Bible Based Book Burning Backfires

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/04/08/what-he-wanted-all-along-the-real-scandal-of-pastor-terry-jones/
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/03/afghanistan.protests/index.html
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/01/quran-much-more-than-a-holy-book-to-muslims/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/01/timeline-of-floridas-quran-burning-pastor/

I picked this topic because it had more than religious implications, even though I could’ve done it last week. Terry Jones going back on his statement that his church would never burn a Quran is insulting enough, since he’s supposed to be a man of his word, considering he’s a preacher. People trust him to do what he says and then he decides to try to find a loophole by declaring March 20th “International Judge the Quran Day” and declares the Quran “guilty” and burns it. Seems like this was just a subtle way to get his wish to burn the holy book of a religion he’s fixated on as evil and also saying that he wasn’t just book burning for censorship, but because he thought the book deserved it by its own merits. But in that case, I could just as easily declare Easter Day as Judge the Bible Day and burn a copy of the KJV, posting a video of it. Heck, I’d do what Pharyngula did and bury the Bible and Quran and post a video of it. Would I get more popularity than Terry Jones? Probably, since the Quran and the Bible would expand my audience to probably the two largest faiths in the world. Of course, I’d really lean towards burying the books from a biological and chemical perspective, considering they’re trees in some sense of the word processed into bound texts. Might even be symbolic of their proverbial death in culture.

General David Petraeus, the same guy who warned Jones against burning the Quran before, is now condemning it again. Virtually everyone from any Abrahamic faith is united in calling the act intolerant and disrespectful to Muslims everywhere. Even if a group of Muslims also attacked and killed United Nations staff in Mazar-e Sharif, there are many Muslims in Europe and the Middle East that decry the motivation behind this terrible act of dual censorship/bigotry. Terry Jones seems to be the minority in America in being willing to take such direct action in protest of Islam. Other people will use legal methods, such as lawsuits against the Muslim community centers across the country being built. But this pastor of a small Florida church decided that he should burn a copy of the Muslim holy book to send a message, even though this is little different than what some Muslims have done to both the American flag and the Bible, though for quite different reasons in each case. The aged minister seems to have sunk to the level of Westboro Baptist Church, though I’m not aware if they have ever burned a Quran or an American flag, though we can find instances of them stepping on the latter. Of course one can actually find a parallel between both of these churches in that they seem to be doing this primarily for public attention, so that the media can pay attention to them and their message, whether it’s “God hates America” or “God says it’s okay to burn a holy book from what is basically a sibling religion to Christianity,” Many Christians, though, including prominent Baptist Albert Mohler, agreed that Islam should be opposed on a spiritual level as a religion that is false, but strongly denounced the idea that burning the holy book will actually communicate a message like what Jesus spoke. Jesus didn’t burn books or censor people; he took them at their word and engaged them, many times changing their minds with parables or simply contending on a theological level that they were missing the point, such as his distinction of the spirit versus the letter of the law to the Pharisees.

What’s funnier is that Terry Jones was warned before that this would put troops in Afghanistan in danger, but when he does it anyway, he doesn’t seem to feel nearly as guilty when people who are less connected to any direct conflict with the Middle East were killed by Muslims that seemed clearly motivated by his burning of their holy book. He condemned it as an act of terrorism, even though one might accuse him of doing the same thing to Muslims, albeit indirectly in inciting violence through provocative displays; in his case, burning what is basically the core of the Muslim faith, equivalent to doing things that have raised particularly Catholic anger in America, such as carving a statue of Jesus out of chocolate or putting a crucifix in a bottle of urine. But no one in America stormed into buildings and killed people they thought had associations with it, politically or otherwise. They demanded unreasonable bending of the law to protect their faith, but they were at least more pleasant and civil about it than many Muslims seem to be when they become vigilantes for their faith. Unfortunately, America is not free of this kind of violent behavior either, albeit it’s usually rarer and directed specifically towards the issue of abortion. The best example that comes to mind is Dr. George Tiller, shot in the face by Scott Roeder almost two years ago. Roeder felt it was the most lawful thing he could do in terms of his belief that God’s law supersedes any earthly law. When anyone takes their faith too seriously and insists that anyone insulting it in any way deserves to die, that’s when faith has crossed the line into ideology. Admittedly, not everyone is up in arms over this in the same way. Many Muslims are even saying that this shows that Muslims should spread a message that Islam can peacefully disagree with people, even when the media seems to portray only the violent actions of people affiliated with Islam, many times in a politically charged context.

It’s hard to continue this without descending into ranting, but this issue will continue to persist until people start either ceasing to pay attention to people that are extreme enough to resort to provocative actions, provided by the First Amendment nonetheless, or confront them peacefully instead of lashing out in anger or recoiling in aversion; as if these acts don’t show the climate of Islamophobia and Christian exceptionalism that pervades the U.S. and has been since post WW2 at the very least. It almost seems like there’s a pattern, starting with American exceptionalism alongside Christian exceptionalism that leads to anti-semitic, anti-foreigner and anti-Islamic sentiments from people who feel some sense of entitlement that doesn’t exist in reality. Christianity doesn’t deserve to be treated better or worse in this country, and the same goes for Islam, along with any other faith group in the U.S. If we seek impartiality and neutrality in the administration of our government, then people should start accepting that Christianity might have had cultural significance to the Founding Fathers, but it shouldn’t take precedence in any normative or prescriptive sense: the Constitution should first and foremost determine matters of policy, not people’s feelings of hegemony over those that are less influential or less demographically populous. If it’s a matter of having children, Islam might start pushing into Christianity’s dominance of population in the U.S. given enough time. But winning battles shouldn’t be our goal; it should be coexistence without outright normative cultural relativism. Every culture is not absolutely equal, but every culture should be allowed to exist in this country with basic limits on dangerous behavior. This includes Muslims, however much we think all of them are dangerous to the country. The vast majority of Muslims have demonstrated otherwise: they are peaceful and in fact have existed in the U.S. long before 9/11. This incident should remind us of how our actions can resonate with people and cause negative reactions. But we shouldn’t stop expressing ourselves; we simply need discernment in how we present our expressions of disagreement. Seek civility over ambitions and work towards equality without sacrificing diversity. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Murfreesboro Mosque Making Progress

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/23/my-take-this-just-in-tennessee-court-says-islam-is-a-religion/

The mosque in Murfreesboro that needed to expand due to space issues; and was also attacked indirectly by vandalism of signs and arson on construction equipment at the site itself; has made progress after over a year of deliberation and difficulties. Considering the issues last summer surrounding the Muslim community center being built two blocks or so from Ground Zero, I’m amazed it took this long in a localized area like Tennessee (though we aren’t always so friendly to outsiders, we’re not as close to the issue as New Yorkers were). I blogged a bit on this mosque and the controversy in Tennessee about people’s concerns that it would bring radical Islam to the city in "Forgive Them, For They Know Not What They Talk About,” I imagine part of the reason it took so long was because this was on a civil level, but I also recall that the Supreme Court itself put its two cents in on the issues politicians and lawyers were bringing up; whether Islam was a religion or not; it is, by the way. Historically, culturally and anthropologically, it has all the traits of a religion, distinguished from politics and other ideologies by supernatural focus and a general distance from secular affairs. With that declaration, you would think the issue would’ve been settled, but this whole thing finally being at least relatively concluded still took a bit more time after that statement. At least the judge followed the law instead of mobs.

Luckily, for the most part, Tennesseans are very accepting of Muslims, following a live and let live sort of philosophy. And they also seem to exercise common sense in recognizing that just because some people in another country behave violently in the name of Islam doesn’t mean their neighbors will follow suit. In fact, one of the main families at the mosque has been there for around 20-30 years, with kids who have grown up in the area. The only reason people tend to react this way is fear of the status quo being broken. The size of the mosque project overall is around 52,000 square feet, but for people to be afraid of that is to directly ignore the much larger churches and associated buildings taking that much area or more. Not to mention the first phase of building is only going to be about 17,000 square feet for the mosque itself. The other stuff will be developed in other phases, such as a cemetery and other facilities to enhance the community aspect of the mosque as a whole. One of the critics of the mosque, World Outreach Church, has ironically built a new facility in 2001, according to their website , which covers 60000 square feet. I don’t see any reason why Christians would need to worry, even if the mosque’s area is relatively large. How many churches outnumber the mosque? More than you could count on even four hands, I guarantee it, and probably a few with square footage much larger than the mosque project as a whole. The only reason seems to be paranoia that all Muslims are trying to infiltrate the United States and somehow enforce Shariah law. But as many observed in comments throughout the internet, the only way this could conceivably happen is if the United States population demographics of religion rapidly changed to Muslim, and even then, you’d have to presume all the Muslims desire to enforce Shariah law, when according to at least one law professor, it isn’t applied consistently across all of Islam, and like the Bible for Christians and hadiths as another source of law for Muslims, they are subject to varied interpretation and application. For anyone to be this afraid, they would either have to present real evidence or create specious connections, which has been done.

One member of the board for the mosque was reported to have anti-semitic comments on his Myspace page, but those were eventually removed and he was reinstated after a period of suspension. And even if there was one person who has more radical views in the higher ups, this hardly means the rest of them are automatically the same. From what I’ve heard, they’re Sunni, but even Sunni can be relatively peaceful. People also have claimed that the head imam was a visiting cleric at a radical Islamic mosque in Texas. Even if the allegations about the Texas mosque are justified, the head imam of the Murfreesboro mosque was a visiting cleric, so he would’ve had no real connection to them, similar to how any visiting preacher doesn’t automatically have ties to the church they visit. There’re also claims that they’ve gotten funding from outside of the U.S., like extremist groups, but those allegations haven’t been defended or found to have any basis in fact. Any extremism in Islam, from what I understand, can be directly linked to political unrest concerning things such as the state of Israel and Palestine, among other relationships between Abrahamic faiths about territories and limitations of behavior by political authorities or international relations between the Middle East and the U.S. If you treat these people like neighbors and fellow human beings instead of demonizing them because of associated fears of Islam, I don’t see why they wouldn’t continue to be model citizens. Do these people protesting in Murfreesboro think that the local Muslims will all of a sudden turn violent and blow up churches? It’s that sort of Islamaphobia that even makes the people in New York look sane. They’ve had direct experience with radical Islamic attacks, but Tennessee, from what I can tell, has had little to no bombings or attempted bombings by people practicing outward jihad against the “Great Satan” America.

All the critiques of this mosque, even those that try to appear non discriminatory to Islam, hinge on this discriminatory and prejudicial attitude. Some have called the center problematic due to bringing more traffic to an already dangerous area or alleged that they tried to supersede basic procedure on community input about whether they wanted the mosque in their community or not. But either case seems to have been thrown away on the grounds that these people have their funds and they are not doing anything illegal, so by basic protocol of state law on religious buildings, from what little I understand of it, they can build the mosque on the plot of land they purchased. This whole extended incident seems to reflect a similar idea from the Bastrop, Louisiana students and community; people seem to think they can isolate people that are in the minority just because they happen to be in a majority. You don’t get special treatment in this country because of your religion or lack thereof. Treating people as you would want to be treated is something that we can all agree on to one degree or another. So why not try to start practicing what Jesus preached, Christians of Murfreesboro? Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

The Fine Line Between Vindication and Vengeance

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/is-it-morally-right-to-celebrate-bin-ladens-death/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/04/my-take-no-apology-for-celebrating-after-bin-ladens-death/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/my-take-my-prayer-after-bin-laden-death/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/03/my-take-sea-burial-says-bin-laden-not-a-martyr/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/03/my-take-why-post-bin-laden-partying-made-me-cringe/
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/05/02/the-trial-that-still-must-come-the-death-of-osama-bin-ladin-and-the-limits-of-human-justice/

Recent events compel me to speak again: this time, on the death by sniping (?) of one Osama bin Laden, popularized in our collective consciousness as “the” terrorist, leader of Al Qaeda and mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, now in the process of being rebuilt at Ground Zero. There was celebrating in the streets, chanting of “U.S.A,” among other things such as “F*#% Osama” (Which I haven’t heard yet, probably haven’t looked or listened hard enough), and singing of “God Bless America”. There were also Facebook memes that popped up, and rumors propagated of what was going to happen to the body, or whether Osama was actually dead or even allegations that he had been dead for years by some theorists. It was decided that he would be buried at sea, though I’m not sure of the exact nature of the burial, except presumably putting his body in something that floats and pushing it out into the ocean. This was on two points, 1) No country would take bin Laden’s body, for fear of desecration and general security risks and 2) Since they couldn’t bury him in the ground by general Muslim custom (within 24 hours), he was instead buried at sea, which is apparently permitted by a degree of flexibility many would not expect from the oft cited “dangers” of Sharia. There was another aspect of the sea burial considered by scholars, which was the alternate burial method for martyrs, which likely contributed to the decision to bury him at sea also. You wouldn’t want followers using their leader’s martyrdom as a stepping stone to more extreme acts of terrorism, would you?

The more pressing and personal issue to me is not my feelings of any sort of vindication or justice at the death of this man, since, as far as I know, not a single person of any significance to me in terms of direct relationships, was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I’ve had at least one classmate that was probably killed in action because of Muslim terrorists inspired by Osama bin Laden, but that still doesn’t give me any real right to speak as if I’ve been affected on the level of people losing family or dear friends in the war on terrorism or the terrorist attack that inspired that war. No, what I’m talking about is the difficulty I have with people making such a ruckus over this assassination. It would be one thing if, all of a sudden, troops were pulled out of all the major areas in the Middle East; that would actually be a justified incident for people to chant what they did, excluding of course, “F*#$ Osama”. It would be a fine example of patriotism towards those people that fight on the field to protect basic liberties and the like. But when all we’ve done is kill one person that happened to be associated with so much hatred and hostility and then make a huge celebration of the event, it worries me about the human condition from a Buddhist perspective, let alone the Christian perspective I’m nonetheless familiar with.

There is a defense of the celebration on the grounds that this is a sign of progress. But I wonder, did we celebrate to the same extent when Saddam Hussein was overthrown, or more importantly, when he died by hanging by the Iraqi interim government? I’d say no, but this is for reasons that those defending the celebrations would bring up. The important distinctions are twofold; 1) Hussein was convicted by trial and executed by a human government and 2) He was executed not by our government, but by another country’s practice of capital punishment. These two factors already separate the incident almost 5 years ago from the one several days prior. Bin Laden was killed by a group of Navy SEALs authorized by the President of the United States, controversial Barack Obama. In this way, it differs from Hussein in two ways; 1) He was killed in a firefight, in a military operation, as a combatant would be killed, and 2) He was killed by people under American authority. In this way, people feel much more connected to this killing of an ‘enemy of democracy’ and such. The argument has sound distinctions for when you bring up any other example, for the most part, of the deaths of dictators and tyrants through history, such as Hitler or Stalin. But the argument still seems to fail on the grounds of a direct ethical justification of the celebrations. The response to people like myself, who would initially state that they are celebrating the death of a person, is that they are not celebrating bin Laden’s death, but are celebrating the promise of less death and future life for the free world with him no longer in it.

But this only seems to shift your focus on the future possibilities instead of the present actualities. There may be one less dead terrorist, but hundreds may take his place, even if he is not considered a martyr in his burial. There will be terrorists as long as there are humans who see violence against anyone and everyone as a means by which to spread a message. The problem is, this works both ways. Even those who may try to spread democracy through the use of military force can easily be accused of being terrorists as long as we continue to use more and more powerful force which causes often dismissed “collateral damage”. Before we had nuclear capacity, or even explosive weaponry dropped from planes, there was much less possibility of collateral damage. But now we can kill civilians and still consider ourselves justified in having killed evil people en masse. To celebrate and rejoice in the death of evil only seems to make one appear more evil themselves in not responding in respectful silence to the death of a human being, however much they may not appear to be so from the perspective of those at the receiving end of monstrous actions. I only hope we can balance military action with pacifism and compassion in the future. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Obama's Faith: Personal and Political

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/obama-to-deliver-major-speech-on-personal-faith-white-house-official-says/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/president-obamas-remarks-at-national-prayer-breakfast/

President Barack Obama gave a heartening speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, held every year on the first Thursday of February, about his hopes for the future, such as Representative Gabrielle Giffords’ recovery from the shot to the head as well as her husband’s adjusting to the near death experience. He also wished for the situation in Egypt to play out peacefully and in favor of the people protesting against the one party system persisting for around 30 years since Hosni Mubarak’s replacement of Anwar El Hadat after his assassination in 1981. But throughout the rest of his speech, he spoke very candidly and publically for the first time about his faith, which many people continue to be skeptical about, due to various groups propagating the notion that he is a closet Muslim pretending to be a Christian.

While there is no absolutely conclusive evidence that Obama isn’t lying to millions of people about his faith, I fail to see what justification or benefit he could see in doing so, and why people would believe that someone would try to maintain such an elaborate ruse, when the President doesn’t get paid much more than others, not to mention his job is already quite taxing on the body and mind. His spiritual aspirations should be the least of people’s concerns; not to mention he has had plenty of associations with Christian preachers, including Rick Warren and Billy and Franklin Graham. Not to mention that Obama’s general reticence regarding his faith can be seen as a sign of discretion in times when the religious affiliation of a president should be very low on the list of concerns of the governed as opposed to what are more pressing issues of politics, economics, foreign policy, etc.
As divided as Obama admits many people might be on the issues like healthcare, the federal deficit and foreign aid, he at least strives to emphasize in this speech that he shares the Christian faith on some level with the majority of people in the United States. Some comments on the article inquired about theological specifics, but this is hardly relevant for a person that represents a diversity of millions, not all of them even finding Christianity’s story of salvation compelling in the slightest. With this unification under some theistic civil religious principles in mind, he calls for a focus on at least this common ground he has with most Americans even if there are very polarizing divisions that exist on other issues.

But the fact that people, educated or otherwise, continue to buy into the rumors of Obama’s true faith as a Muslim being deceptively disguised as God fearing and Jesus following to the majority demographic of Christians is what continues to divide people across political spheres. We still seem to want our representatives in politics to share the same faith as us, even though we can also feel sympathy and pray for Gabrielle Giffords, a Reformed Jew. But those same Christians, who eye Obama with distrust and accuse him of being both a Muslim and a Communist/Socialist/Marxist (which I can’t imagine are internally consistent with each other), will say that they can’t be anti-semitic because the Jewish people are their spiritual family, since they are also in a covenant with God, albeit they always would emphasize that it’s the Old one, not their New (and improved?) one with Jesus, who happened to be a Jew himself; which most people conveniently leave out.

I don’t have to agree with Obama’s politics or religion to still respect him as a person and as someone who represents the country in all its diversity, Christians and varied non Christians like myself as well (which he has spoken on occasionally in his speeches, giving him kudos from me that no other president to my knowledge has gotten yet). I could ramble on more about how religion and politics need a radical separation and, more importantly, a shifting of priorities. Being religious has become a negative label in my own area of the South, equated to following rituals and rules without any spirit or conviction behind their substance. And then there’s the allegation that the president needs a faith, usually a conveniently Christian faith that makes the person involved feel privileged. But the president neither has to be religious or faithful to any particular religion or faith; but at the very least should admit that he, like any politician, is dependent on those who vote for them and also has an obligation of fidelity (related etymologically to the word faith, ironically) to those constituents to follow through in some way.

Now, I admit I’m using something of the rhetoric and method that many conservative Obama critics and Tea Party followers use, but only because when communicated without politically vitriolic venom, it speaks volumes to what ought to be a reform of politics on some level, however unrealistic it might actually be to put into practice. If anything, people need to look past what people tell them and investigate those claims as individuals. But they shouldn’t let their own judgments about Obama determined through research be the end of the discussion. Exchanging opinions with others is a way to check against isolated politico-religious decisions. If you judge Obama simply by what everyone else says, there’s a problem in that you aren’t willing to think critically and objectively. However, judging Obama purely on what you think critically and “objectively” about is also a difficulty, because you dismiss any criticism as being “un-American” or “un-patriotic” or any number of other negative associations that only drive a wedge further into what is already a fragmented system, exacerbated by blind loyalty to party lines instead of choosing people based on alignment with your own political policies, regardless of being Democrat, Republican, or anything in between.

If we started accepting that we won’t agree on everything and try to find both common ground (the governed under the government) and principles of governance we share in common (benefitting people without coddling and spoiling them into becoming co dependent on any government subsidies or aid), then perhaps there wouldn’t be the need to question Obama’s faith either as individual believers or as communal citizens. We’d at least accept that when the facts point to Obama being a Christian (Methodist or Baptist or whatever) that we should take them as they are without succumbing to the media as the only source of information for our daily lives. Whether Obama is a Muslim or Christian or agnostic shouldn’t matter as long as he is honest with America. And again, I see no reason why he would need to lie about such a personal conviction when there are plenty of people that could counter any deception he might speak in a speech or prayer. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Cordoba Center Conclusion: Five Pillars of the Debate

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bf1110d8-a5b0-11df-a5b7-00144feabdc0.html

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/16/you_know_what_let_the_terrorists_win

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/19/sensitivity-or-liberty-pastor-phelps-ground-zero-and-our-therapeutic-nation/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/my-take-doing-the-right-thing-bloomberg-and-obama-near-ground-zero/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/my-take-president-obamas-assault-on-americans-first-freedom/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100818/pl_yblog_upshot/imam-at-center-of-ground-zero-controversy-helped-bush-administration


This post will be shorter, or at least my last on this particular hot button topic, since like Pontius Pilate I am washing my hands of this fad and letting things go as they will. If some maniac bombs the place, then the terrorists win, not if the Cordoba House/Park51/Etc is built about 5 blocks from the center of “Ground Zero”.

I find there are five points, much like the five pillars of Islam (Pilgrimage, Prayers, Charity, Fasting and Monotheistic Belief (?)) which are integral to this debate. But on the other hand, these foundational talking points should be systematically broken down and destroyed, since they are ruining what is otherwise the equivalent of a Muslim YMCA.

1-The center isn’t at Ground Zero, since I imagine there are already plans in mind as to what is to be done at Ground Zero for appropriate memorials or otherwise. To be exact, from the center of Ground Zero, the center is around 5 blocks, over 1000 feet from the collapsed foundations of the WTC. Not to mention Ground Zero and the area surrounding it are pretty dead in terms of new businesses appearing, so anything appearing in the general vicinity, especially with the intent of building bridges of understanding between Americans of different faiths and ethnicities, should be viewed positively, not with distrust.

2-Cordoba Center is not a mosque and it wouldn’t matter even if it were, since there are multiple mosques in New York area already. A prayer center for Muslims isn’t even the focal point of what is primarily a center for people to come together. Out of 13 stories, the top 2 will be a prayer space, so overall, the “mosque” aspect is barely a sixth of the building’s areas, including a basketball court and a culinary school, among other sections for cultural education and leisure. No different than saying a hospital is a church because it has a chapel inside, you have no logical grounds to call the Cordoba House a mosque just because it has a prayer center for Muslims planned.

The building already has Muslims praying in it since they purchased it, so does that make it a mosque? Again, no, since like a church, it doesn’t matter whether it’s called it or not, it’s about the activity performed. So the building is more like a mosque now then when it will be primarily a cultural community center, like the YMCA. So why not welcome what is a change for the better instead of opposing it because of people pulling your heartstrings like a marionette?

3-Arguing that people have the constitutional right to build the center on private property and then arguing against it because it offends your sensitivities is groundless since 1) the law doesn’t bend to the whims and caprices of people who can’t get over a grudge they hold towards Islam and 2) you can’t say people have a right to build whatever they decide to build on private property and then say the government should suppress that right because it offends you. That’d be no different than censoring Neo Nazis and the KKK just because some minorities can’t stand their message. I don’t agree with Islam or Christianity, but do I object to churches and mosques existing in America? No.

And saying the mosque is an insult to the victims of 9/11 doesn’t hold water either because the people building the center are making it open to everyone and as noted before, it won’t be a big flashing neon sign saying, “Ha, you lost loved ones in a Muslim terrorist attack, suck it!”, it will be an expansion to a pre existing Muslim community in New York and an attempt to show that American Muslims do not condone the 9/11 attacks, and in fact, wish to make amends by creating a peaceful Muslim presence near the site of an event they find reprehensible.

4-Accusing the imam of being a radical Muslim to try to discredit the center is an ad hominem tactic that hardly even holds a candle to real evidenced claims. The guy was a consultant for the army after 9/11 to educate about Islam, because he’s a Sufi, probably the most moderate Muslim subgroup you can imagine. If you think a Sufi Muslim, whose most dangerous activity is spinning in circles to go into a religious trance, is trying to infiltrate America and train suicide bombers, you’re not just paranoid, you’re stupid.

Not to mention people are on President Obama’s back about alleged backsliding on the issue. He was right to focus on legality and not whether it was a “wise decision” to choose the spot near Ground Zero to build the center. Like the judge who granted the Westboro Baptist Church some modicum of free speech protection for their protests at funerals, however cold hearted and myopic their message is, legally they are granted protection under the Constitution. Like the KKK example, you don’t have to agree or even pay attention to them, but by any stretch of interpretation of the 1st Amendment, tolerance of viewpoints you don’tagree with is integral to a civil society’s continued existence. Free speech doesn’t stop at someone being offended, it stops at people’s genuine rights to privacy being violated, which the “Ground Zero Mosque” and WBC’s protests don’t do.

5-Claiming that if the center goes up, the terrorists win, makes no sense. First off, Muslims by nature are not opposed to being Americans and living here, and building a mosque doesn’t glorify terrorist attacks. Islam is not our enemy, as former President Bush Jr. said, it is terrorism.

And more importantly, if we bend to a majority’s argument with no substance in it just because it offends them, then the terrorists would win, since we’d be surrendering a basic liberty of private ownership as well as freedom of worship and religion to satisfy the masses that are offended in some way. Which is no different than suppressing and censoring free speech in the majority of the Middle East because it offends theocratic and theonomic sensitivities of a Muslim majority stuck in the Crusade period when every non Muslim was a potential enemy and even fellow Muslims who didn’t adhere to strict legalistic standards were enemies, not unlike how Shia and Sunni Muslims have treated Sufis in their own countries.

In conclusion, any offense you take at this is understandable, but it does not mean you should call for the cancellation of what is a peaceful project meant to heal wounds, not reopen them. There are people on both sides of the 9/11 tragedy, some opposing and some supporting the project. Who is right, since both of them have lost loved ones in that attack almost 10 years ago? What about the Muslims that perished? Do their families oppose this building, a veritable stand against the terrorists, not a support of their ideology? Why should the pain and suffering of some trump the rights of others to construct something that in this case has no ill will behind it? It shouldn’t, because the law does not favor feelings or sensitivities, it is impartial for that very reason. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

Cordoba Community Center Censorship

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/lawsuit-challenges-ground-zero-mosque/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/dodds.mosques.new.york/index.html

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/muslims-welcome-in-lower-manhattan-says-mayor-bloomberg/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/23/my-take-no-conservatism-in-gingrichs-attack-on-the-ground-zero-mosque/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/19/my-take-ground-zero-mosque-good-for-america-and-new-york/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/06/my-take-christian-group-is-latest-ground-zero-hypocrite/


The persistent issue in New York for the past few weeks has been the misleadingly named “ground zero mosque,” It’s a misnomer because 1) it’s not at ground zero and 2) it’s not a mosque. Technically, it has been a prayer center/mosque already since it had been purchased and the plan is not for simply a mosque to be built where a Burlington Coat Factory used to be. The community center would have many other areas to make it a place for both Christians and Muslims (among other faiths) to spend time together and understand each other as well, such as an auditorium and a fitness center among other facilities reminiscent of the YMCA. The opposition to the construction falls on two objections, though the first is overshadowed by the second. With the landmark status of the area where the center is to be built denied, the argument that the Cordoba House would be demolishing a historical building representing Italian Renaissance palazzo style is pretty well shot.

The second argument holds a stronger grip on not only New Yorker’s hearts, but those of anyone who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. With the building only two blocks away, people like Sarah Palin and even the Anti-Defamation League for a short time argued that the construction of a Muslim cultural center is insulting and insensitive to the feelings of people who were deeply affected by the attacks almost ten years ago. And others suggest that the mosque is just a political move to try to solidify Islam’s presence in America even more. Newt Gingrich compared the issue of building a mosque near Ground Zero in New York to that of a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia. The comparison is troubling on a few levels, the first being that Saudi Arabia is decidedly stricter on the building of non Muslim places of worship because of the strong presence of Islamic theonomy (that is, law based on religious tenets such as the Quran). America doesn’t have such stringent standards as to where one can build a mosque, a church, a synagogue or any other place of worship. Not to mention that the argument against the mosque being near Ground Zero reduces itself to a childish form of censorship. The gist of this argument seems to be “Having anything Muslim near Ground Zero hurts certain people’s feelings and makes them feel like the terrorists have won, so no mosque, even one associated with moderate Islamic sects such as Sufi or Ahmaddiya, should ever be built near Ground Zero, because we might hurt some people’s feelings or cause them to misinterpret the intentions of the Muslims behind the Cordoba House.”

This doesn’t work for the same reason that the lawsuit against the local commission that denied landmark status to the building. Trying to use landmark status to protect something that would become what you think represents Islam trying to dominate the West is more underhanded than spouting prejudiced thought against all Muslims, even if they’re trying to build bridges of understanding. The lawsuit is trying to reverse the decision because they think denying landmark status to the building is showing favoritism to Islam, not to mention a concern that the funding for the center is coming from sharia law countries in the East. This isn’t only paranoid thinking, some victims perpetuating the idea that every Muslim is out to get them, but it’s reinforced by dangerous prejudice towards Muslims that just fans the flames by suggestions that Islam is just a political movement or a cult. It’s not surprising that with misinformation spreading quicker than any accurate kind people are more commonly speaking against Islam as if they have had first-hand experience with Muslims when more than likely they are just parroting what fear-mongering pundits in the GOP or Tea Party are telling them.

No one is forcing the family or friends of victims of 9/11 to go to the mosque or even agree with Islam. Like television shows you don’t want your kids to watch or that you just don’t want to watch yourself, you can change the channel or turn off the TV. In this case, all one should ask is that one tolerates the existence of a Muslim community center near Ground Zero. You don’t have to go there, you don’t have to fund it, you just have to let it exist, especially if its goal is to educate people about Islam and allow Muslims to not be misunderstood. I’m reminded of Jesus saying something to the effect of “forgive those who hurt you and pray for those who slander you,” and with many of the protestors no doubt being Christians, I wonder how much they’re taking Jesus’ teachings seriously if they continue to try to push away any attempts at reconciliation or interfaith dialogue. I guess they think Jesus didn’t want to really discuss anything, especially when they take his saying of “brushing the dust off your feet and leaving” when you can’t convert people to your faith.


Things like this happen when you take a charismatic figure’s words so seriously that you start cherry picking what you want to hear and toss out the rest. Jesus indeed spoke wisdom, but he certainly never claimed he was the end authority of all things in Christianity, since he tended more often than not to shift responsibility to God in such things as the end of the world and the most important commandments. And one of those commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. How much must you hate yourself when you start saying that Ground Zero is sacred and can’t even have mosques 2 blocks away from it? Paranoia and fear don’t create love, to reference the bible’s idea that “perfect love casts out fear”. The first step to any kind of reconciliation is allowing your so called enemy some form of acceptance. Although ironically, mosques have existed in New York for at least half a century before the terrorist attacks, so any resistance towards a mosque in New York in general is as regrettably ignorant as the persistent delusion that “In God we Trust” has always been our national motto. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

Forgive Them, For They Know Not What They Talk About

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/tennessee-islam-and-our-disposable-constitution/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/tennessee-gubernatorial-candidate-takes-heat-for-islam-comments/?fbid=Q3IwpbhZU3p

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html?npt=NP1

As if Tennessee couldn’t appear more bigoted or ignorant than with the issues with racist emails surrounding Obama and his wife, Ron Ramsey, candidate for governor (supported by the same friend who blogs for In Defense of the Constitution) has opened his mouth and pushed the state down the ladder even more. Both he and Lou Ann Zelenik, a candidate for Congress, insist that Islam is not a religion, but a political movement according to Zelenik, or in Ramsey’s words, a cult. Not to get into academic analysis of how problematic his claim is, I hardly see evidence of Islam as a whole being a cult in the sense of a counter cultural fringe movement, except in the context of America’s relationship with Islam’s Shia and Sunni sects. The evidence would be there, except the imams are not considered unquestionably true as opposed to Mohammed, who is technically not considered dead. Then again, there are aspects of a cult’s fixation upon a founder’s persistence and authority in either Shia or Sunni Islam (I forget which exactly) about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who is apparently in a well. But Islam in the form of Ahmadiyya (which boasts around ten million adherents) is not only moderate, but accessible to American minds in the sense of adherence to religious ethics without becoming resistant to change or dangerously authoritarian. The difficulty with understanding Islam is that the initial public exposure to any unfamiliar religions or philosophical idea is commonly regarded as more authoritative and credible than actual academic research from accredited individuals in those fields of study. Even well read political figures like Ramsey and Zelenik apparently don’t want to read further than how they feel their constituents would want them to about Islam. Since the vast majority of Republicans seem to be at least opposed to more Islamic presence in the West, particularly in the form of mosques or even cultural centers like the one in New York, Ramsey and Zelenik are just going along with the bandwagon and spouting the talking points. “Oh, we respect freedom of religion for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and others, but Islam has to be a cult because authoritative conservative voices like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin say it’s so, therefore it must be true,”

The double standard is pretty evident even to a pot smoking high school student: you don’t say you respect freedom of religious practice and worship and then say you don’t want to respect one religion because you have concluded it must be wrong because of the actions of even a large part of the group. Even if many Christians I speak to through forums or in real life occasionally are excessively devout and even insulting towards non Christians, that doesn’t mean I must conclude Christianity is a cult or shouldn’t be respected and tolerated, allowed to practice its faith in churches and witness to belief in the salvation through Jesus Christ through privately funded missions, etc. And neither should we inevitably conclude that every person raised in Islam in any form is automatically a fundamentalist that insists that Islam should dominate every society in the world under sharia law. With a mosque’s building being fought against in Murfreesboro, not unlike the even bigger situation in New York, this doesn’t make me proud or even want to say I’m a native born of Tennessee. With people like Ron Ramsey spouting out this borderline hate speech laced with magnanimous bigoted ideals like protecting the Christian values of America and protecting us from infiltrating terrorists (as if every person from the Middle East automatically hates the U.S.) this situation can best be solved by education and a spirit of receptiveness. No one’s asking Republicans to accept Islam or other religions as equally valid paths to salvation, but they should at least give the same respect that many American non Christians give them to worship and believe as they will without infringing on their rights to free practice; though this goes back to my thoughts on minority religions in America, which is a demographically Christian society, and the difficulties inherent in accepting your position as a minority but not letting the majority trample over you.

On a somewhat related note, a church in Florida (home state of my last roommate) has apparently planned a Quran burning on September 11th for protesting what they think is an innately oppressive and violent religion. I’m all for freedom of speech, even such things as flag burnings or Neo-Nazi and KKK rallies, but it seems counterproductive to try to protest something by going back to Middle Ages tactics. Burning or destroying something that represents what you disagree with isn’t the way to argue against it. Showing that you have the power to destroy something seems to reflect insecurity of the efficacy of the thing you hold sacred or valuable, such as the Bible for the Florida preacher and his flock. Showing you have the power to generate new borders and ideas seems to reflect a more Christian spirit, since Jesus crossed borders people weren’t willing to in his time, like associating with tax collectors, lepers and other people of ill repute. Even some of his parables and stories associated with his preaching note his acceptance of truth’s spirit being discovered through people that were regarded as blasphemous or heretical in those times, like the Samaritan and the Syro Phoenician woman respectively. In this way, it’s important to reflect that Islam doesn’t have any disrespect for Jesus, in fact regarding him as a near equal to Mohammed in terms of his value to presenting the message of Allah/God/YHWH. The fact that Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the “Son of God” only suggests they disagree theologically, it doesn’t mean they think Jesus is less important or not to be respected as a messenger of God/prophet (there is a distinction there by Islamic philosophy/theology, I believe).

All in all, these problems can be solved by a combination of things like my blogging, but more ideally, activism to try to bridge these barriers that have been generated by American conservatives to try to turn people against each other for personal belief and faith, when they share values in common that transcend their race or culture or faith. Why can’t American Christians and Muslims (for the topic at hand anyway) seek out common ground? They can accept that there are things they will disagree about, but more importantly can join to confront more pressing and universal problems, like abuse of military power, human rights abuses and poverty and famine that still exist in the 21st century? Whether one believes Jesus is God incarnate or a prophet of God in a line that has concluded with a guy flying up to heaven on a horse shouldn’t be the primary concern. That is, unless you are so focused on religious differences that you feel you have to reinforce the Christian demographic by saying Islam is a cult or an evil religion, as opposed to letting the Christian majority just exist as it does. Not to mention that the limited government these Republicans spout so much hot air about seem to care a bit too much about what God one believes in or whether one believes in God at all, as if that is a requirement to be American or even a human being. Why should the government care at all about how one worships or doesn’t worship any god or gods (like myself for example) except as it infringes on others’ rights to freely practice as well in the privacy of their places of worship? It seems like the Republican’s ideal government is only limited in regards to fiscal concerns. But religious belief or lack thereof is still somehow fair game for a society whose government is built on a document whose first amendment specifically says that there is a right both to religious freedom and to freedom from state alliances with religion. And this is one reason out of many that I choose to be anarchist as opposed to purely “Democrat” or “Republican”. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

Franklin Graham is Frank and Grumpy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237453

Though the unofficial National Day of Prayer (at least in terms of the contested status according to Judge Crabb’s ruling) has passed, the controversy is not over. There is still some resentment towards Obama’s administration for uninviting Franklin Graham to pray at the ceremony held at the Pentagon. Graham Jr. speaks as if his religious liberties have been trampled on or at the very least that Obama is being too soft on Islam. The interview between him, Jon Meacham and Lisa Miller reveals a few traits of his Christian beliefs regarding Islam and more importantly about his beliefs on the relation of religious faith and civil politics.

Graham responds to Meacham’s first question about his divisive speech regarding Islam and the offensive nature of it by saying that if 80% of America identifies as Christian, then he thinks maybe 20% might be offended. Meacham clarifies that he is not offended at his praying in a Christian fashion, but that he is being quite contrary to the message of the National Day of Prayer, to unify various people of faith under the practice of prayer to God (which would include Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Baha’is among a few other minority groups). Graham’s response, initially avoiding the question or trying to seem consistent in affirming that he personally disagrees with Islam, but does not hate the people involved in Islam, concludes by saying that the world doesn’t work how Meacham wants it to; which is how I’d prefer it to be as well: people respectfully disagreeing with each other and not resorting to using hateful speech, even if you are speaking about the religion itself and not the practitioners.

Graham then persists in his argument that Christianity is under attack, which is a thinly veiled attempt to whine about how Christianity isn’t in the spotlight like it was in the 50s. Just because Obama wants to grant Muslims the right to celebrate Ramadan at the Pentagon or has a Jewish Seder at the White House Easter dinner doesn’t mean that his or any other person’s Christian beliefs suffer. Although this whole issue with Graham seems to hinge on his noting that according to Islam, Obama is a Muslim since his father was Muslim (like Judaism in a sense, perhaps). With this in mind, he clarifies that he doesn’t believe the conspiracies that Obama is a secret Muslim and takes the president at his word that he believes in salvation through Jesus Christ; which is more than I can say for a host of other evangelicals and Christians I’ve spoken to over the years since Obama’s become our president.

Graham’s other argument is that since even the Bush administration, the country has been soft on Islam as he views it: that is, a violent and evil religion. I would say it is hardly any more evil than any religion when misused for political gains or intertwining with civil and secular practice in a country that welcomes all religious faiths or lack thereof. And I have no doubt met Muslims on my own campus (though I might not have known they were Muslim) that were quite reasonable people that were not willing to suicide bomb a building to make their point or practice the misogynistic rituals that include genital mutilation of young girls and abuse of spouses for perceived insults or dishonors. And being “soft” on Islam would be not confronting the issue of Islamic terrorism in one form or another or taking on the conflict that has had a resurgence due to the recent South Park episode with Muslim groups pressuring companies to censor their material or remove it from public domain. But the Obama administration to my knowledge is taking the issue as seriously as it can with all the other things on its plate: the economic crisis/recession, the oil spill, and other matters of national security such as the attempted bombing of Time Square just last week. Take the issues as they come and at a reasonable and moderate pace. If you move too slow the enemy may overtake you, but if you move too fast, you may forget to consider that you may be your own worst enemy. Until next time, Namaste, Aloha and happy belated unofficial Day of Reason as well (http://www.nationaldayofreason.org/)