It seems that in New York, an issue has erupted which has touched all of our ears, hearts and in most cases, our mouths (which it is soon to be the case with me).  The ongoing situation in New York City in regard to the ‘construction’ of a mosque near the ruins of the World Trade Center towers has become an absolute circus for punditry, provocation and incendiary rhetoric.  The stated argument is that a mosque (a temple of Islamic faith) shouldn’t be built near the World Trade Center ruins as it is overly insensitive to the families who lost loved ones during the September 11^th attacks, and that it is a symbol of Islam having conquered the area since all of the hijackers that day were Islamic.

While I could easily concede that this is in fact insensitive, I would be doing myself a disservice and my country a disservice to not explore the matter more fully.  That said, I encourage my reader to keep an open mind and set all predisposed opinions aside before reading my article (or considering any issue for that matter), as keeping an open mind and approaching ideas with reason and logic is a tenet of living in a free society.

As we all know, religious liberty was an issue which our nation’s founders and early patriots felt strongly about and took very seriously.  Thomas Jefferson, in 1777, wrote The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, a work he was so proud of that it was one of the mere three things he wished to have on his epitaph. In this work he declared:

“we well know [that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia], elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights [of religious liberty] hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

This excerpt from Jefferson’s bill signals a belief that religious liberty is an inherent right of man which cannot be taken away by any government or authority.  Similarly, James Madison, in opposition to a bill which was introduced with the intent to levy a tax which would support religious teachers, wrote his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in which he states:

“…the Bill [to establish a tax in support of religious teachers] violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If ‘all men are by nature equally free and independent,’ all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.  Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.”

Madison’s writings indicate that he, in addition to Jefferson, believed that a citizen of a free society has the right to explore and embrace whichever religion their conscious dictates to be correct and that their choice can only be based on the subliminal evidence presented to their eyes, and the musings of their mind.  Based on the quote it is evident that Madison also believed that it was the duty of a citizen to respect another’s right to pursue religious truth, even if the other’s choice isn’t agreeable to their own.  A citizen must respect another’s choice, as in due time, the eyes of either may be opened to a new version of the truth which is agreeable to those citizens already convinced of it.  In addition to Jefferson and Madison, Henry Clay also made clear that believed a tenet of liberty is religious freedom.  In a speech while in the House of Representatives he voiced his opinion on the matter:

“All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All separated from government, are compatible with liberty.”

From this, Clay seems to also be supporting the doctrine that all men should have the right to choose their own religion, rather than having it assigned to them by their government or thereby other citizens. 

These examples are meant to provide a baseline for the conversation we are about to take part in and aren’t intended to serve directly as evidence of either side.  While it isn’t so much a matter of what others believe, these examples are intended to highlight the issue concerning what our ideals are, and should be.  If we are meant to believe that America is a Christian nation by default, simply due to the high number of people practicing that particular faith, we would fundamentally be denying that all free people are at liberty to pursue and practice their own religion without interference from society or government.  Additionally, if we are to believe that America is a Christian nation because the majority of the nation’s founders practiced some form of Christianity, we would be conceding that our initially adopted ideals are somehow superficial and that the first amendment to the constitution was somehow passed accidentally or unintentionally by the very people we are citing as justification for our Christian proclamation.

From both of the previous scenarios we can derive that it is part of our national ethic to feel there is a grave danger which can come from a tyranny of a majority (which is why Madison argued for a representative, rather than a direct Democracy in Federalist 10), and that while the Earth belongs exclusively to the living, there are liberties neither time nor governments can pull away.  Having established this as fact, and by realizing that all free men are at liberty to pursue their own truth as individuals, and having declared religious liberty as an eternal right, we can move on to our main question regarding the Mosque in New York City.

As originally stated, people are angry because they feel that the mosque being built near the ruins of the World Trade Center signals a victory for the Islamic terrorists that destroyed them and that the construction of a mosque is insensitive to those who lost loved ones during the attacks.  While these two issues seem separate, I contest that one is actually the origin of the other.  I will explain why in the following paragraphs.

The first issue, which is a precursor to the entire debate is that The United States of America is viewed by some citizens, without regard for religious liberty, as representation or manifestation of Christianity.  Similarly, there is also a prevailing view that the Islamic extremists who attacked on September 11^th are representative of the entire Islamic faith.  Next we find ourselves, through the dissection of complex thought into digestible pieces (which is more than likely influenced by our ten-second-sound-bite media), making the connection that the faith of Islam as a whole attacked Christianity as a whole which is simply a detachment from reality.

To begin, comparing Islamic extremist groups to be representative of the entire Islamic faith is comparable to making the outlandish consideration that the Ku Klux Klan is representative of all of Christianity due to its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Church.  I suppose most would agree there is no comparison to be made.  There also seems to have been a miscommunication regarding why the extremist groups actually attacked the US.  While it is fact that the attackers called it part of a religious war, the cause wasn’t overtly regarding Christianity or that “they hate the freedoms of the United States” as George W. Bush seemed to tout.  The attacks occurred mainly as a blowback political action meant to punish the US for having troops in Saudi Arabia, the US support of Israel, and sanctions in Iraq.  Osama Bin Laden actually wrote a letter to America in 2002 which lists numerous reasons regarding why they carried out the September 11^th attacks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver) and suggests that we follow the morality of Islam as well as stay out of their business (this is no different than what anti-abortion advocates seek from individuals at abortion clinics).  In short, they attacked the United States because of what they perceive as arrogance and global bullying – not faith.

Next there is the “mosque in proximity to ground zero” argument which doesn’t address the fact that a mosque which serves 500 people currently exists at the site where construction would take place.  This is therefore an expansion project rather than new construction, meaning that those who are opposed to the construction are simply furious about a new 100 million-dollar project in their community to revitalize an old building – not repurpose.  To oppose this seems silly from an economic view point as the investment in the area should always be welcome but the fact that it isn’t reveals the underlying purpose for the hostility and the denial. I recently read an argument which was made in an ABC news interview by the father of a firefighter who died on 9/11.  He said that to him “[Islam is] a religion of hate.”  He went on to concede, “There might be some good ones. I don’t know them but they haven’t stood up and knocked the other ones down. I don’t want to go down there on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and see 2,000 Arabs outside. Maybe they’ll start cheering.”  This statement cycles back to my original assertion regarding how one fear is propagating the other - simply put, the fear due to the assumption that all people of Islamic faith are radical creates the notion that the Mosque will automatically be a symbol of conquered land.

The fear itself is common.  It of course is natural to be afraid of what we do not understand or misperceive.  What is most unfortunate is that the realm of understanding is clouded by political punditry and quick sound bites which inevitably, if not intentionally, create fear and hatred.  Sadly, it is a condition of some in society to neglect independent research, obtain all information from one source, and in no way look any deeper than the surface while taking in only what one wants to hear.  Fear is free to flourish where there are no two sides to a discussion or argument, no civility and no ultimate quest for truth.  This leaves us with the subtle impression that whoever is loudest wins when in reality, it’s our republic that is losing.

I will be the first to concede that we would not want an “Islamic victory church” present, near, or on the World Trade Center grounds or anywhere in America for that matter.  The United States has no place for violent radicalism of any sect - Islamic or Christian.  If suddenly the owner of the mosque were to start touting a victory for the Mujahedeen, I would be the first one in line suggesting that we tear it down on the basis that it has become a political statement rather than a place of humble worship.  I would admittedly do the same if Christians proposed building a church near the ruins of an African American family’s home.  If at first it is a place of worship, then so be it, but the second it becomes a political statement for the Ku Klux Klan, I would suggest desanctification followed by tearing it down. 

Many people have already said that legally nothing that can be done regarding the Mosque’s development.  This is based on the underlying belief that all men are free to pursue their own truth in religion and that governments cannot take that right away or give favor to any specific religion.  While this is a great victory for the advancement of religious freedom it does nothing to solve the belief that we’re pitted in a war against Islam. 

As a nation we should be reminding ourselves that it wasn’t people who practice Islamic faith that attacked us, rather it was militant political activists who happen to be Islamic.  The distinction can be made quite simply, and it should be made more often.  We need a campaign for truth in our country in order to erase the rabid, incendiary punditry that is running rampant and pitting us against our neighbors.   To quote Thomas Jefferson’s bill once more, “…truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; […] she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate…”