Wars fought in the name of religion, including the Muslim Conquest of Spain 711 AD - photo blog Paradoxplace.com
The AP reports today on a Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on September 11, with the World Trade Center – the plight of the Church has gone unnoticed in the wake of the brouhaha over the planned Islamic Community Center (mosque) on the Ground Zero site. The fact that both religious institutions have lacked funding in order to rebuild is not the point – the fact that government is involved at all in a religious institution, regardless of the faith, is mind-boggling. One has to ask, where are the cries of separation of Church and State that are screamed from the rooftops and result in schools barring the singing of Christmas Carols or municipalities ban the placement of a Christian crèche on public property?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander applies in regards to this situation. The fact that individuals oppose a mosque being built on a site where, due to an ongoing religious war between Muslims and Infidels, a holy war, or crusade, resulted in the deaths of thousands of people (United States citizens as well as men and women from nations around the globe) on that site might be understandable. Reasonably, so-called “Holy Wars” have been responsible for the deaths of millions over time: the Crusades, the Muslim Conquest of Northern Africa and the Mediterranean (Southern Spain), to the war between Irish Protestants and Catholics. These major religions and denominations within a major religion caused wars, the outcome of which resulted in deaths of innocents - what is, more or less, anti-religious, given the fact that these religion promotes peace.
It is what it is, and for politicians and the State (Federal or State) to involve itself in the 1st amendment rights of any religion, be it in support or in opposition, should, logic follows, be against the nations rule of law. That said, property laws involving any real estate owned by a religious group, be it a Christian denominations church, a Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple, or Mosque should be adhered to in any case.
The fact that the proposed mosque would promote understanding does not hold water – the fact that the property is owned by SoHo properties, a company, which, according to almuslim.com was purchased and the building of said “community center” was approved by a New York zoning committee post September 11th, does. Therefore, if the property developers don’t have the funding, then the mosque cannot be built, nor for that matter, can the Greek Orthodox Church which was destroyed in the same general area in the name of the Muslim faith.
The question as to morality or to sensitivity towards ones neighbors is another issue entirely and, given the patterns associated with said religion, it is doubtful that sensitivity towards ones neighbors will prevail. It will be money that talks in both cases, and should the funding come forward from sources that are legally permitted by the United States Government (issues with funds from Terrorist States aside), both buildings would go forward – if not, then it is not the business of the government, or its officials to support or oppose or aid in the funding of either property.
Therefore, if this project is supported by State officials, then any and all religious holidays and themes associated, be it on private or public property, should be allowed. This includes prayer at schools, the placing of a Christian Crèche on public property during Christmas, or any other symbol of a religion practiced within the boundaries of this United States. The arguments both pro and con, therefore, are about tolerance in the end, the lack of tolerance shown towards Christians, Jews and, yes Muslims, and said religions being used as nothing more than “political” statements by those who personally profit, especially elected officials and members of the press.
No comments:
Post a Comment