then you want to live somewhere other than the United States of America.
James, you say the Constitution is "the" founding document of our country as if there are no other documents to be digested. Of course if we rip the Constitution out of the culture that brought it forth, we can say that we are a secular country and always have been. Because (aside from that "Year of our Lord" thing) you are right - there is no explicit reference to Christianity in the actual Constitution. But if we glance at the Declaration of Independence (written by Jefferson) we find first that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable because they were endowed (given to us as a heritage) by a Creator. Now I will leave the were-they-only-deist vs. were-they-really-Christian battle alone and simply remind here that our freedoms were immediately placed on a higher level than something one man can give to another. Our founding fathers certainly knew that if freedom came by man, freedom would be revoked by man; they were mighty careful to establish that the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution are from a higher level than mere humanity. Don't ride roughshod over the Declaration; it predicates everything other idea in the Constitution. It is important.

Does the founding of our nation offer examples of a peculiarly Judeo-Christian diety having a major impact on the lives of founding fathers, their outlook as to the rest of the world, the principles they held dear? Yes, first-hand documents outside of the U.S. Constitution actually do show that Sandra's statement is correct: our nation was founded on Christian ideals and by men who mostly acknowledged themselves Christian. Our first congress actually authorized and paid for a chaplain. The founders of this nation often quoted the Bible in their debates and their writings and their prayers are permeated with Christianity. Not wanting to impugn states' rights and wanting the people of the U.S. to govern themselves, the Constitution was deliberately vague as to Christianity in particular, but when the nitty gritty of day-to-day governing happened (i.e., in the states) many of the charters contained boldly Christian sentiments. But back to the 'big' government - a prayer service following the inaugaration of the president has been in place since George Washington. But what about after the Revolutionary War's dust had settled and the U.S. grew? Did God have an impact then? Indeed He did.

Almost at once after our country was founded, abolitionists began to try to free slaves. In the early 1800's abolitionists began calling the Pennsylvania State House Bell (the one with an explicit Bible verse from Leviticus on it) the Liberty Bell. Never letting up for a moment, these courageous abolitionists worked tirelessly because of their Christian compassion to obliterate the blight of slavery from the U.S. A president named Abraham encouraged an end to war by reminding us that the Bible teaches "A house divided cannot stand." The Union soldiers who fought and died to make men free rallied under a song which had a first stanza that began, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord..."

Now I could give many more examples (I think you know this and that is why you directed Sandra to the Constitution alone when she wrote about the founding of the U.S.), but my basic point is this: like Bible verses and statistics, taking the Constitution out of its context and then saying that because the Constitution has no explicit references to Christianity in it, we are a secular nation, is unfair and wrong.
James, I don't think this is a good line of reasoning. It will just provoke emotional reactions rather than reasoned discourse.

Rick, you keep coming back to your same argument, but it is a straw man. As reprehensible as some Islamic social practices and Shariah law may be, it only matters what Islamic followers do here. Even if they believe and assent to the teachings (which would seem to be a "hate crime" in liberal policy, but that's another issue), if they do not practice them your point is moots. You cannot make American Islamics somehow guilty strictly by association for the practices of Islamics in other countries. It makes for a very emotional polemic against Islamic beliefs in general, but not against Islamic practices in America. It's an emotional argument, not a rational one.
At first, I was opposed, probably as much emotionally, as a believer, as on principle. Then I learned the mosque would not really be on the site of the twin towers, but down the street (and remember we're talking New York City). Although I believe it is a terrbily insensitive and provocative idea by the imam who is driving the proposal, who doesn't seem to be a particularly pro-America kind of Islamic guy, I can't see that there is any compelling legal, moral, or even theological argument that justifies opposition to what these Islamic Americans want to do on their own property.

I understand the desire to respect the families who lost loved ones on 911 at the hands of Islamic radical jihadists, but what exactly is the principle or policy that will govern the opposition to this mosque, and how will it be applied to future terrorist sites, or even smaller previous ones? Who defines that principle and implements it? Arguments against the mosque at this point mostly seem emotional and political, and often kind of knee-jerk conservative. I'm a strong conservative, so I say that with great respect for otherwise very insightful pundits and commentators who I think are appealing to emotions rather than to reason (let's be honest, it generates better ratings).

Frankly, I don't think the building of the mosque should become a "Christian" issue at all. I think we should stay far away from it. We have a responsibility to preach the gospel and, to confront theological error as vocally as we can, but we don't have the right to control how American Islamic citizens choose to live and spend their money within the law in this country. American is not a theocracy. Freedom of religion means that all religions are treated equally before the law, and the state does not discriminate against thelogocial belief, no matter how offensive it may be, as long as those holding that religion respect the law.

Until our leaders declare Islam an enemy of America, or bring conspiracy charges against Islam in America under RICO, or whatever, Islam as a religion has the same rights as Christianity. Period. Even though I think it is a bad and obviously offensive idea, I really don't see any defensible argument against their plans.
Come on. Public property? I don't believe in such public property. That property belongs to GOD, and God alone. How can you as a Christian support the building of a mosque? How many people will be influenced by the muslims? How many people will be deceived and will go to hell because of that?
It's not about supporting the mosque itself; it's about supporting the right to build a house of worship. The United States is not a theocracy.
How can you as a Christian support the building of a mosque?

Because I'm not only a Christian but an American, and I take the Constitution of the United States seriously when it enshrines the right of all people to freely exercise their religion in our very highest law.

Further, I can support the building of the mosque simply because I am a Christian, and I see absolutely nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Jesus Christ had any interest whatsoever in enshrining into the law of the imperial state any kind of exclusive rights for the religion His followers would found. Where in the New Testament do you find any support for the idea that Christians should attempt to impose their beliefs on others using the power of law?

I wholeheartedly support the building of this mosque. If Christian ideas are truly better than Muslim ones - if Christianity truly has more to offer a person than Islam does - then I must trust that the truth will win out. Do you not have a similar trust in your faith?
Freely exercising their religion in this case includes world domination through Jihad, real theocracy and Sharia law, drinkers and gamblers pubicly whipped, hands cut off for stealing, infidels or apostates killed, fornicators stoned to death, homosexuals jailed or executed, polygamy, wives legally beat, women must wear veils upon point of whipping. And where are these moderate Muslims? Sudan? Somalia? Nigeria? Chechniya? Afghanistan? Uzbeckistan? Pakistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? The Netherlands? England? England now has 5 courts of Sharia law. In most interpretations of Sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of Sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. People tout Turkey as moderate, but it is rapidly becoming radicalized and it is only peaceful because muslims completely dominate. There is no such concept as pluralism or tolerance in islam. What happens when you memorize a violent, vindictive holy book word for word and then chant it 5 times a day even if you do regard yourself as moderate? This is the reason we have zoning laws to restrict inappropriate development. And I can’t think of anything more inappropriate than a Mosque two blocks from the site of the world trade center massacre. I support the freedom of all religions, wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and I do not support a Christian Theocracy and would not impose my Christian beliefs on anyone. But this Mosque at this place time is way beyond extreme.

From GK Chesterton: Our real error in such a case is that we do not know or care about the creed itself, from which a people's customs, good or bad, will necessarily flow. We talk much about 'respecting' this or that person's religion; but the way to respect a religion is to treat it as a religion: to ask what are its tenets and what are their consequences. But modern tolerance is deafer than intolerance. The old religious authorities, at least, defined a heresy before they condemned it, and read a book before they burned it. But we are always saying to a Mormon or a Moslem - 'Never mind about your religion, come to my arms.' To which he naturally replies -- 'But I do mind about my religion, and I advise you to mind your eye.' [The Uses of Diversity; Illustrated London News, May 13, 1911]
Freely exercising their religion in this case includes world domination through Jihad, real theocracy and Sharia law, drinkers and gamblers pubicly whipped, hands cut off for stealing, infidels or apostates killed, fornicators stoned to death, homosexuals jailed or executed, polygamy, wives legally beat, women must wear veils upon point of whipping.

Christians freely exercising their religion included world domination through colonization, real theocracy until the rational among us came to our senses (and there are still many in this country who haven't), drinking and gambling outlawed or severely curtailed in many places (with violators punished by prison), the genocide or systematic cultural destruction of non-Christians, homosexuals jailed, executed, or lynched, and wives legally beat - to say nothing of the pandemic of racism and immense human suffering wrought by Christian colonization on the rest of the peoples of the world. Again, if you want to start calling religions barbaric, start with your own; from a purely empirical and numerical standpoint, it's the most barbaric religion in human history by a rather wide margin.

Nevertheless, we have a Constitution in this country that protects against such things - a Constitution that isn't shared by those other countries. If Muslims ever make a serious attempt with even a remote chance of success to enact Sharia law in the United States - something you have yet to provide any evidence for - I will stand with you in condemning it.

Until that point, Muslims as well as all other religions save Christianity seem content to live in our pluralist system. It is only Christians in this country who attempt to impose their religion's morality and their religion's laws on everyone else. My advice to you is to attack the raging bear that is the savagery and barbarism of Christianity, and condemn all of its historical abuses including colonialism and neocolonialism through imperialist economic policies, before attacking other religions for their abuses.

And I can't think of anything more inappropriate than a Christian church near the site of the Olympic Park massacre, committed by a Christian terrorist. I can't think of anything more inappropriate than Christian churches anywhere near the sites of American Christians' attempted genocide of the American Indian people, or near the sites of American Christians' trading in the enslaved lives and labor of the millions of Africans they kidnapped from their homes. Fair is fair; if you're going to present Islam as monolithic, then intellectual honesty demands that you present Christianity thus as well, and demand the complete removal of Christian churches from the United States and Canada, as the whole continent is a site of attempted Christian genocide against the Native Americans who were here long before any white man set foot on this side of the Atlantic.
Intellectual honesty calls for no such conclusion, James. Intellectual honesty calls for a critical analysis of the intellectual threads that permeate the religions. Now you may not like this, but people calling themselves Christian have not always had correct behaviors, even though the teachings of Christianity lift all humankind is lifted up to an astonishingly high, level. We are to follow Christ. That we don't doesn't diminish the Holy Bible in the least. The teachings are there; the question is, will Christ's followers follow Christ's teachings and example? In Islam, the teachings and leader's example are also there, and a very real case can be made that to follow these will result in bloodshed and hatred. In other words, you paint a picture out of perspective, with no context as to the advances Christianity has produced. In fact, the examples you cite (Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, etc) are not even Christian, by their own words. "I prefer Neitszhe to my Bible" - Rudolph. "I am an agnostic" - McVeigh. Even the murderer of the abortionist, George Tiller, was on medication for schizophrenia. Hitler used religion to promulgate himself as the German savior.
Now I am not saying to you that Christians don't do evil acts, that we have not committed atrocities. I am saying, let's be intellectually honest and admit that when a professing Christian does such a thing, it is against Christ's teachings.
Now having said all this, I want you to know: your statement, "If Christian ideas are truly better than Muslim ones - if Christianity truly has more to offer a person than Islam does - then I must trust that the truth will win out..." is absolutely, 100% correct, not merely because of the IDEAS Christianity contains, but because of the living resurrected Person of Jesus Christ, Who alone is able to impart life to a dead mankind.
When James says, the truth will win out what does that mean? In this life? And what does “Win out” mean? Did the truth win out in Cambodia? Did the truth win out in Communist China? Did the truth win out in the Soviet Union? Often, in fact more than likely, millions suffer and justice happens in the after-life. The truth wins out massively when you consider eternity and the judgment of God, but it is the heigth of folly to pretend that when a nation is confronted with two ideologies, people will automatically prefer Christianity. That people will opt for kindness and goodness over selfishness and cruelty.

“If Christian ideas are truly better than Muslim ones - if Christianity truly has more to offer a person than Islam does - then I must trust that the truth will win out. Do you not have a similar trust in your faith?” No. Where did you get this idea? That is Pelegianism, the belief in the good nature of human beings to choose good, when in reality we are a fallen race who prefer sin. We are saved only by grace. Worshipping God had more to offer the antedeluvian world too, but God destroyed every living creature because when presented with an option, they all chose violence and sin.

Of course the Kingdom of God will ultimately prevail on earth because our redeemer lives...when Jesus physically sets foot on earth bringing those who have been martyred with Him. Then the meek truly will inherit the earth.

In the mean time we must pray, vote, preach, legislate, limit the effects of sin in our pluralistic society and represent the Savior on earth without trampling on the human rights of others.

“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing”.
Rick, the truth doesn't have a chance to win out in Cambodia, communist China, etc, just as it has no chance right now of winning out in the oppression of say, Saudi Arabia. Because in order to "win" there competing ideas must be placed on the track in the first place. But when you write, "...God destroyed every living creature because when presented with an option, they all chose violence and sin..." you are correct. A world of people had a tremendous choice and they chose sin and judgment over grace - except for Noah & his family. This could happen here in the United States, too. I don't think it will; not as long as we remain a free people.
But we cannot keep an idea from being presented - no matter how wretched it is, how ungodly it is, how unAmerican it is...to do such a thing first of all makes the idea more exotic and desirable to people (that 'wanting what we can't have' phenomena) and second, the only way Christ can shine properly is if people are free to choose Him. Satan is anathema to God; so is sin. But God permitted the serpent in the garden, and He didn't smack down Eve's hand or Adam's thought processes when they chose (in a perfect environment, mind you, with untainted minds) the rotten fruit.
America has always been a pluralistic society, the separation of church and state is enshrined in the constitution. We are the most pluralistic nation on the planet. Even the military and prisons must make provisions for differing religious practices, from Wicca to native American shamanism to Islam. Say what you will, we have never had a colony and we never will. Great Britain had 34 colonies that were ruled by the Queen, under a British parliamentary system and used British money with the Queen’s face on the bills. France had 9 colonies. Germany and Spain had many colonies.

America had a 13 year experiment with prohibition. Drinking in Islam has been punishable by public whipping for 1400 years. Our God created wine as his first miracle and wine is a symbol of his blood. Hands have been amputated for stealing under Islamic law for 1400 years. There has been no systematic cultural destruction of non-Christians in America simply for being non-Christian. The destruction of native Americans was a lust for land, a regrettable conquest of another nation, an illegal and immoral action, not a Jihad against non-Christians. The use of slaves in the Southern states was illegal, immoral and unconstitutional and the American military went to war with the southern states 150 years ago to free the slaves and protect african American rights. “Jews in Colonial America struggled and won rights that were inconceivable and nonexistent in Europe. Jews struggled for and won the rights to equal economic opportunity, to own land, to go to higher secular education, to serve in the armed militias, to vote and...to become members of the legislative bodies.”-The Jewish Magazine. Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, atheists, muslims are thriving and their rights are protected by law and have never been legislated against. Homosexuals are not jailed, lynched or executed in America and their rights are protected by law. The New Testament does not advocate beating wives as the Quran does. The Quran specifically, actively, advocates human rights violations, misogyny and physical abuse.

Europe already has Sharia courts and no go zones for the police in those countries where Sharia is enforced. Great Britain has 5 Sharia courts. Harold Koh, President Obama’s legal advisor, has said that Sharia law "could, in an appropriate instance ... govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the US".

So “Christianity is the most barbaric religion in human history”? If that is truly the way you feel I would not identify as a Christian.
Say what you will, we have never had a colony and we never will.

The people of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Marianas Islands, American Samoa, and Hawai'i will be surprised to hear that the United States has never held colonies - since each of them is, or was, a colony of the United States, if not in name then in practice. Further, to draw the line for "colonialism" at explicitly-named colonies is to ignore this nation's shameful history of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, particularly our neighbors in Central and South America, to support even the cruelest and most inhuman leaders simply because they supported American economic interests.

Homosexuals are not jailed, lynched or executed in America and their rights are protected by law.

Up until a few years ago when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, they could be jailed. If the conservatives on the Supreme Court like Antonin Scalia had their way, LGBT people still could be jailed. (To say nothing of the efforts by American so-called "Christians" to enact into Ugandan law the jailing and execution of LGBT people in that country.) And what was the murder of Matthew Shepard but a lynching? LGBT people have to live every day with the reality that gay-bashing is still alive and well in this country.

There has been no systematic cultural destruction of non-Christians in America simply for being non-Christian.

Not since the Constitution was put in place, no. But there are elements in the American Right - including the hack pseudohistorian David Barton, the Texas GOP, and some in this very thread - who want to declare the USA a "Christian nation," presumably relegating all other religions to second-class status.

The destruction of native Americans was a lust for land, a regrettable conquest of another nation, an illegal and immoral action, not a Jihad against non-Christians.

Look at the rhetoric of those who engaged in those actions. While the primary motivation may have been a lust for land and resources - justified, of course, by the doctrine of Manifest Destiny which descends from Puritan apocalyptic triumphalism - the rhetoric of those who engaged in genocide against the Native Americans was couched in differences between "Christian" and "heathen."

The use of slaves in the Southern states was illegal, immoral and unconstitutional and the American military went to war with the southern states 150 years ago to free the slaves and protect african American rights.

Mark Noll has outlined the many, many ways in which those who held slaves used Christianity as a defense of their inhuman acts. Slavery, too, was done in the name of Christ. That there were Christians who stood against it (and ultimately triumphed) proves my point - Christianity is not a monolithic religion. Why do you presume that Islam must be?

Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, atheists, muslims are thriving and their rights are protected by law and have never been legislated against.

And yet, you want to change this by telling Muslims that there are certain places in this country where they're no longer free to exercise their religion.

The Quran specifically, actively, advocates human rights violations, misogyny and physical abuse.

The Bible specifically, actively, advocates genocide.

So “Christianity is the most barbaric religion in human history”? If that is truly the way you feel I would not identify as a Christian.

There are times I'd rather not, to be honest. Associating myself with genocidal maniacs and terrorists isn't exactly something I'm comfortable with.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that there are a multiplicity of Christianities, just as there are a multiplicity of Islams. I follow what I believe to be true Christianity - one that rejects the worldly doctrines of consumerism, racism/sexism/heterosexism, unrestricted capitalism, and temporal power in favor of justice, tolerance, and concern for the poor.
“Further, to draw the line for "colonialism" at explicitly-named colonies is to ignore this nation's shameful history of meddling.” So we haven’t had a colony as other nations have. True.

“And what was the murder of Matthew Shepard but a lynching?” No, he was not lynched by the government. Matthew Shephard, a gay man, was murdered and his murderer was sentenced to two life sentences by the government.

No systematic cultural destruction of non-Christians. “Not since the Constitution was put in place” Correct. The government does not destroy the culture of non-Christians.

The destruction of native Americans was a lust for land, a regrettable conquest of another nation, an illegal and immoral action, not a Jihad against non-Christians. “While the primary motivation may have been a lust for land and resources”. True, it was not a religious jihad.

“Mark Noll has outlined the many, many ways in which those who held slaves used Christianity as a defense of their inhuman acts.” Yes, and the Government went to war with the southern states 150 years ago and won because slavery contradicted our constitution.

“You want to change this by telling Muslims that there are certain places in this country where they're no longer free to exercise their religion?” Yes. Zoning laws are upheld every day against Baptist, Catholic, Methodist and other churches for inappropriate development locations. Which is certainly what this New York location is.

“The Bible specifically, actively, advocates genocide.” Specifically? Actively? Under a Theocracy 3000 years ago the nation of Israel was instructed to destroy the Canaanites because they practiced child sacrifice. Our Savior whom we worship today in the New Testament (which is the new covenant we are under today), prohibited murder. The Quran, written more recently (1400 years ago), is Islam’s new covenant and in effect today and advocates brutality and bloodshed.

And Kitty, I agree with you.
I won't try to answer to your particular interpretation of history. Just one "little detail". When a person that you consider a christian because he is occidental, ignoring what is to be a real christian ( one who has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior), commit a terrorist act is not acting in the name of Christianity or promoting the faith in Christ, so there is no comparison with a terrorist wanting to kill as many no Muslims as possible...IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, and trusting in receive a compensation in heaven for his crime.
That sounds a lot like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. When you arbitrarily decide what a "real Christian" is, ignoring the number of people who have committed heinous acts in the name of Christ, you get to cast off anyone in your tradition that makes you uncomfortable. It would be just as easy to say that those who commit terrorism in the name of God as revealed in Islam are similarly not true Muslims - and indeed, many have said just that.

If you're going to claim that those who act in the name of Christ aren't "real" Christians if they commit acts of genocide, colonization, and terror - as has been done not just by Europeans but by Christian Europeans for hundreds of years - then you must allow moderate Muslims the same permission to define themselves against the radicals in their religion. To do otherwise is rank intellectual hypocrisy.
If the truth is on our side, we should not have to resort to intimidation. God's people have been faithful through far worse than the presence of a mosque. If we can't face such a thing, what does it say about the quality of our faith?
I believe in individual soul liberty. We don't cram our views, but we do share and assert the into public discourse.

I believe in the American rights to private property, free speech, ect. I disagree with politically correct mindset where offending seems to be the worst crime. This, in my mind, is another form of tyranny.

Could the Muslim community pick up some points by saying: "Sorry, we'll look elsewhere?" Yes. The greatest acts are often not pushing our rights. Do I think it was prudent for the Islamic community to build there, no, but they do have the right.

As for the church...I think our response should be no comment. We have more important business to attend to. Seriously, we need a trip to the eye doctors, as there are many issues we should address, but our character is less then perfect.

Good post & discussion.

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now