There are a number of arguments that politically liberal Christians – and non-Christians – seem to enjoy making in defence of allowing the building to go ahead:
It’s not a mosque, it’s a cultural centre with a prayer room.
This is true up to a point; it is a cultural centre, a large Islamic cultural centre with a large – a very large – prayer room. The prayer room will be large enough to house up to 2000 people; I am uncertain whether a reluctance to call this a mosque is the blinkered response of people refusing to allow a cherished preconception to be demolished or whether calling a room designed to house 2000 praying Muslims a mosque inflicts semantic violence on the word. And I don’t particularly care: the question remains – should a large Islamic building be constructed on a site where 3000 people were murdered by individuals whose inspiration was Islam.
The Imam pushing the construction is a “moderate Muslim”
I confess I have difficulty understanding the meaning of “moderate Muslim”; the only reason the term is in use at all is because there are so many immoderate Muslims wanting to blow people up – when it isn’t convenient to behead them. There is no such thing as a “moderate Christian”; the nearest category I can think of would be a “nominal Christian”. From the perspective of Christians who take their faith seriously, a nominal Christian is someone who doesn’t; and I suspect the same is true of Muslims.
I would like to posit the existence of another category: the “stealth moderate Muslim”, the Muslim who, living in an environment hostile to his ideology, holds fast to it but pretends not to. Muslims in this category occasionally let their slips show, though. A few years ago on the Michael Coren show a “moderate Muslim”, a lawyer – an apparently personable and rational fellow – admitted when pushed that yes, indeed, the Koran does advocate the death sentence for those who abandon Islam for another religion. He didn’t look particularly comfortable about it but, since it is in the Koran, he couldn’t disagree. I think Imam Feisal is in this category. Although he condemns the 9/11 murders – what idiot wouldn’t – he nevertheless thinks that “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened”, that sharia law is nothing other than natural law in another guise, that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation. He is a man who takes Islam seriously.
The building won’t even be at ground zero, it is two blocks away
The building that was standing in the spot where the mosque is to be built was destroyed by the events of 9/11. Why would it not be considered part of the devastation that constitutes ground zero?
To prevent the building of the mosque would be a curtailing of religious freedom
Religious freedom does not include the natural right to build a place of worship anywhere you want. Let us imagine – it might be a strain, I admit – that a group of demented Christians decided to blow up the Taric Islamic centre in Toronto killing a 1000 or so Muslims. After the dust settles, a Christian developer manages to buy the land where the mosque stood and decides to build a cathedral –in the interest of religious harmony and outreach to Muslims. Does anyone believe either that his motives would be sincere or that he would be allowed to do this in the name of “religious freedom”? He would not, and rightly so.
Further, there are 200 mosques in Manhattan: no-one is suggesting closing any of them; land some distance away from ground zero has been offered and turned down. Muslims are as free to worship as anyone.
The fact that Imam Feisal even wants to build his Islamic centre is a portent of ill intent.
Allowing the mosque to be built is the Christian thing to do
First, the decision is primarily a political one: although freedom of religion is guaranteed in the US, this freedom, like any other, is not without its limits and doesn’t necessarily encompass building a place of worship anywhere – particularly when it infringes on another’s freedom. Time will tell, but I strongly suspect that Obama’s implicit approval of the mosque is another nail in his political coffin.
Second, from a Christian perspective some seem to think that allowing the mosque to be built is the tolerant and loving thing to do – after all, perhaps this Christian hyper-tolerance will so shock Muslims it will tip them over the edge into Christianity. Others think it is the wimpy thing to do.
A Christian who takes his faith seriously cannot believe that Islam is true – if it is, then Jesus was merely a prophet and Christianity a lie. While Christians have to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s – and freedom of religion is Caesar’s in our democracy – Christian tolerance does not mean acquiescing to the promotion of false faiths – there is absolutely no Christian imperative demanding tolerance of a ground zero mosque.
Pingback: Corboda House Initative: Ground Zero Mosque New York & Corboda Cathedral Spain | eChurch Christian Blog
‘Religious’ tolerance?
The privileges of being classed as religion should be withdrawn from Islam.
If Hitler had claimed that ‘Mein Kampf’ was dictated by God, would we be forced to tolerate the Nazi Party as a religion? Islam is first and foremost a mind-destroying, totalitarian political ideology that spreads through the Body Politic like a virus.
Winston Churchill gave the correct diagnosis over a century ago, when he compared Islam to a contagious virus or meme – ‘as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog’ http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islam-murder-meme-and-rabies-of.html
Consequently, Islam should be reclassified from ‘RELIGION’ to ‘PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM’ – a fatal contagious mental illness. It could then be contained by the methods used to prevent the spread of typhoid and other lethal epidemics: enforced exclusion and quarantime of carriers, eradication of foci of infection, immunization of the susceptible population etc.
But what if the land was two blocks away, not in view of the site, and purchased 10 years later? Are really that confident in your assertion?
I guess if I’m labeled as a “political liberal” it won’t do much use to say that my real interest is to tone down the rhetoric, have information presented in a balanced way and defend the same rights that I expect to enjoy? I don’t see any biblical warrant for doing otherwise. And, by the way, I don’t think that building the prayer centre is a particularly smart idea.
If it was part of the blast area – yes.
In spite of that blot, I don’t doubt it; but since “rhetoric” means The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively, I’m at a loss as to why you would want to.
I never for a moment thought otherwise, sensible fellow that you are.
David, you failed to mention the other definition for rhetoric as listed in the COD: language designed to persuade or impress (often with an implication of insincerity or exaggeration etc.).
That’s because I find it inconceivable that you could think anything I write would be insincere or written merely to impress; persuade, perhaps even very occasionally – but only in the best interests of conveying the essence of the matter – exaggerate, yes.
There’s also: Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous but I’m sure you didn’t mean that.
I have little or no moral authority for lecturing anyone on the subject of rhetoric – taken in either a negative or positive sense. When I turn it on, I seem to have a knack for making a blog thread, that would otherwise quickly die a natural death, go on ad infinitum (or get myself banned as I did from SFIF). Not an particularly noteworthy skill.
Although I can understand where it could be taken that I was making the implication – I did not accuse you of rhetoric. If you think that having an interest in toning down language designed to persuade or impress (often with an implication of insincerity or exaggeration etc.) does not fit with the image of your blog, then I should humbly bow out.
Maybe I’m trying to reform myself. Although I can often intellectually or philosophically assent to political views being expressed on a blog like SFIF, I frequently get so annoyed at the manner in which they are expressed – and the disdain shown towards those who disagree – that I have an irrepressible urge to defend the opposing view. That has caused me to think that there have likely be many cases where I have left the “playing field” convinced that I was the winner when I actually drove people farther from the view that I was trying to convince them of.
Old habits are hard to break, though, and I will doubtlessly slip. And, seriousness aside, I still find your blog amusing and worth visiting. So, keep it up – even though I won’t always agree with your opinion.
Believe it or not, I wouldn’t particularly mind if you had – I would probably say to myself, “I wonder if he’s right?” – without admitting it; I hate to capitulate prematurely and spoil a good argument.
Not at all – “tone down” away.
I am well acquainted with the contrarian urge.
Yes, I have considerable doubts that anyone is convinced of an opposing view by a blog exchange; still, it does serve to sharpen one’s wits – an increasing need as the brain cells wither with age.
Delighted to hear it.
Perish the thought: sometimes I don’t agree with myself from one day to the next.
To get back to the story, I just watched a clip where Glenn Beck and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf appeared on the same talk show in 2006 and Beck referred to the Imam as a good Muslim. Beck has done an amazing about face and seems to have no respect for the intelligence of the people who watch his show? Might ratings have something to do with it? Is there anything about this story that isn’t being spun?
By the way, what is the radius of the circle you draw around ground zero to enclose the area you consider hallowed ground? Five blocks? Eight blocks? 18 blocks?
I haven’t used the word “hallowed”.
For those – Feisal, for example – who would build the mosque as close to the centre of ground zero as possible, there isn’t much point in talking about a radius at all.
For those who think that a line should be drawn somewhere, within the radius of destruction seems reasonable. Where would you draw it? Or if you wouldn’t, how high would you allow the Islamic centre to be built if it were in the middle of ground zero – as high as the twin towers? Half as high? A quarter?
On the subject of Glenn Beck, I see Al Sharpton and others are protesting the timing and location of his Restoring Honour rally because it it “insensitive” – unlike the mosque.
I know it’s long after the fact for this thread and no one may come back for a look, but I listened to a podcast this morning that made more sense to me than anything I’ve read on this blog concerning the mosque/prayer centre controversy:
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque.html
I should have listened to it when I received it three weeks ago. Chris Rosebrough definitely isn’t a liberal; either in a religious or political sense.
Anyone who takes close to 15 minutes begging me to hear him out and assuring me he is purveying the “truth’ and “facts” has already put me right off whatever comes next.
Chris Rosebrough has a style of “why use 10 words when a 1000 will do”; after the 49th “my take on this is”, I stopped listening. No doubt the rest of the podcast contained gems whose price my constitution is unwilling to pay.
Your loss. Although I’ll admit that I can’t keep up with his 2+ hours of broadcast per day.