Thanks for waiting.  Here’s the final penultimate installment of the “Ground Zero Mosque” discussion.  This post may just bore most readers, so if you’re in that camp, just tune out until the next and final installment.

Is it Racism?

One of the charges levied against opponents of the Cordoba Initiative (Ground Zero Mosque) is racism.  I don’t think that allegation merits much discussion, but let’s give it a brief answer:

1. The mosque is a Muslim enterprise.  Islam is not a race; nor is it racially exclusive.  Indeed, it is characterised rather strongly by a push to include all people beneath its governance—whether they wish to be Muslim or not.
2. Think that Islam equates to Arab in pragmatism?
   1. The largest Muslim country by population is Indonesia.[1]
   2. 62% of the world’s Muslims live in Asia.
   3. Only 20% of world’s Muslims live in Arab countries.
3. Can we think of any reason for opposition besides racism, a reason that’s more probable?  Yes, we can.  Occam’s razor.
4. We’ve heard the cry of “racism” so much in the last few years that it’s become something like background noise.  Whereas people used to completely cede arguments when the magic word came up, now many don’t even respond to it.

Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom from Religion

In U.S. history, freedom from religion has been exercised rather more effectively and noisily than freedom of religion.

How have we exercised freedom from religion? We strive to protect Americans from being exposed to prayer or the mention of God in public schools.  And we’ve disassociated legal marriage from any religious code.

What about freedom of religion?  Aside from not requiring all the masses to pertain to a certain state religion, we haven’t done much.  We tolerate most faiths and their rites, so long as they are not in violation of pre-existing law.  (However, a review of the post on the abolition of polygamy, along with its follow-up posts, may demonstrate that laws have been instituted to combat pre-existing religions.)  —Oh! Here’s one: we’re suing the state of CA for not paying Wiccan clergymen for their time serving the inmates of state prisons.[2] All in all, not a very impressive history.

And speaking of history, recall that the Mayflower pilgrims came here to enjoy religious freedom of their own, not to impart religious freedom from others.  As a consequence, Roger Williams and his coterie left the settled land of Massachussets to found a civilization based on religious tolerance.  Ironically, the “religious tolerance state” became the smallest in the union: Rhode Island.

Moving to the present, now, and breaking with national character, it appears that we’re willing to actually protect freedom of religion.  Reading suggests to me that those opposed to the Cordoba Initiative favour personal liberty enough not to stand in the project’s way.  (And I believe that the other faction, those of a disposition to sacrifice personal liberty in favour of increased government, are largely in support of the project.  —  Don’t be afraid to point out if I’m wrong about this.)

Tolerance vs. Foment

I hope that our national tolerance for Cordoba House arises from respect for principles of freedom and not principles of fashion, for it has indeed been fashionable this decade and longer to espouse the politics of our Middle Eastern brethren, in some circles even to the point of casting aspersions of “intolerance” upon those who disparage the longstanding enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites, the hampered freedoms of Saudi women, and the undenounced cries for the eradication of the Jewish state and race.  Ironic, no?

A question that wants an answer

Islam is more than a religion.  It’s also a culture and, wherever possible, a government.  In states where Islam is the government, religious freedom is restricted.  If Islam takes the vote here, who will say where the religion leaves off and the government begins, though?  (For further reading, check out Wikipedia’s links on the Islam and secularism debate.)

Okay, this sounds more far out than I intended, but just visualize the example: if Islamists* become the majority, they should naturally take the vote, and although the Constitution should prevent Islamist authorities from restricting individual liberty, can we count on the Constitution to curtail the power of government?  (It didn’t prevent us being legally compelled to buy government-approved health insurance.)

(*I said “Islamists” instead of “Muslims” because presumably, Islamists could agree strongly on a political agenda.)

Alright, I’ve gone on too long again, so hopefully, the next post will be the last one.  In it, we’ll review legality and responsibility in re: the Ground Zero Mosque.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

[2] http://www.au.org/what-we-do/lawsuits/archives/mccollum-v-california.html