The prospect of building a Muslim mosque just a few blocks from Ground Zero is cringe worthy. I‘d wager that 99.9% of all Americans are, if not outraged, at least disquieted by the idea. Just because Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the right to build the mosque at that location, does not mean he should. If not on a legal level, on an intuitive level it is just wrong.
If this is about mending fences, then how can Imam Rauf not see the great opportunity he has to prove his good intentions? A real show of good will would be to, out of his love and respect for American sentiment, agree to build the mosque elsewhere. By that act alone, he could accomplish more fence mending than any 13-story mosque ever will.
Americans, in favor of building the mosque, wield Freedom of
Religion as their sword of righteousness. Those who view the mosque as an
affront to the approximately 3,000 people killed by radical Muslim terrorists
on 9/11, are labeled Islamophobes, ignorant bigots, racists, haters and Christians. Lately, “Christian”
has been the insult of choice by anti-conservatives. If you are not giddy over
the proposed mosque (it has a swimming pool!), you are sullying the country’s national
ideals – selfishly unwilling to show by example the wonders of tolerance.
A
recent CBS poll found that 71% of Americans are opposed to the
mosque. What are the other 29%? Hypocrites.
Here’s why. The First Amendment grants freedom of religion to all Americans thus legally allowing Imam Rauf to build his mosque. However, those that are all about the mosque and a bag of chips too, only support him because Imam Rauf is considered a moderate, “peaceful” Muslim, a follower of Sufism, and this makes him an “acceptable” Muslim. If he were, for example a follower of the Salfi interpretation of the Qur’an, with its practice of Sharia law, supporters would take back their chips in a heartbeat.
The First Amendment should not be subject to sanitation - free
is free. Therein lies the current hypocrisy of the righteous 29% and the illumination
of a complicated dilemma for
The tenets of Sharia law, among many other vile practices, define women as,
“half the value of a man”, cut off body parts for crimes of theft, stone women
for adultery regardless of innocence, and consider homosexuality a crime
punishable by death. These practices are the antithesis of the liberal platform
and are abhorrent crimes against humanity. Again, if Imam Rauf were a radical Salfi,
even Mayor Bloomberg, with his financial ties to the
In truth, Islam and Shariah Law are inseparable, because in Islam there is
no separation between church and state. If
we apply the First Amendment unconditionally, then Muslims are free to practice
the codes of belief in their religion, including Sharia law. In
In
It is disturbing that just recently, a New Jersey trial judge found that a Muslim husband who raped his wife committed conduct that constituted a “sexual assault” but, because of his religion, did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Although the case was overturned on appeal, it’s a clear example of how insidious this issue is.
President Obama has endorsed the mosque saying, “This is