In the dust-up over the mosque at ground zero, we've heard a lot about rights and a lot about wisdom. One thing that we haven't heard -- or, at least, I haven't heard -- about is responsibility. Rights are about what we can do, wisdom is about what we should do, but responsibility is about what we ought to do.
Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand in a free society. For a pluralistic people, protecting individual liberty while working for the common good can only obtain when rights are exercised responsibly.
For example, although the KKK has the rights of free speech and assembly, they have the responsibility to not exercise those rights at the Holocaust Museum. Likewise, adults have the right to own and view sexually explicit material. But they have the responsibility to do so away from the presence of children.
In the same manner, those who would build a mosque in lower Manhattan and, especially, those promoting peace and tolerance, ought do to so with sensitivity, compassion, and respect for the victims of individuals whose actions were informed by Islamic teaching; namely, building it anywhere but on the sacred ground of those who lost their lives.
Comments:
The program was that the Islamic invaders would invade and occupy and of course being devout followers of Islam logically had to have a place to worship so a mosque was in order. There was plenty to build with but there was lots of already quarried stone available in the local Hindu temple. Simple enough. Except the Muslims made the Hindu craftsmen ( they forgot to bring their own ) that they pressed into service deface every image that they took from a Hindu temple and installed it in the new mosque. Now one could argue that Islam forbids the worship of images except the images are still visible. They could have cleaned those stones to blocks but they didn't they left the image. Of particular note in touring the Qutab Minar, all of the Hindu idols were upside down, on purpose. Another dig at the Hindus. I noted above that some were barely defaced. The ones barely defaced mostly only had the nose knocked off. Seems the Muslims found out the idols were pretty much defaced and a Hindu wouldn't worship before it if it was only a little defaced, so they implemented a cost and labor savings and only made the Hindu artisans knock off the noses, and again installed them upside down.
The Qutab Minar is an example of what the mosque in NYC is all about. It is meant to be a dig at America the Great Satan and the victims of September 11. If you want to see what Muslim invaders do to a country take a look at India. It was a real eye opener. ( PS The death toll in Pakistan due to the flooding was recently compared to the astounding numbers that died in the Partition in 1947. They neglected to mention how all the people in the events of 1947 died ).
I know of various persons or projects that "couldn't build their project" because of zoning...or zoning board denial.
And NONE - absolutely NONE - were even a fraction as controversial as this super-mosque project.
(PS While the two blocks seems a long way away for a suburban community, look at digital renderings -- Two blocks is NOT MUCh for city buildings.)
* * ************** * *
And I agree with many above - We are ignoring the extremist Muslim's DEEP and LONG knowledge of and attachment to HISTORY...and the TRIUMPH they would gain in building this mosque so close...
My building proposal. Build the mosque two or more miles away. Way out of range of where the building debris, bodies, etc. fell...or prepare to watch videos celebrating the extremists' triumph over the soft, weak Americans!
A better example would be if the IDF built a synagogue over the graveyard of the Jordanian garrison after the '67 conquest of Jerusalem. In fact they did no such thing and buried them in a separate grave which they treated with laudable chivalry and reverence.
What the IDF DID do was clear a space around the Western Wall for pilgrims to pray at, sometimes by knocking down houses. It was a way of celebrating a triumph, was never claimed as other wise, and was more an example of right of conquest then freedom of religion. On the other hand they were at least honest about their gloating and they were gloating over the victory not over the enemy dead who were treated honorably.
Whatever the intentions of the original people, the Moslem world will see it as attempt to gloat, and will see weakness in being allowed to get away with it. It does not really matter what the builders of the Mosque are thinking. Though if that is not their intention then they are exhibiting a naivety which I would expect of liberals but not of Moslems.
If this situation were reversed, we know the outcome (since we know what happens to Christian missionaries, and even Christians who are native-born, in Moslem countries): http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Muslims-not-Americans-are-religious-bigots--101125989.html
And BTW, Matt, the answer to the non-Muslim in a mosque question is ambiguous: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503543870&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE What's interesting about that is that shari'a can be enforced in public spaces as well as private ones, as many women have discovered the hard way.
Joseph, I would support the Klan's right to build a monument where Dr. King was slain if the Klan owned that piece of property. I wouldn't agree with them, and I would find their desire to do so extremely offensive, however if it was their property then I will defend their right to do, on their own property, whatever they want to do.
For the same reason I support the Muslims' right to build their Mosque on the property that they own, even though I find it offensive.
LeeQuod, AFAIK non-muslims are allowed to enter Mosques, I entered the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, though maybe that's an exception as it's a tourist destination. However even if non-muslims aren't allowed to enter mosques, it is their private property and they have the right to exclude anyone they wish.
The fact is, whether this Mosque is an offensive symbol of victory over infidels or simply a place for peaceful Muslims to assemble and worship is irrelevant. As long as these Muslims aren't infringing the rights of others, nothing can or should be done to interfere with their activities.
Would any of you object to a Catholic Church being built 2 blocks from a school? Some people might. Should the government have the power to prevent it from being built? I say it should not.
Matt, for your argument to be more than apples to oranges, you would have to declare these two things to be morally equivalent: a) building the mosque at that particular location (even when other locations are available) and b) peacefully objecting to the taking of innocent life.
There is a moral imperative for Christians – indeed for everyone – to oppose manslaughter. Where is there a moral imperative for Muslims to show callous disregard for the sensibilities of others when there are acceptable equivalent alternatives?
Insistence on building a mosque on this particular piece of real estate argues something more than “responsibility”. It argues the desire to “be as offensive to ‘infidels’ as possible not because you HAVE to, but simply because you CAN.”
And a religion’s right to practice “whatever way seems best to them” is not a principle that has obtained in the courts if there was a compelling state interest to prohibit certain religious practices (e.g. Mormons and polygamy). Nor should it.
Your rights and mine are better protected by upholding common sense than by rigidly applying a standard that has clear exceptions.
Since Ben W.'s involved, here's the customary Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude
And speaking of Ben, I might note that people might protest a gentlemen's club being built within blocks of a notorious gang rape. Similarly with a bookie near a shooting over a gambling debt, fast food restaurants near schools where childhood obesity is a problem, and so on. Note also that this would not be a small, easily ignored structure.
Plus, Muslims have a long history of claiming a territory they have conquered by building a large mosque in it. As near as I can tell, non-Muslims are not allowed in mosques. So this would create a large space only for Muslims, and encourage their use and *only* their use of it, a short distance from where followers of *their* faith killed thousands, in the name of that faith.
And I understand that a lot of money is involved in this construction. Have Muslims given charity to the families of the 9/11 victims? Or have Muslims constructed a memorial to honor those who lost their lives? (These are not rhetorical questions; I genuinely don't know.) If not, then the absence of goodwill arises from the inactions of Muslims themselves.
And it's not clear that Muslims are required to tell the truth when dealing with non-Muslims. As I understand it, deception that advances the cause of Islam and does not harm a *Muslim* is acceptable.
So do the Muslims have a responsibility to act with sensitivity, compassion and respect? Only if they're dealing with equals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html
And whatever way seems best to them?
As for their rights, Regis made it clear, that wasn't what the point is.
And "Even if it is offensive to others" is hardly a small consideration simply because it is overused.
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421
(Answer: a gentlemen's club, a bookie, some fast food restaurants, a pawn shop, a few bars, and plenty of street vendors)
Hm. We Americans have odd ways of celebrating our sacred ground.
So do Christians have a responsibility to not build churches wherever Christian groups have committed acts of terrorism or atrocities in the name of religion? (or at least, wherever people are still sensitive about those acts?) That'd preclude much of the Middle East, at least, and probably swaths of Europe as well.
I would argue that Christians also have that responsibility, or would you say that Christians should not assemble and protest abortions outside of abortion clinics because the responsibility to not possibly offend someone supersedes the speaking of the truth?
Muslims have the right to build whatever they want on their private property (that is two blocks away from ground zero, not on top of ground zero, not that it makes any difference when speaking of rights). If we say that the government has the power to stop them from building that Mosque then we're also saying that the government has to power to stop us from building our Church.
I do not want to give the government that power. I may not agree with Muslims building their Mosque where they are but I will defend their right to do so, because by defending their rights I am defending my own rights.