This is straw man. Plain and simple. He tries to tie it in with other protests that may or may not be legitimately protested, but simply are not parallel to this protest.
This Islamic Centre has been intentionally placed at this location (which can indeed be considered part of Ground Zero, or at least a significant 9/11 site since plane wreckage landed on this building) to make a point. It cannot but be viewed as a provocation under the circumstances.
Very short-sighted and NOT objective. To place ill intention on someone or some group is a strong position to take. However, let’s say that this is their intention. As a symbol, it only has symbolic power if you give it that power. Like Abraham mentioned, say “so what?”. It doesn’t mean anything to you, except that you take offense to it. Muslims have not been banned from praying at ground zero. If you’re consistent shouldn’t that be banned as well?
I based my imputation of motives on a public statement of the Muslims who are defending this. I can’t give a source since I don’t remember where I saw it, but the man was asked how this could possibly be considered a conciliatory gesture. He could not answer that crucial question.
It seems to me that you’re arguing that a symbol means nothing except when it means something. This is an Evangelical fantasy. In the real world, symbols *do* mean something. That’s why they are building a memorial at Ground Zero and that is why the Muslims are building this centre.
It is easy to mock opponents of the mosque, as Stewart does, as rubes who think religious liberty is “for me but not for thee.” It isn’t that simple, however. While I don’t think Christians should immediately oppose an Islamic center (or mosque), Americans of any faith (or lack of faith) face a vexing problem in the spread of Islam. Just look at Europe.
Yes, “so what?” So what if they build more and more Islamic centers? I think the concern is that more places in America will begin to look like Dearborn, MI or England and France where sharia law has taken a foothold. “Can’t we all just get along,” is a bit too Pollyanna.
There is a real conundrum in play here, a very serious one, that is the context in which all this grandstanding about ground zero is taking place.
But that isn’t any fun. It is much more entertaining to just make fun of people.
But it is that simple. We can’t start denying American citizens simple rights because it makes us uncomfortable, or because we fear that one day it might become something entirely different. Especially when there is absolutely no information to suggest that it is anything other than exactly what they say it is. There are violent, extreme groups in every religion. To deny law abiding citizens the right to worship *anywhere* because we’re comparing them to their unwanted counterpart goes against everything we say we stand for.
Religious freedom does not grant the right to “worship anywhere.” America restricts religious freedom in many ways (zoning laws, property laws, permit requirements, etc.)
Jason- Which has nothing to do with what I meant, or the current situation. I didn’t say religious freedom meant we can “worship anywhere”. I believe what I said was, to deny someone the right to worship anywhere “because” we’re comparing them to something we’re scared of, is where religious freedom gets quenched. But you know, context shmontext.
I didn’t intend to misrepresent you, Debi. I’m sorry if I came across that way.
My point was that building any building on any location, let alone a site of national significance is generally subject to all sorts of regulations and checks including community consultation, and rightly so.
Except that many fundamentalist Christians have been actively trying to change the laws to enforce their values on everyone, including non-believers. What’s the difference between what you say is Sharia law and this? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Yes, some fundamentalist jackasses murdered thousands of people. Some of the people who were murdered were Muslim. And not for nothing, but Christian terrorists have done their own bombing, shooting, and killing for their faith. Check out the Army of God and the Lambs of Christ–and ask any staffer or doctor at a women’s health clinic more about that. (And yes. These attacks are actually organized, and these Christians give aid and comfort to terrorists. But apparently that’s okay because they’re not Muslim. Or something.)
Listen to yourself–you’re going on and on about being overrun by Muslims. People used to say the same thing about Catholics, and Jews, and they still say the same thing about people of color.
You don’t have to like Islam. I’m not a fan of any of the Abrahamic religions, myself, but when it’s on private property and it’s fine for local zoning, we have no right to block the construction of a house of worship. It’s not on public land, it’s not in a school, and no one is shoving down your throat or mine.
If there is a massacre in the name of Christianity, and Christians wanted to build on that site, we would be foolish not to demand that they demonstrate a) that their intention and likely effect will be conciliatory and that b) they publicly repudiate both in word and action the ideology that led to the massacre.
a) He’s done both.
b) Even if he hadn’t, that doesn’t change his right to build there.
You’re right, it’s not rocket science, it’s actually quite simple. Despite your feelings, or anyones feelings, or however distasteful the act may or may not be, he has the right to build a place of worship. Period. If we made a habit of going around and extinguishing everyones jackassery then it wouldn’t quite be America would it?
a) There is no definition by which this could be viewed as being conciliatory. Even if you could argue that it was *intended* to be conciliatory (which I don’t think is reasonable), they have already had the actual effect of causing widespread division and hurt and the “likely effect” is only more of the same.
b) I’m not as concerned here with his right as I am with what is decent. This is not decent.
If America doesn’t wake up and address the political ideology that is Islam, it *won’t* be America for much longer.
Failing to see the distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political ideology (a distinction Islam will never make) is not a luxury America has at this stage in history.
I say this as an outsider who respects America’s heritage, but also opines the fuzzy thinking that she often indulges.
Great! Can we get rid of any churches near women’s health clinics, given the history of militant Christian terrorism against MY rights to make my own medical decisions? Native American reservations should have no Christian houses of worship near them either (those conversions were not voluntary, and the Church had no compunction about killing people who would not convert).
I don’t like his last point about a higher standard of religious liberty than Saudi Arabia. Part of me thinks we shouldn’t compare ourselves to other countries and model what we do based on what they do. This is happening a lot now with medicare, and politics, and now religion and personal liberty (however you want to define that). It’s not going to lead anywhere good.
The interesting part about this is that we do have sanctions against other countries when their policies aren’t good enough for our liking. Which is what Stewart seemed to claim we shouldn’t do for religious freedoms.
He makes a good point with regard to the issue of religious freedom. Ultimately, though, I don’t think the issue of the proposed placement of an Islamic cultural center near ground zero centers on freedom of exercise under the First Amendment. As far as I’m aware, no one is saying that Muslims who live in that area should be prohibited from practicing their religion how they see fit. At its essence, isn’t this really a land use/zoning issue? It may be misguided, but I think a plausible argument can be made that this particular proposed location would be unnecessarily antagonistic/offensive to the local community.
Are not Muslims part of the “local community”? I guarantee you there were Muslims in the towers (running in to help or out to safety) on 9/11.
I wonder why in this situation we can’t be the example of religious liberty and say to those who would attack us for such things, “your acts of violence can’t make us hate and terrorize our own citizens.” Isn’t cracking down on Muslims exactly what Al Qaeda et al wants us to do?
Religious liberty, like all the others we enjoy, works best when the majority protects the interests and freedoms of the minority (in this case those who want to build an Islamic Community Center), even when those interests and freedoms are irksome to the majority. This is why James Madison warned against the supreme will of the majority in Federalist 10:
“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
In my judgment, it would be better to allow them to put in the Islamic cultural center. But notions of religious liberty only extend so far. We can and do put restrictions on where we can engage in all sorts of activities, even religious ones. There are many places in our country where zoning laws don’t allow you to build a Christian church, for example. More to the point, most cities don’t allow strip clubs to be built in certain areas because the general public deems them offensive (though a minority certainly would welcome them). It’s not a perfect parallel, but I can see the argument that locating this particular center in this particular location would similarly be offensive to the majority of the populace. I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to talk about this in terms of “terrorizing our own citizens” or “cracking down on Muslims.”
I wonder if the people protesting this would also protest a fundamentalist baptist church building a structure next door to an abortion clinic. #JustSayin
o.0 I’m not seeing the parallel here since IB’s have never harmed babies or Abortion proponents (even though Abortion proponents do massacre hundreds of thousands of babies).
*I* am a fundamentalist Christian. Those who murder are extremists.
Of course people want to think that is an exact parallel to Islam. But it is not. Here’s why.
Those who take a fundamentalist approach to the Koran are obligated to condone violence. Those who take a fundamentalist approach to the Christian Scriptures are obligated to condemn it.
Those who do violence in the name of Christianity are almost universally repudiated both in word and action by fundamentalist Christianity.
The same simply cannot be said for Islam, fundamentalist or other.
I should have clarified. I was using fundamentalist (which I also qualified with crazy) in the way that most people mean it. That is a person who’s beliefs are extreme and/or non-orthodox. I was not intending the classical definition of the word (one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith).
Either way, the parallel remains. People see Islamic terrorism, and it colors their view of Islam as a whole. People see Christian terrorism and it colors their view of Christianity as a whole. People who burn at the perceived offense of building an Islamic Center *near* ground zero ought to be equally appalled at a church moving in next to an abortion clinic, if they are consistent.
The very fact that some people view “fundamentalism” as another word for “extremism” is an argument that Islamic fundamentalism (I use the word here to mean what it actually means) is extreme.
The same is not true of Christianity. Of course you’ll always get the cultic groups and the occasional mentally unstable megalomaniac, but there is nothing about the Christian Scriptures that makes people extreme.
Islam on the other hand is inherently extreme when the Koran is viewed from a fundamentalist point of view.
At some point the Western world is going to have grapple with these realities. The fact that “fundamentalism” brings to my mind pictures of a terrorist is no excuse for fuzzy thinking that treats Islam like any other religion.
There is a part of Islam that is religious. But there is also a part of Islam that is ideological in the same way that communism and democracy are ideological.
I’m willing to die to ensure the freedom of others to worship in freedom. But we should not be so naive as to think for a single moment that there aren’t millions of people around the world who are caught up in this ideology who want you Americans, your children, and everything you stand for demolished.
I wouldn’t put a cross on or near his grave. Not sure how I feel about this issue as a whole, but I do think it insensitive at best to intentionally put religious icons, buildings, etc. so near to the site where many were harmed in the name of that religion (even if the harm doesn’t comport with the spirit of the actual religion).
“Of course you’ll always get the cultic groups and the occasional mentally unstable megalomaniac, but there is nothing about the Christian Scriptures that makes people extreme.”
This is ignorant.
Seriously, read the Bible and you’ll see that there is PLENTY in there that makes people “extreme.” Unbelievers were not treated well in the Bible, they met with brutal ends. The behavior of Christians over history has been murderous–and these were not a few fringe cults. The Inquisition was not some small, localized phenomenon. Nor were the witch hunts, which were spread all over Europe as well as New England. The Crusades were not an attempt to make friends with people. The pogroms were not rare anomalies perpetrated by a few small fringe groups.
And this continues today. There is a HUGE militant Christian movement to shape the laws of this nation to reflect their values, non-believers be damned. Anti-choice Christian terrorists bomb clinics and murder staff and doctors. Militant Christians try to force their beliefs and ways on the rest of us–pushing for prayer in schools, pushing for non-scientific teachings (intelligent design) in science class (and trying to block the teaching of evolution), interfering in the private medical decisions of private citizens, and doing their best to promote laws that discriminate against those whom they don’t like (such as gays and lesbians). Well, no thanks.
The Muslim community center can be seen as an exercise in religious freedom and free commerce. Meanwhile, in Somerset, PA, our own government wants to use eminent domain to seize private property in order to establish a memorial to United Flight 93. Which is the greater insult to the memory of those who died that day?
If I’m remembering the description right, they are talking about building a center (educational building) at ground zero and not a mosque (place of worship). While the center may be a training place for worship (and possibly other things), it is different than a mosque. Also, someone pointed out that Muslims do pray, or worship, near ground zero, so it seems like that right is not being denied.
When I read the comments that write off the concerns that are shared about the center, I’m reminded of something Richard Wurmbrand wrote about in Tortured For Christ. When the Communists came to Romania, the citizens believed their claims that they would coexist peacefully with the church. The rest of the book shows that the people were horribly misled.
Wurmbrand writes, “The language of love and the language of seduction are the same. The one who wishes a girl for a wife and the one who wishes her for only a night both say the words, ‘I love you.’ Jesus has told us to discern between the language of seduction and the language of love. and to know the wolves clad in sheepskin from the real sheep. Unfortunately, when the Communists came to power, thousands of priests, pastors and ministers did not know how to discern between the two voices.”
Wurmbrand does an excellent job of showing us how to love those who seem to (and at times do) wish us harm, and how to also guard against that harm. You can get a free copy of his book at http://www.persecution.com. And you can also learn about many ways to reach out to Muslims and others with Christ’s love.
Those who are in positions of leadership who have to make hard decisions about how to protect people from future terrorism need our prayers much more than they need our ridicule. If more time is spent praying for them than is spent ridiculing them, what a difference that will make…
Regardless of how you feel about the building of the Islamic Center near Ground Zero (I am not sold either way), we’ve at least got to admit that the Burlington Coat Factory bit was pretty funny!
Here’s my thing. We can’t, and shouldn’t stop it. But they shouldn’t be building it there. They have no sense of common decency. The backers of this site should be ashamed, but they are not.
As an American and an orthodox Christian, I agree with Jon Stewart. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion.
Often Islamic community centers also have mosques or allow worship there. It doesn’t make a difference. It can be allowed.
On the other hand, some Christians have murdered abortion doctors and bombed abortion clinics. So maybe America shouldn’t allow new churches to be planted? How does that differ from the argument against the Ground Zero mosque? And please don’t give me some statistic like “only 10 abortion doctors have been murdered vs. 5000 at Ground Zero”. Oh, that completely justifies it.
Readers might be interested in Thomas Sowell’s article on this topic at townhall.com Here is an excerpt…
“…why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?
It would not be illegal for Japanese Americans to build a massive shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it.
When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it…”
Freedom of what now?
Wow. I love Jon Stewart sometimes.
Only sometimes?!?
I can’t decide if it’s really sad or really refreshing that some of the best political commentary now comes from comedians.
This is straw man. Plain and simple. He tries to tie it in with other protests that may or may not be legitimately protested, but simply are not parallel to this protest.
This Islamic Centre has been intentionally placed at this location (which can indeed be considered part of Ground Zero, or at least a significant 9/11 site since plane wreckage landed on this building) to make a point. It cannot but be viewed as a provocation under the circumstances.
fwiw.
But wouldn’t freedom of religion mean that even if what you’re saying is true, we choose to say, “So what?”
Since when does a religion have no right to provoke?
When it is closely tied to the intentional massacre of 5,000 odd people on that location.
Very short-sighted and NOT objective. To place ill intention on someone or some group is a strong position to take. However, let’s say that this is their intention. As a symbol, it only has symbolic power if you give it that power. Like Abraham mentioned, say “so what?”. It doesn’t mean anything to you, except that you take offense to it. Muslims have not been banned from praying at ground zero. If you’re consistent shouldn’t that be banned as well?
I based my imputation of motives on a public statement of the Muslims who are defending this. I can’t give a source since I don’t remember where I saw it, but the man was asked how this could possibly be considered a conciliatory gesture. He could not answer that crucial question.
It seems to me that you’re arguing that a symbol means nothing except when it means something. This is an Evangelical fantasy. In the real world, symbols *do* mean something. That’s why they are building a memorial at Ground Zero and that is why the Muslims are building this centre.
It is easy to mock opponents of the mosque, as Stewart does, as rubes who think religious liberty is “for me but not for thee.” It isn’t that simple, however. While I don’t think Christians should immediately oppose an Islamic center (or mosque), Americans of any faith (or lack of faith) face a vexing problem in the spread of Islam. Just look at Europe.
Yes, “so what?” So what if they build more and more Islamic centers? I think the concern is that more places in America will begin to look like Dearborn, MI or England and France where sharia law has taken a foothold. “Can’t we all just get along,” is a bit too Pollyanna.
There is a real conundrum in play here, a very serious one, that is the context in which all this grandstanding about ground zero is taking place.
But that isn’t any fun. It is much more entertaining to just make fun of people.
But it is that simple. We can’t start denying American citizens simple rights because it makes us uncomfortable, or because we fear that one day it might become something entirely different. Especially when there is absolutely no information to suggest that it is anything other than exactly what they say it is. There are violent, extreme groups in every religion. To deny law abiding citizens the right to worship *anywhere* because we’re comparing them to their unwanted counterpart goes against everything we say we stand for.
Religious freedom does not grant the right to “worship anywhere.” America restricts religious freedom in many ways (zoning laws, property laws, permit requirements, etc.)
Jason- Which has nothing to do with what I meant, or the current situation. I didn’t say religious freedom meant we can “worship anywhere”. I believe what I said was, to deny someone the right to worship anywhere “because” we’re comparing them to something we’re scared of, is where religious freedom gets quenched. But you know, context shmontext.
I didn’t intend to misrepresent you, Debi. I’m sorry if I came across that way.
My point was that building any building on any location, let alone a site of national significance is generally subject to all sorts of regulations and checks including community consultation, and rightly so.
Except that many fundamentalist Christians have been actively trying to change the laws to enforce their values on everyone, including non-believers. What’s the difference between what you say is Sharia law and this? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Yes, some fundamentalist jackasses murdered thousands of people. Some of the people who were murdered were Muslim. And not for nothing, but Christian terrorists have done their own bombing, shooting, and killing for their faith. Check out the Army of God and the Lambs of Christ–and ask any staffer or doctor at a women’s health clinic more about that. (And yes. These attacks are actually organized, and these Christians give aid and comfort to terrorists. But apparently that’s okay because they’re not Muslim. Or something.)
Listen to yourself–you’re going on and on about being overrun by Muslims. People used to say the same thing about Catholics, and Jews, and they still say the same thing about people of color.
You don’t have to like Islam. I’m not a fan of any of the Abrahamic religions, myself, but when it’s on private property and it’s fine for local zoning, we have no right to block the construction of a house of worship. It’s not on public land, it’s not in a school, and no one is shoving down your throat or mine.
So we should protest churches then that are built in areas where Christian groups have done the killing?
I got dibs on Salem!
If there is a massacre in the name of Christianity, and Christians wanted to build on that site, we would be foolish not to demand that they demonstrate a) that their intention and likely effect will be conciliatory and that b) they publicly repudiate both in word and action the ideology that led to the massacre.
This isn’t rocket science folks.
a) He’s done both.
b) Even if he hadn’t, that doesn’t change his right to build there.
You’re right, it’s not rocket science, it’s actually quite simple. Despite your feelings, or anyones feelings, or however distasteful the act may or may not be, he has the right to build a place of worship. Period. If we made a habit of going around and extinguishing everyones jackassery then it wouldn’t quite be America would it?
a) There is no definition by which this could be viewed as being conciliatory. Even if you could argue that it was *intended* to be conciliatory (which I don’t think is reasonable), they have already had the actual effect of causing widespread division and hurt and the “likely effect” is only more of the same.
b) I’m not as concerned here with his right as I am with what is decent. This is not decent.
If America doesn’t wake up and address the political ideology that is Islam, it *won’t* be America for much longer.
Failing to see the distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political ideology (a distinction Islam will never make) is not a luxury America has at this stage in history.
I say this as an outsider who respects America’s heritage, but also opines the fuzzy thinking that she often indulges.
Great! Can we get rid of any churches near women’s health clinics, given the history of militant Christian terrorism against MY rights to make my own medical decisions? Native American reservations should have no Christian houses of worship near them either (those conversions were not voluntary, and the Church had no compunction about killing people who would not convert).
Ah, the wonderful power of satire.
This guy may be funny but he’s clueless. And, apparently, so is his audience.
*passes the kool-aid*
Hysterical. And painfully true.
I don’t like his last point about a higher standard of religious liberty than Saudi Arabia. Part of me thinks we shouldn’t compare ourselves to other countries and model what we do based on what they do. This is happening a lot now with medicare, and politics, and now religion and personal liberty (however you want to define that). It’s not going to lead anywhere good.
The interesting part about this is that we do have sanctions against other countries when their policies aren’t good enough for our liking. Which is what Stewart seemed to claim we shouldn’t do for religious freedoms.
He makes a good point with regard to the issue of religious freedom. Ultimately, though, I don’t think the issue of the proposed placement of an Islamic cultural center near ground zero centers on freedom of exercise under the First Amendment. As far as I’m aware, no one is saying that Muslims who live in that area should be prohibited from practicing their religion how they see fit. At its essence, isn’t this really a land use/zoning issue? It may be misguided, but I think a plausible argument can be made that this particular proposed location would be unnecessarily antagonistic/offensive to the local community.
Are not Muslims part of the “local community”? I guarantee you there were Muslims in the towers (running in to help or out to safety) on 9/11.
I wonder why in this situation we can’t be the example of religious liberty and say to those who would attack us for such things, “your acts of violence can’t make us hate and terrorize our own citizens.” Isn’t cracking down on Muslims exactly what Al Qaeda et al wants us to do?
Religious liberty, like all the others we enjoy, works best when the majority protects the interests and freedoms of the minority (in this case those who want to build an Islamic Community Center), even when those interests and freedoms are irksome to the majority. This is why James Madison warned against the supreme will of the majority in Federalist 10:
“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
In my judgment, it would be better to allow them to put in the Islamic cultural center. But notions of religious liberty only extend so far. We can and do put restrictions on where we can engage in all sorts of activities, even religious ones. There are many places in our country where zoning laws don’t allow you to build a Christian church, for example. More to the point, most cities don’t allow strip clubs to be built in certain areas because the general public deems them offensive (though a minority certainly would welcome them). It’s not a perfect parallel, but I can see the argument that locating this particular center in this particular location would similarly be offensive to the majority of the populace. I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to talk about this in terms of “terrorizing our own citizens” or “cracking down on Muslims.”
But the zoning laws allow for this there. So it’s a moot point.
I wonder if the people protesting this would also protest a fundamentalist baptist church building a structure next door to an abortion clinic. #JustSayin
o.0 I’m not seeing the parallel here since IB’s have never harmed babies or Abortion proponents (even though Abortion proponents do massacre hundreds of thousands of babies).
Um. The people who bomb abortion clinics are crazy fundamentalist Christians.
*I* am a fundamentalist Christian. Those who murder are extremists.
Of course people want to think that is an exact parallel to Islam. But it is not. Here’s why.
Those who take a fundamentalist approach to the Koran are obligated to condone violence. Those who take a fundamentalist approach to the Christian Scriptures are obligated to condemn it.
Those who do violence in the name of Christianity are almost universally repudiated both in word and action by fundamentalist Christianity.
The same simply cannot be said for Islam, fundamentalist or other.
I should have clarified. I was using fundamentalist (which I also qualified with crazy) in the way that most people mean it. That is a person who’s beliefs are extreme and/or non-orthodox. I was not intending the classical definition of the word (one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith).
Either way, the parallel remains. People see Islamic terrorism, and it colors their view of Islam as a whole. People see Christian terrorism and it colors their view of Christianity as a whole. People who burn at the perceived offense of building an Islamic Center *near* ground zero ought to be equally appalled at a church moving in next to an abortion clinic, if they are consistent.
Drew,
The very fact that some people view “fundamentalism” as another word for “extremism” is an argument that Islamic fundamentalism (I use the word here to mean what it actually means) is extreme.
The same is not true of Christianity. Of course you’ll always get the cultic groups and the occasional mentally unstable megalomaniac, but there is nothing about the Christian Scriptures that makes people extreme.
Islam on the other hand is inherently extreme when the Koran is viewed from a fundamentalist point of view.
At some point the Western world is going to have grapple with these realities. The fact that “fundamentalism” brings to my mind pictures of a terrorist is no excuse for fuzzy thinking that treats Islam like any other religion.
There is a part of Islam that is religious. But there is also a part of Islam that is ideological in the same way that communism and democracy are ideological.
I’m willing to die to ensure the freedom of others to worship in freedom. But we should not be so naive as to think for a single moment that there aren’t millions of people around the world who are caught up in this ideology who want you Americans, your children, and everything you stand for demolished.
Or how about the doctor who performed abortions who was murdered in a church last year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller#Murder)
The murderer was a “Christian”.
I wouldn’t put a cross on or near his grave. Not sure how I feel about this issue as a whole, but I do think it insensitive at best to intentionally put religious icons, buildings, etc. so near to the site where many were harmed in the name of that religion (even if the harm doesn’t comport with the spirit of the actual religion).
“Of course you’ll always get the cultic groups and the occasional mentally unstable megalomaniac, but there is nothing about the Christian Scriptures that makes people extreme.”
This is ignorant.
Seriously, read the Bible and you’ll see that there is PLENTY in there that makes people “extreme.” Unbelievers were not treated well in the Bible, they met with brutal ends. The behavior of Christians over history has been murderous–and these were not a few fringe cults. The Inquisition was not some small, localized phenomenon. Nor were the witch hunts, which were spread all over Europe as well as New England. The Crusades were not an attempt to make friends with people. The pogroms were not rare anomalies perpetrated by a few small fringe groups.
And this continues today. There is a HUGE militant Christian movement to shape the laws of this nation to reflect their values, non-believers be damned. Anti-choice Christian terrorists bomb clinics and murder staff and doctors. Militant Christians try to force their beliefs and ways on the rest of us–pushing for prayer in schools, pushing for non-scientific teachings (intelligent design) in science class (and trying to block the teaching of evolution), interfering in the private medical decisions of private citizens, and doing their best to promote laws that discriminate against those whom they don’t like (such as gays and lesbians). Well, no thanks.
I say let them put up the center and plant a church next door. http://meetistanbul.com/prayers-for-muslim-unbelievers-history.php
The Muslim community center can be seen as an exercise in religious freedom and free commerce. Meanwhile, in Somerset, PA, our own government wants to use eminent domain to seize private property in order to establish a memorial to United Flight 93. Which is the greater insult to the memory of those who died that day?
If I’m remembering the description right, they are talking about building a center (educational building) at ground zero and not a mosque (place of worship). While the center may be a training place for worship (and possibly other things), it is different than a mosque. Also, someone pointed out that Muslims do pray, or worship, near ground zero, so it seems like that right is not being denied.
When I read the comments that write off the concerns that are shared about the center, I’m reminded of something Richard Wurmbrand wrote about in Tortured For Christ. When the Communists came to Romania, the citizens believed their claims that they would coexist peacefully with the church. The rest of the book shows that the people were horribly misled.
Wurmbrand writes, “The language of love and the language of seduction are the same. The one who wishes a girl for a wife and the one who wishes her for only a night both say the words, ‘I love you.’ Jesus has told us to discern between the language of seduction and the language of love. and to know the wolves clad in sheepskin from the real sheep. Unfortunately, when the Communists came to power, thousands of priests, pastors and ministers did not know how to discern between the two voices.”
Wurmbrand does an excellent job of showing us how to love those who seem to (and at times do) wish us harm, and how to also guard against that harm. You can get a free copy of his book at http://www.persecution.com. And you can also learn about many ways to reach out to Muslims and others with Christ’s love.
Those who are in positions of leadership who have to make hard decisions about how to protect people from future terrorism need our prayers much more than they need our ridicule. If more time is spent praying for them than is spent ridiculing them, what a difference that will make…
Regardless of how you feel about the building of the Islamic Center near Ground Zero (I am not sold either way), we’ve at least got to admit that the Burlington Coat Factory bit was pretty funny!
Here’s my thing. We can’t, and shouldn’t stop it. But they shouldn’t be building it there. They have no sense of common decency. The backers of this site should be ashamed, but they are not.
Well said.
As an American and an orthodox Christian, I agree with Jon Stewart. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion.
Often Islamic community centers also have mosques or allow worship there. It doesn’t make a difference. It can be allowed.
On the other hand, some Christians have murdered abortion doctors and bombed abortion clinics. So maybe America shouldn’t allow new churches to be planted? How does that differ from the argument against the Ground Zero mosque? And please don’t give me some statistic like “only 10 abortion doctors have been murdered vs. 5000 at Ground Zero”. Oh, that completely justifies it.
Tim
I think your comments have been addressed throughout the discussion.
Readers might be interested in Thomas Sowell’s article on this topic at townhall.com Here is an excerpt…
“…why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?
It would not be illegal for Japanese Americans to build a massive shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it.
When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it…”
Whatever happens, we must be ready to pray and forgive, as Adel and Methu…
http://manywaters-chris.blogspot.com/2010/09/jihad-could-not-quench-their-love.html