I am a Christian, an American, and a political conservative. Because of this identity, I believe the group that wishes to build a Muslim center near Ground Zero has every right to do so. Those Christians who are political conservatives and are objecting to the mosque are failing to apply basic values to this issue. What I heard this morning on a local talk radio station was appalling. A host was calling people “stupid” and “dummies” for not objecting to the mosque. He couldn’t understand how any American would defend the building of the mosque, or religious center, near Ground Zero. Here’s why I do not oppose, and why I do defend, an Islamic group’s decision to construct a center near the site of the World Trade Center.
As I have already stated, I am a Christian. More specifically, I am a Baptist. Therefore, I believe in religious liberty. In this country, we should always protect religious rights – no matter the religion. Our Founders believed such. And Baptists at the time were the biggest supporters of religious liberty. Our Constitution and other founding documents protect our rights. Most importantly, these rights are protected for each individual, whether in the majority or minority. In this country, we don’t believe that the majority should be able to suppress the rights of others. We believe in majority rule with minority rights. No matter what the majority believes, certain rights of the individual will always be protected. One of those rights is free exercise of religion. If we allow society to restrict one group from worshiping where they wish, what stops the government from restricting others? Instead of protesting the building on an Islamic center near Ground Zero, we should be celebrating the ability of our country to protect and allow for religious freedom. As a Christian, I should cherish the idea that in America, we have the freedom to build multiple places of worship.
As a conservative, I believe in limited government. There are certain powers that the government should not have, especially in relation to our property rights. If a group owns a piece of land and they want to construct something legal on that land, the group should be allowed to do so. Conservatives talk about how the government seems too powerful today, reaching into our lives and telling us what to eat, what to drive, what kind of health insurance we should have, how much of our paycheck we need to fork over, etc. Yet, here is a case where these same conservatives think the government should tell a group of people what they should or shouldn’t do with their land. As a political conservative, I should champion the ability of a group to use private land for legal purposes, rejecting calls for the government to intervene.
Certainly, there are Muslims who think that building a mosque or religious center near Ground Zero is a bad PR move, and I may agree with that. But it also might be a bad PR move to build a mega-church in the middle of a neighborhood, or go door-to-door evangelizing during dinner time, or tell people Jesus is the Way, but because of religious liberty, we allow these practices. And I am thankful for that. If we could use Bill and Ted’s phone booth to go back in time, we should go ask Balthasar Hubmaier, as he is being burned at the stake for practicing believer’s baptism, if we should allow for minority faiths, (even faiths seen by some as threatening to society, as Hubmaier’s Anabaptists were), to construct a place of worship on private land in a country that claims to defend religious liberty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
While I agree that I don't want government regulating where religious groups can gather for worship, or own property, I think it's reasonable to object. The objections just need to be focused in the appropriate direction.
I tend to think that this mosque goes beyond bad PR and leans more toward a deliberate slap in the face. As a Christian and church staff member, I would object to my church building on or near a site that marks a horrific historical event that was brought about in the name of my faith.
This seems less like a mega church building in a neighborhood and more like the ATF opening a field office on the former site of the Branch Davidian compound or a memorial for fallen Japanese soldiers at Pearl Harbor. Though it might be perfectly legal, it doesn't make it right.
In spite of angry citizens having let their voices be heard, the mosque will probably still be built, but in defiance of their wishes and with an antagonistic spirit. The public outcry is useful and justifiable. A call for government interference is short sighted and self-serving. The request to our elected officials should be limited to asking them to speak on our behalf from their platform.
Agreed that people have the right to protest anything they wish to. I would not compare this to an ATF and Waco, or a Japanese War Memorial at Pearl harbor, though. If Al Qaeda was opening a training center at Ground Zero, then yes, but this is a Muslim group, and as far as I know, have no ties to Al Qaeda. Unless they have ties to Al Qaeda, they have no responsibility for what happened on 9/11, and therefore, should not be held accountable for the actions of terrorists. I know we agree that Westboro Baptist should not make a bad name for all baptists, particularly because they misrepresent Baptist theology. If they happened to be a violent organization, should that mean that any church with "Baptist" in its name should not be allowed to exist near that place? People in the muslim faith view Al Qaeda as degrading Islam - as an extreme terrorist organization that does not represent mainstream thought.
The Muslim center being built near Ground Zero is 2 blocks away, as is my understanding. So should there be a certain amount of blocks away that a mosque can be built in NY? 10 blocks, 100 blocks away? How would we draw that line?
At any rate, I think it is within one's right to protest the mosque, but I think in the name of consistency and integrity on their part, it needs to be done thoughtfully, with respect to our history of religious freedom.
Yeah, my analogies might be a little flawed. Westboro is a much better choice. As part of a non-hate mongering Christian organization, it is our responsibility to take every reasonable step to show a separation between us and groups who's ideas and actions are a detriment to the cause of our faith.
Say Westboro had decided to bomb the Eiffel Tower in opposition of France's tolerance of homosexuality. It fell over and killed lots of people and started a war. And a group of American Baptists decided to move to France and build a $130 million Baptist Church two blocks away from the bombing site in a land foreign to Baptist megachurches. As a fellow Baptist, I would have serious doubts about their motivations, and would hope that someone could convince them to reconsider. Go plant churches, just not like that.
The religious right is more often than not contradictory in what they decide to get mad about and serve as an embarrassing representation of both their faith and their politics. I just happen to be with them on this one as I've not heard it go beyond vocal concerns up to this point. You are correct to say that we need not entangle our conservative lawmakers in a legal battle over this, and I'll jump ship on this issue if it gets there. We need them solving real problems that get us back to our founding principles... like eliminating the BCS!
Wow! I wish I could express my views like the two of you have. I side with Todd on this one. KK
They have a legal right to build the mosque, but if they really want to foster understanding and conciliation they would move it blocks away. They also wouldn't dedicate it on 9/11/2001, the 10 year anniversary of the deadly event. They also give it a name meaning conquest.
When a group of nuns wanted to establish a house of prayer and understanding on the grounds at Auswich (sp?) the Jews protested. This was 40 years after WWII. The pope told them to move as it was obviously not going to serv its intended purpose.
The iman or whatever he is called in this deal has a sorted background. He may have terrorist ties.
Still, they have every right to build it. But, it should not be built if they really want to seek peace and understanding.
Of the City of New York I ask this question, "Why will you aprove a new Muslim mosque but not allow a Christian church damaged on 9/11 to rebuild?"
It does not make sense.
One question for this whole dilema. If a tragic occurance, in other words if one of their (muslim nation) most reanouned/symbolic building were destroyed, and it was believed that the Americans had devised a plot and were the ones who destroyed this building, do you this that that muslim nation or government would let Americans build an "American Rec. Center/Catholic Church" there... I don't thinks so!
But I am for the building of the mosque. I am a firm believer in religious freedom and I believe anyone can exercise the right to choose which religion to follow.
Post a Comment