Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Mosques, Churches, Terror, and Love

by Troy Jackson 08-17-2010 | 7:00pm
Print
173 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Sometimes space is warranted. We need boundaries when relationships are difficult. We set up parameters to protect ourselves, and sometimes extend those barriers and boundaries to people who have nothing to do with the wounds that we have experienced.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

This need for space and boundaries has recently been extended to the debate regarding the proposed Muslim community center, Park51, a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center.

Few are claiming that those asking to build Park51 are directly responsible for Sept. 11. Instead, some view the proposed community center, which includes a mosque, as an inconsiderate act that seems callous to those who lost loved ones during the terrorist attacks nearly nine years ago. Far more view the proposal as an opportunity to score political points by painting proponents as insensitive to those most affected by Sept. 11.

And concern for the trauma and pain of those most deeply affected by the events of Sept. 11 is critical. Even nearly a decade later, many of the wounds have not healed. The pain of that day will mark and scar many for the rest of their lives.

As we support and pray for the victims of Sept. 11, we must remember that this was not the first act of terror and evil perpetrated on American soil. The forced removal of Native Americans from their land is tragic, and the consequences of this act are still felt generations later by the remnants of Native American tribes. Some churches and Christians played a part in this tragedy. Could not the same logic be applied to prohibit the construction of churches within a few blocks from the Trail of Tears?

Slavery once existed in every American colony, and persisted in the South until the end of the civil war. Few can argue that the legacy of slavery still marks this nation, and that churches and Christians often supported this peculiar institution. Could not descendants of slaves ask for a moratorium of new Caucasian churches near former slave auction sites, plantations, and even the locations of thousands of lynchings?

Obviously most Christians today are deeply saddened by our historic complicity in the forced removal of Native Americans and the enslavement and segregation of African Americans. To ban churches from sites that once perpetuated these evils would be an absurd response to historic tragedies that instead demand confession, repentance, and transformation.

Is not the politicization of a community center that includes a place of worship in lower Manhattan similarly absurd? While terrorism and violence need to be condemned at every turn, intolerance and vilification of the practitioners of other faiths does not strike me as living out the love of Jesus. Somewhere I can hear Jesus saying, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Ultimately, the Christian church should focus our energies on sharing the grace and love and mercy of Jesus, not fighting the construction of buildings and worship centers of other faiths. Hate and revenge are not Christian values. Fear and intolerance are not fruits of the Spirit. Instead, Jesus calls us to love our neighbors, and to even love our enemies. Love doesn't fight mosques. The love of Jesus demands that we love Muslims. Period. For in the end, love wins.

Troy Jackson is senior pastor of University Christian Church in Cincinnati and a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, and earned his PhD in United States history from the University of Kentucky. He is author of Becoming King: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Making of a National Leader (Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century) and a participant in Sojourners' Windchangers grassroots organizing project in Ohio.

173 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Jamie Smith

08-18-2010 @ 1:31am

I think it is easier to discuss morality as an abstracted ideal than to discuss in terms of the gritty reality of developing human relationships in which morality is actually experienced. The reference to slavery, for example, is just fine in terms of abstractions, but at the time, as a legal and social norm (and also a legal and social norm that had the weight of thousands of years of history behind it), it wasn't an abstraction it was something that people had to eventually move beyond through normal social developmental processes. The same is true of the Native American thing. It took time for the American social consciousness to grasp these realities as problematic. It's not really a fair argument to now look back on a complex developmental history and tar the entire developmental process with the one brush and then bring it over and compare it to a new and developing social reality and say to everyone "see, you should get over it." It's just not realistic to expect that. However, in each of these processes, there were always people speaking against the great swath of uncritical human interactions going on around them. So I don't want to either disagree or reject the appeal of the blog, but I do suggest that we realistically accept that a lot of people are pissed off with muslims and it will take time for the public consciousness to sort out the differences between terrorists and muslims, and will take time for them to prove to Americans who they are, and even then the American branches of Islam will naturally go through their own developmental changes and sort out what they think of non-Muslims ("infidels" or "others").

by: squeaky

08-19-2010 @ 2:43am

OFCOL. You know, twisting others words is something many of us more Liberal-minded folk criticize Conservatives for.

Being a Christian in the United States puts us in the unique position where, with our actions, we will defend someone's right to their own non-Christian religion, while in our hearts we pray they find Jesus. This is what Tommy is saying. So can we stop picking on him already! Sheesh Louise.

by: squeaky

08-19-2010 @ 2:45am

Actually, I heard (on one of the Sunday morning shows, I think--the one on ABC) that many Pakistanis are being won over by the actions of the US military to come to the aid of those in need.

I also have to wonder if another reason Americans aren't so quick to help is because they aren't just off our shoreline like Haiti is. Just an alternative interpretation.

As for the mosque, if a huge part of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involve winning the hearts and minds of the people in those countries, then why don't we see this as another opportunity to do just that?

by: squeaky

08-19-2010 @ 2:45am

Actually, I heard (on one of the Sunday morning shows, I think--the one on ABC) that many Pakistanis are being won over by the actions of the US military to come to the aid of those in need.

I also have to wonder if another reason Americans aren't so quick to help is because they aren't just off our shoreline like Haiti is. Just an alternative interpretation.

As for the mosque, if a huge part of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involve winning the hearts and minds of the people in those countries, then why don't we see this as another opportunity to do just that?

by: squeaky

08-19-2010 @ 2:43am

OFCOL. You know, twisting others words is something many of us more Liberal-minded folk criticize Conservatives for.

Being a Christian in the United States puts us in the unique position where, with our actions, we will defend someone's right to their own non-Christian religion, while in our hearts we pray they find Jesus. This is what Tommy is saying. So can we stop picking on him already! Sheesh Louise.

by: squeaky

08-19-2010 @ 2:43am

OFCOL. You know, twisting others words is something many of us more Liberal-minded folk criticize Conservatives for.

Being a Christian in the United States puts us in the unique position where, with our actions, we will defend someone's right to their own non-Christian religion, while in our hearts we pray they find Jesus. This is what Tommy is saying. So can we stop picking on him already! Sheesh Louise.

by: libmodcon

08-19-2010 @ 5:43am

"As for the mosque, if a huge part of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involve winning the hearts and minds of the people in those countries, then why don't we see this as another opportunity to do just that?"

The Imam, and his wife, Daisy Kahn, have stated publicly, and I saw the Daisy Kahn interview, that the purpose and intent of this cultural center, which will include a Mosque, is to promote tolerance between members of other faiths and provide an opportunity for non-Islamics to become more informed and better understand the Muslim culture. She is of the belief, and so stated, that the location chosen is the most appropriate site to begin the process of reconciliation and promotion of mutual respect.

Accepting the sincerity of her intentions, and the expressed stated purpose of promoting understanding and acceptance between religions and cultures, the project is born of a noble goal; however, the issue then becomes whether the choice of this site is apropos to the achievement of the stated goal.

From the content of the blogs, and from the intensity of the opposition, I believe that the Kahns miscalculated the reaction. The events of 9-11 were the most shocking and grievous in modern American history in that this was the first attack upon the United States mainland that killed and injured thousands of Americans. The intensity of the anger was without parallel and the perpetrators were avowed members of radical Islam.

The announcement of the intent to build a Muslim cultural center near the site of the attack created a firestorm of protest. Thousands regard it, rightly or wrongly, as a desecration of a graveyard.

At this point, it is my belief that the stated intention of promotion of peace, harmony and understanding of Islam, as expressed by the Kahns is unattainable and that the construction would have the opposite of the intended objective. Rather than promote understanding, it will become a festering sore.

Some may believe that time will make the cultural center acceptable and the Kahn's goals will be realized. I do not. I believe that the Kahns have an opportunity to recognize their miscalculation and calm a firestorm. If they are intent on proving the point that they have the right to build a Mosque and cultural center, that is uncontested. If their goal, is as they have publicly stated, to promote understanding, I believe their dream is stillborn.

I do not frame the issue in the same context as you do. Politics and "rights" are not the issue for me. We each have our opinion.

by: Ankaboot

08-21-2010 @ 4:17am

As a Christian looking from the outside, I say let them build it. But
I assure you, if the tables were reversed, and my own brethren were
responsible for causing such tragedy, I would implore them in the name
of peace, respect and reconciliation to find a different place for their
house of worship.

Their mosque across the street isn't big enough.

by: WaveTossed

08-19-2010 @ 1:11pm

Libmodcom wrote: "Some may believe that time will make the cultural center acceptable and the Kahn's goals will be realized. I do not. I believe that the Kahns have an opportunity to recognize their miscalculation and calm a firestorm. If they are intent on proving the point that they have the right to build a Mosque and cultural center, that is uncontested. If their goal, is as they have publicly stated, to promote understanding, I believe their dream is stillborn."

So what do the Kahns do -- build the community center 3 blocks away rather than 2 blocks away? Should they build it 5 miles away? 50 miles away? 5,000 miles away?

The intense and hostile reaction to this overture of peace (you say that the Kahn's dreams of promoting understanding is "stillborn") shows that we in the U.S. need a lot of work -- perhaps it's not the Kahns who need to work on understanding, it's the people who are so vociferously opposed who need to work on understanding.

by: Joel225A

08-19-2010 @ 9:04am

Tommy said
That would be ridiculous because I believe that the Catholic Church is still leading people toward Christ, at least ideally. Islam is not.Is it that some of you believe that Islam is a legitimate path to heaven? That certainly would not be compatible with John 14:6..."

Tommy most everyone understood you who are even attempting to listen or engaged in the conversation .
An anology would be say you were against guns you wished everyone not own one , but of course the second amendment says they can . Of course I understood you acknowledged the right to Muslims enjoying the First Amendment .

I hope everyone to Know Jesus Christ one day also as their personal Lord and Savior. We are commanded to go and share the Lord with others . Regardless of what denomination you belong to , if your a christrian you understand this. Your heart and abiliy to state was right on and quite loving and honest . Keep the faith , but perhaps this place is not to the place to consider for honest conversation because of what you encountered . Squeaky may not agree with you , but she is dedicated to understanding and fairness. Something that even some NON Fundamentalist Baptist appear to have a problem with . ;0)

by: Ankaboot

08-21-2010 @ 4:17am

As a Christian looking from the outside, I say let them build it. But
I assure you, if the tables were reversed, and my own brethren were
responsible for causing such tragedy, I would implore them in the name
of peace, respect and reconciliation to find a different place for their
house of worship.

Their mosque across the street isn't big enough.

by: Ankaboot

08-21-2010 @ 4:17am

As a Christian looking from the outside, I say let them build it. But
I assure you, if the tables were reversed, and my own brethren were
responsible for causing such tragedy, I would implore them in the name
of peace, respect and reconciliation to find a different place for their
house of worship.

Their mosque across the street isn't big enough.

by: libmodcon

08-19-2010 @ 5:43am

"As for the mosque, if a huge part of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involve winning the hearts and minds of the people in those countries, then why don't we see this as another opportunity to do just that?"

The Imam, and his wife, Daisy Kahn, have stated publicly, and I saw the Daisy Kahn interview, that the purpose and intent of this cultural center, which will include a Mosque, is to promote tolerance between members of other faiths and provide an opportunity for non-Islamics to become more informed and better understand the Muslim culture. She is of the belief, and so stated, that the location chosen is the most appropriate site to begin the process of reconciliation and promotion of mutual respect.

Accepting the sincerity of her intentions, and the expressed stated purpose of promoting understanding and acceptance between religions and cultures, the project is born of a noble goal; however, the issue then becomes whether the choice of this site is apropos to the achievement of the stated goal.

From the content of the blogs, and from the intensity of the opposition, I believe that the Kahns miscalculated the reaction. The events of 9-11 were the most shocking and grievous in modern American history in that this was the first attack upon the United States mainland that killed and injured thousands of Americans. The intensity of the anger was without parallel and the perpetrators were avowed members of radical Islam.

The announcement of the intent to build a Muslim cultural center near the site of the attack created a firestorm of protest. Thousands regard it, rightly or wrongly, as a desecration of a graveyard.

At this point, it is my belief that the stated intention of promotion of peace, harmony and understanding of Islam, as expressed by the Kahns is unattainable and that the construction would have the opposite of the intended objective. Rather than promote understanding, it will become a festering sore.

Some may believe that time will make the cultural center acceptable and the Kahn's goals will be realized. I do not. I believe that the Kahns have an opportunity to recognize their miscalculation and calm a firestorm. If they are intent on proving the point that they have the right to build a Mosque and cultural center, that is uncontested. If their goal, is as they have publicly stated, to promote understanding, I believe their dream is stillborn.

I do not frame the issue in the same context as you do. Politics and "rights" are not the issue for me. We each have our opinion.

by: libmodcon

08-19-2010 @ 5:43am

"As for the mosque, if a huge part of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involve winning the hearts and minds of the people in those countries, then why don't we see this as another opportunity to do just that?"

The Imam, and his wife, Daisy Kahn, have stated publicly, and I saw the Daisy Kahn interview, that the purpose and intent of this cultural center, which will include a Mosque, is to promote tolerance between members of other faiths and provide an opportunity for non-Islamics to become more informed and better understand the Muslim culture. She is of the belief, and so stated, that the location chosen is the most appropriate site to begin the process of reconciliation and promotion of mutual respect.

Accepting the sincerity of her intentions, and the expressed stated purpose of promoting understanding and acceptance between religions and cultures, the project is born of a noble goal; however, the issue then becomes whether the choice of this site is apropos to the achievement of the stated goal.

From the content of the blogs, and from the intensity of the opposition, I believe that the Kahns miscalculated the reaction. The events of 9-11 were the most shocking and grievous in modern American history in that this was the first attack upon the United States mainland that killed and injured thousands of Americans. The intensity of the anger was without parallel and the perpetrators were avowed members of radical Islam.

The announcement of the intent to build a Muslim cultural center near the site of the attack created a firestorm of protest. Thousands regard it, rightly or wrongly, as a desecration of a graveyard.

At this point, it is my belief that the stated intention of promotion of peace, harmony and understanding of Islam, as expressed by the Kahns is unattainable and that the construction would have the opposite of the intended objective. Rather than promote understanding, it will become a festering sore.

Some may believe that time will make the cultural center acceptable and the Kahn's goals will be realized. I do not. I believe that the Kahns have an opportunity to recognize their miscalculation and calm a firestorm. If they are intent on proving the point that they have the right to build a Mosque and cultural center, that is uncontested. If their goal, is as they have publicly stated, to promote understanding, I believe their dream is stillborn.

I do not frame the issue in the same context as you do. Politics and "rights" are not the issue for me. We each have our opinion.

by: WaveTossed

08-19-2010 @ 1:11pm

Libmodcom wrote: "Some may believe that time will make the cultural center acceptable and the Kahn's goals will be realized. I do not. I believe that the Kahns have an opportunity to recognize their miscalculation and calm a firestorm. If they are intent on proving the point that they have the right to build a Mosque and cultural center, that is uncontested. If their goal, is as they have publicly stated, to promote understanding, I believe their dream is stillborn."

So what do the Kahns do -- build the community center 3 blocks away rather than 2 blocks away? Should they build it 5 miles away? 50 miles away? 5,000 miles away?

The intense and hostile reaction to this overture of peace (you say that the Kahn's dreams of promoting understanding is "stillborn") shows that we in the U.S. need a lot of work -- perhaps it's not the Kahns who need to work on understanding, it's the people who are so vociferously opposed who need to work on understanding.

by: WaveTossed

08-19-2010 @ 1:11pm

Libmodcom wrote: "Some may believe that time will make the cultural center acceptable and the Kahn's goals will be realized. I do not. I believe that the Kahns have an opportunity to recognize their miscalculation and calm a firestorm. If they are intent on proving the point that they have the right to build a Mosque and cultural center, that is uncontested. If their goal, is as they have publicly stated, to promote understanding, I believe their dream is stillborn."

So what do the Kahns do -- build the community center 3 blocks away rather than 2 blocks away? Should they build it 5 miles away? 50 miles away? 5,000 miles away?

The intense and hostile reaction to this overture of peace (you say that the Kahn's dreams of promoting understanding is "stillborn") shows that we in the U.S. need a lot of work -- perhaps it's not the Kahns who need to work on understanding, it's the people who are so vociferously opposed who need to work on understanding.

by: Joel225A

08-19-2010 @ 9:04am

Tommy said
That would be ridiculous because I believe that the Catholic Church is still leading people toward Christ, at least ideally. Islam is not.Is it that some of you believe that Islam is a legitimate path to heaven? That certainly would not be compatible with John 14:6..."

Tommy most everyone understood you who are even attempting to listen or engaged in the conversation .
An anology would be say you were against guns you wished everyone not own one , but of course the second amendment says they can . Of course I understood you acknowledged the right to Muslims enjoying the First Amendment .

I hope everyone to Know Jesus Christ one day also as their personal Lord and Savior. We are commanded to go and share the Lord with others . Regardless of what denomination you belong to , if your a christrian you understand this. Your heart and abiliy to state was right on and quite loving and honest . Keep the faith , but perhaps this place is not to the place to consider for honest conversation because of what you encountered . Squeaky may not agree with you , but she is dedicated to understanding and fairness. Something that even some NON Fundamentalist Baptist appear to have a problem with . ;0)

by: Joel225A

08-19-2010 @ 9:04am

Tommy said
That would be ridiculous because I believe that the Catholic Church is still leading people toward Christ, at least ideally. Islam is not.Is it that some of you believe that Islam is a legitimate path to heaven? That certainly would not be compatible with John 14:6..."

Tommy most everyone understood you who are even attempting to listen or engaged in the conversation .
An anology would be say you were against guns you wished everyone not own one , but of course the second amendment says they can . Of course I understood you acknowledged the right to Muslims enjoying the First Amendment .

I hope everyone to Know Jesus Christ one day also as their personal Lord and Savior. We are commanded to go and share the Lord with others . Regardless of what denomination you belong to , if your a christrian you understand this. Your heart and abiliy to state was right on and quite loving and honest . Keep the faith , but perhaps this place is not to the place to consider for honest conversation because of what you encountered . Squeaky may not agree with you , but she is dedicated to understanding and fairness. Something that even some NON Fundamentalist Baptist appear to have a problem with . ;0)

by: jesse3

08-18-2010 @ 5:02am

I haven't read anything here about Glen Beck lately. Just sayin.

by: jesse3

08-18-2010 @ 5:02am

I haven't read anything here about Glen Beck lately. Just sayin.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2010 @ 5:52am

"Could not descendants of slaves ask for a moratorium of new Caucasian churches near former slave auction sites, plantations, and even the locations of thousands of lynchings?

Obviously most Christians today are deeply saddened by our historic complicity in the forced removal of Native Americans and the enslavement and segregation of African Americans. To ban churches from sites that once perpetuated these evils would be an absurd response to historic tragedies that instead demand confession, repentance, and transformation." Troy

There are few (if any) sites publicly acknowledged as memorials to those atrocities. Native peoples have many sacred sites that are routinely trampled on and disrespected by the broader culture.

You pose these analogies as if it would be ridiculous to create such sacred locations. I would argue we have fundamentally failed to create and respect such sites. This failure does not represent some grand experiment in freedom.

We will run a road through a Native sacred site as if it were nothing. We can run the Mosque up as if it were nothing.

Doing so does not make us free.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2010 @ 5:52am

"Could not descendants of slaves ask for a moratorium of new Caucasian churches near former slave auction sites, plantations, and even the locations of thousands of lynchings?

Obviously most Christians today are deeply saddened by our historic complicity in the forced removal of Native Americans and the enslavement and segregation of African Americans. To ban churches from sites that once perpetuated these evils would be an absurd response to historic tragedies that instead demand confession, repentance, and transformation." Troy

There are few (if any) sites publicly acknowledged as memorials to those atrocities. Native peoples have many sacred sites that are routinely trampled on and disrespected by the broader culture.

You pose these analogies as if it would be ridiculous to create such sacred locations. I would argue we have fundamentally failed to create and respect such sites. This failure does not represent some grand experiment in freedom.

We will run a road through a Native sacred site as if it were nothing. We can run the Mosque up as if it were nothing.

Doing so does not make us free.

by: BluesPianist

08-20-2010 @ 2:44pm

I get your analogy, but somehow think you're inadvertently making a point in opposition to the mosque construction. As a society, we do in fact make an effort to cut away negative symbolism. Activists in the South have worked very hard to take the stars and bars off of state flags and the like. Swastikas are almost universally out of bounds for mainstream cultures around the world, despite the benign nature of the original Swahili meaning. While I count it as a good thing that the standard symbols of Islam are not immediately associated with terrorism, perhaps there is a vaccuum that needs to be filled; something for people to remove so they can feel that restoration can happen. A mosque is not a strong enough symbol by itself (a good thing), but a mosque "on" ground zero is the closest thing this situation gives to a symbol of the atrocity.

As a Christian looking from the outside, I say let them build it. But I assure you, if the tables were reversed, and my own brethren were responsible for causing such tragedy, I would implore them in the name of peace, respect and reconciliation to find a different place for their house of worship.

by: BluesPianist

08-20-2010 @ 2:44pm

I get your analogy, but somehow think you're inadvertently making a point in opposition to the mosque construction. As a society, we do in fact make an effort to cut away negative symbolism. Activists in the South have worked very hard to take the stars and bars off of state flags and the like. Swastikas are almost universally out of bounds for mainstream cultures around the world, despite the benign nature of the original Swahili meaning. While I count it as a good thing that the standard symbols of Islam are not immediately associated with terrorism, perhaps there is a vaccuum that needs to be filled; something for people to remove so they can feel that restoration can happen. A mosque is not a strong enough symbol by itself (a good thing), but a mosque "on" ground zero is the closest thing this situation gives to a symbol of the atrocity.

As a Christian looking from the outside, I say let them build it. But I assure you, if the tables were reversed, and my own brethren were responsible for causing such tragedy, I would implore them in the name of peace, respect and reconciliation to find a different place for their house of worship.

by: rustys1

08-17-2010 @ 8:43pm

I find it interesting that those who wound question the wisdom of building the mosque at ground zero are labeled as "hateful", "vengeful", "fearful", or "intolerant". ...oh and not to forget the last one, "unloving".

Somewhere, I can hear Jesus saying, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

by: Tommy Stewart

08-18-2010 @ 1:21pm

I believe you are in violation of Code of Conduct rule #3. So, I'm invoking #4. Not cool.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-18-2010 @ 1:21pm

I believe you are in violation of Code of Conduct rule #3. So, I'm invoking #4. Not cool.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-18-2010 @ 1:18pm

You seem to have missed another quote of mine: "Obviously, they have the right to build it there."

I'm not talking about forbidding anything, just questioning.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-18-2010 @ 1:18pm

You seem to have missed another quote of mine: "Obviously, they have the right to build it there."

I'm not talking about forbidding anything, just questioning.

by: john316

08-18-2010 @ 12:59pm

"As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell."

Tommy: Substitute the word "Mormon" or "Jehovah Witness" or any other religion that you may disagree with and you will realize just how ridiculous your statement is.

by: john316

08-18-2010 @ 12:59pm

"As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell."

Tommy: Substitute the word "Mormon" or "Jehovah Witness" or any other religion that you may disagree with and you will realize just how ridiculous your statement is.

by: BlueDeacon

08-18-2010 @ 12:42pm

Oh, that's possible, and I think someone else brought it up.

by: BlueDeacon

08-18-2010 @ 12:42pm

Oh, that's possible, and I think someone else brought it up.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 10:01pm

Oh, and thanks for your viewpoint, Troy. Didn't want to sound all negative about it. Though we as Christians are necessarily against certain things, we still need to make our stands in love.

by: BlueDeacon

08-18-2010 @ 12:41pm

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

Well, there are a lot of people who don't agree with the claims of Jesus or the actions of Christians, and yet in this country they don't forbid us.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 9:57pm

Though the proximity to ground zero is an issue for some, I think that the more prevalent is that it will be dedicated on the 10th anniversary. There are already actual mosques in the area, and I'm fine with that. They certainly don't need to be torn down (not that anyone is proposing that - that I'm aware of).

Obviously, they have the right to build it there. Just as Christians have the right to build churches near the Trail of Tears. But, I think that opening one there on a significant anniversary may have been met with similar opposition from the Native American community, and understandably.

I, and many others, do not think that they should be forced to cancel plans for Park51 by any government action. We just question the wisdom of it and seek only to reasonably convince them that this may not be the wisest decision.

It's also worth noting that there are those within the Muslim community that question the wisdom of these actions.

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

It also troubles me that some Christians seem to be more disturbed by the construction of a Wal-Mart at any location on any date, though their sins are against only the physical being. Are we more concerned about a person knowing the fleeting joys of a decent paycheck than we are about them knowing the everlasting joy that is knowing Christ? Just a thought.

by: BlueDeacon

08-18-2010 @ 12:41pm

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

Well, there are a lot of people who don't agree with the claims of Jesus or the actions of Christians, and yet in this country they don't forbid us.

by: titopoet

08-17-2010 @ 9:54pm

May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. -George Washington

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/08/1...

The question for those who oppose the community center, why impose your wishes on another city, for the people who live and lived through 9-11, Manhattanites, support it. The above quote is wise advice by a founding father that we should take now.

by: john316

08-18-2010 @ 12:32pm

"...why only now has it become an issue?"

Could it possibly be related to the Nov election?

by: BlueDeacon

08-17-2010 @ 9:36pm

They're not just questioning it -- many of them actually are denouncing it and insisting that it will eventually become a haven for terrorism. Besides, this has been going on since last year; why only now has it become an issue?

by: john316

08-18-2010 @ 12:32pm

"...why only now has it become an issue?"

Could it possibly be related to the Nov election?

by: Ngchen

08-17-2010 @ 9:27pm

Very interesting point. The injunction against "judging" is one that is often misused. I've heard it argued that when read in context, it's about how we are to judge justly; if we were going to judge Pharisee style, we'd be better off not judging at all. After all, how can we be "Bereans" in the apologetic sense if we don't judge doctrine for soundness?

We should apply the same standard to ourself that we apply toward others - not doing so is hypocritical.

by: Ankaboot

08-19-2010 @ 11:10pm

Take a look at what they're actually doing ~ the Cordoba House isn't even visible from the WTC site, and the WTC site won't be visible from Cordoba House. The whole "controversy" is built on lies and false premises.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploa...

by: squeaky

08-18-2010 @ 2:22pm

Hasn't it been refreshing?

by: squeaky

08-18-2010 @ 2:22pm

Hasn't it been refreshing?

by: Tommy Stewart

08-18-2010 @ 2:16pm

That would be ridiculous because I believe that the Catholic Church is still leading people toward Christ, at least ideally. Islam is not.

Is it that some of you believe that Islam is a legitimate path to heaven? That certainly would not be compatible with John 14:6...

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

I don't imagine that you would believe Islam to be a true religion, so I'm a little confused as to why my statement seems so controversial.

by: BlueDeacon

08-20-2010 @ 5:39pm

The trouble is that, even if such symbols were removed, restoration cannot happen unless that grief is processed properly. The folks who are whipping this up are looking only for a scapegoat to gain money and power (otherwise it would happened last year, when it got started.

BTW, it's a community center located two blocks away which isn't even visible from Ground Zero.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-18-2010 @ 2:16pm

That would be ridiculous because I believe that the Catholic Church is still leading people toward Christ, at least ideally. Islam is not.

Is it that some of you believe that Islam is a legitimate path to heaven? That certainly would not be compatible with John 14:6...

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

I don't imagine that you would believe Islam to be a true religion, so I'm a little confused as to why my statement seems so controversial.

by: BlueDeacon

08-20-2010 @ 5:39pm

The trouble is that, even if such symbols were removed, restoration cannot happen unless that grief is processed properly. The folks who are whipping this up are looking only for a scapegoat to gain money and power (otherwise it would happened last year, when it got started.

BTW, it's a community center located two blocks away which isn't even visible from Ground Zero.

by: PASTOR JEFF

08-18-2010 @ 1:40pm

OK, let's try it:

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Catholic center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell."

Ridiculous or not?

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: rustys1

08-17-2010 @ 8:43pm

I find it interesting that those who wound question the wisdom of building the mosque at ground zero are labeled as "hateful", "vengeful", "fearful", or "intolerant". ...oh and not to forget the last one, "unloving".

Somewhere, I can hear Jesus saying, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

by: rustys1

08-17-2010 @ 8:43pm

I find it interesting that those who wound question the wisdom of building the mosque at ground zero are labeled as "hateful", "vengeful", "fearful", or "intolerant". ...oh and not to forget the last one, "unloving".

Somewhere, I can hear Jesus saying, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

by: rustys1

08-17-2010 @ 8:43pm

I find it interesting that those who wound question the wisdom of building the mosque at ground zero are labeled as "hateful", "vengeful", "fearful", or "intolerant". ...oh and not to forget the last one, "unloving".

Somewhere, I can hear Jesus saying, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

by: Ngchen

08-17-2010 @ 9:27pm

Very interesting point. The injunction against "judging" is one that is often misused. I've heard it argued that when read in context, it's about how we are to judge justly; if we were going to judge Pharisee style, we'd be better off not judging at all. After all, how can we be "Bereans" in the apologetic sense if we don't judge doctrine for soundness?

We should apply the same standard to ourself that we apply toward others - not doing so is hypocritical.

by: Ngchen

08-17-2010 @ 9:27pm

Very interesting point. The injunction against "judging" is one that is often misused. I've heard it argued that when read in context, it's about how we are to judge justly; if we were going to judge Pharisee style, we'd be better off not judging at all. After all, how can we be "Bereans" in the apologetic sense if we don't judge doctrine for soundness?

We should apply the same standard to ourself that we apply toward others - not doing so is hypocritical.

by: Ngchen

08-17-2010 @ 9:27pm

Very interesting point. The injunction against "judging" is one that is often misused. I've heard it argued that when read in context, it's about how we are to judge justly; if we were going to judge Pharisee style, we'd be better off not judging at all. After all, how can we be "Bereans" in the apologetic sense if we don't judge doctrine for soundness?

We should apply the same standard to ourself that we apply toward others - not doing so is hypocritical.

by: BlueDeacon

08-17-2010 @ 9:36pm

They're not just questioning it -- many of them actually are denouncing it and insisting that it will eventually become a haven for terrorism. Besides, this has been going on since last year; why only now has it become an issue?

by: BlueDeacon

08-17-2010 @ 9:36pm

They're not just questioning it -- many of them actually are denouncing it and insisting that it will eventually become a haven for terrorism. Besides, this has been going on since last year; why only now has it become an issue?

by: BlueDeacon

08-17-2010 @ 9:36pm

They're not just questioning it -- many of them actually are denouncing it and insisting that it will eventually become a haven for terrorism. Besides, this has been going on since last year; why only now has it become an issue?

by: titopoet

08-17-2010 @ 9:54pm

May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. -George Washington

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/08/1...

The question for those who oppose the community center, why impose your wishes on another city, for the people who live and lived through 9-11, Manhattanites, support it. The above quote is wise advice by a founding father that we should take now.

by: titopoet

08-17-2010 @ 9:54pm

May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. -George Washington

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/08/1...

The question for those who oppose the community center, why impose your wishes on another city, for the people who live and lived through 9-11, Manhattanites, support it. The above quote is wise advice by a founding father that we should take now.

by: titopoet

08-17-2010 @ 9:54pm

May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. -George Washington

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/08/1...

The question for those who oppose the community center, why impose your wishes on another city, for the people who live and lived through 9-11, Manhattanites, support it. The above quote is wise advice by a founding father that we should take now.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 9:57pm

Though the proximity to ground zero is an issue for some, I think that the more prevalent is that it will be dedicated on the 10th anniversary. There are already actual mosques in the area, and I'm fine with that. They certainly don't need to be torn down (not that anyone is proposing that - that I'm aware of).

Obviously, they have the right to build it there. Just as Christians have the right to build churches near the Trail of Tears. But, I think that opening one there on a significant anniversary may have been met with similar opposition from the Native American community, and understandably.

I, and many others, do not think that they should be forced to cancel plans for Park51 by any government action. We just question the wisdom of it and seek only to reasonably convince them that this may not be the wisest decision.

It's also worth noting that there are those within the Muslim community that question the wisdom of these actions.

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

It also troubles me that some Christians seem to be more disturbed by the construction of a Wal-Mart at any location on any date, though their sins are against only the physical being. Are we more concerned about a person knowing the fleeting joys of a decent paycheck than we are about them knowing the everlasting joy that is knowing Christ? Just a thought.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 9:57pm

Though the proximity to ground zero is an issue for some, I think that the more prevalent is that it will be dedicated on the 10th anniversary. There are already actual mosques in the area, and I'm fine with that. They certainly don't need to be torn down (not that anyone is proposing that - that I'm aware of).

Obviously, they have the right to build it there. Just as Christians have the right to build churches near the Trail of Tears. But, I think that opening one there on a significant anniversary may have been met with similar opposition from the Native American community, and understandably.

I, and many others, do not think that they should be forced to cancel plans for Park51 by any government action. We just question the wisdom of it and seek only to reasonably convince them that this may not be the wisest decision.

It's also worth noting that there are those within the Muslim community that question the wisdom of these actions.

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

It also troubles me that some Christians seem to be more disturbed by the construction of a Wal-Mart at any location on any date, though their sins are against only the physical being. Are we more concerned about a person knowing the fleeting joys of a decent paycheck than we are about them knowing the everlasting joy that is knowing Christ? Just a thought.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 9:57pm

Though the proximity to ground zero is an issue for some, I think that the more prevalent is that it will be dedicated on the 10th anniversary. There are already actual mosques in the area, and I'm fine with that. They certainly don't need to be torn down (not that anyone is proposing that - that I'm aware of).

Obviously, they have the right to build it there. Just as Christians have the right to build churches near the Trail of Tears. But, I think that opening one there on a significant anniversary may have been met with similar opposition from the Native American community, and understandably.

I, and many others, do not think that they should be forced to cancel plans for Park51 by any government action. We just question the wisdom of it and seek only to reasonably convince them that this may not be the wisest decision.

It's also worth noting that there are those within the Muslim community that question the wisdom of these actions.

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

It also troubles me that some Christians seem to be more disturbed by the construction of a Wal-Mart at any location on any date, though their sins are against only the physical being. Are we more concerned about a person knowing the fleeting joys of a decent paycheck than we are about them knowing the everlasting joy that is knowing Christ? Just a thought.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 10:01pm

Oh, and thanks for your viewpoint, Troy. Didn't want to sound all negative about it. Though we as Christians are necessarily against certain things, we still need to make our stands in love.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 10:01pm

Oh, and thanks for your viewpoint, Troy. Didn't want to sound all negative about it. Though we as Christians are necessarily against certain things, we still need to make our stands in love.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 10:01pm

Oh, and thanks for your viewpoint, Troy. Didn't want to sound all negative about it. Though we as Christians are necessarily against certain things, we still need to make our stands in love.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 10:05pm

The attacks were not only on Manhattan, and the people who died and their families were not all from Manhattan, let alone NYC. And there are many who lost loved ones who oppose it, as well. It was an attack on us as a nation. We have every right to have an opinion. Again, I and the many like me aren't trying to impose, just reason.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 10:05pm

The attacks were not only on Manhattan, and the people who died and their families were not all from Manhattan, let alone NYC. And there are many who lost loved ones who oppose it, as well. It was an attack on us as a nation. We have every right to have an opinion. Again, I and the many like me aren't trying to impose, just reason.

by: Tommy Stewart

08-17-2010 @ 10:05pm

The attacks were not only on Manhattan, and the people who died and their families were not all from Manhattan, let alone NYC. And there are many who lost loved ones who oppose it, as well. It was an attack on us as a nation. We have every right to have an opinion. Again, I and the many like me aren't trying to impose, just reason.

by: duhsciple

08-17-2010 @ 10:38pm

For every friend we make there is one less enemy.

The best way to defeat a foe is to turn the other into a friend.

Therefore, what if every Christian sought to make one Muslim friend? Would this not be more productive than arguing over Ground Zero, mosques, constitutions, or whatever. When there is a choice between playing two games, "I'm right, you're wrong" or "let's have fun together"- which game do we want to play?

While I'm at it, what if every "progressive Christian" made one "Tea party" friend?

Talk to you all later, I'm going back to dreaming of pink elephants!

by: duhsciple

08-17-2010 @ 10:38pm

For every friend we make there is one less enemy.

The best way to defeat a foe is to turn the other into a friend.

Therefore, what if every Christian sought to make one Muslim friend? Would this not be more productive than arguing over Ground Zero, mosques, constitutions, or whatever. When there is a choice between playing two games, "I'm right, you're wrong" or "let's have fun together"- which game do we want to play?

While I'm at it, what if every "progressive Christian" made one "Tea party" friend?

Talk to you all later, I'm going back to dreaming of pink elephants!

by: duhsciple

08-17-2010 @ 10:38pm

For every friend we make there is one less enemy.

The best way to defeat a foe is to turn the other into a friend.

Therefore, what if every Christian sought to make one Muslim friend? Would this not be more productive than arguing over Ground Zero, mosques, constitutions, or whatever. When there is a choice between playing two games, "I'm right, you're wrong" or "let's have fun together"- which game do we want to play?

While I'm at it, what if every "progressive Christian" made one "Tea party" friend?

Talk to you all later, I'm going back to dreaming of pink elephants!

by: Joel225A

08-17-2010 @ 11:43pm

" Some churches and Christians played a part in this tragedy. Could not the same logic be applied to prohibit the construction of churches within a few blocks from the Trail of Tears"

Interesting perspective and one that I have had experience with. The nearby tribes that live on reservations have a unique view all to themselves of organized religion . Especially the Catholic Church. Just a lttle more then two generations ago the Catholic Church here was responisble for many children to be taken from their homes and taught in their Catholic schools and housed in their dorms . They lost their language , most of their culture , all in the name of civilization and Christ. To this day the only Catholic church on their premises is a historic one . This atatck on their culture was done throughout Canada also.

I believe the best way to handle this situation would be much like duhsciple speaks to , by ourselves reaching out . My denomination has a church on the reservation , but we help with money , resources, and Bibical teaching . The church itself is run by Natives and the whites who live there.

Ground Zero really belongs to all Americans , so i would disagree with the Mosque being there , but defintiely not disagreeable with some of the sincerity of the reasons why some people want it there.

Perhaps it would have been better if the folks at the Mosque would have seen the past of our history with the natives , and drew from the experience . Because now they are acting somewhat like the catholic Church and not realizing all the aspects of just building right at Ground Zero . History lessons are meant for all of us , the folks who are building the mosque are Americans . No better or less then the Catholics or any of us.

Should we have to say that ?

by: Joel225A

08-17-2010 @ 11:43pm

" Some churches and Christians played a part in this tragedy. Could not the same logic be applied to prohibit the construction of churches within a few blocks from the Trail of Tears"

Interesting perspective and one that I have had experience with. The nearby tribes that live on reservations have a unique view all to themselves of organized religion . Especially the Catholic Church. Just a lttle more then two generations ago the Catholic Church here was responisble for many children to be taken from their homes and taught in their Catholic schools and housed in their dorms . They lost their language , most of their culture , all in the name of civilization and Christ. To this day the only Catholic church on their premises is a historic one . This atatck on their culture was done throughout Canada also.

I believe the best way to handle this situation would be much like duhsciple speaks to , by ourselves reaching out . My denomination has a church on the reservation , but we help with money , resources, and Bibical teaching . The church itself is run by Natives and the whites who live there.

Ground Zero really belongs to all Americans , so i would disagree with the Mosque being there , but defintiely not disagreeable with some of the sincerity of the reasons why some people want it there.

Perhaps it would have been better if the folks at the Mosque would have seen the past of our history with the natives , and drew from the experience . Because now they are acting somewhat like the catholic Church and not realizing all the aspects of just building right at Ground Zero . History lessons are meant for all of us , the folks who are building the mosque are Americans . No better or less then the Catholics or any of us.

Should we have to say that ?

by: Joel225A

08-17-2010 @ 11:43pm

" Some churches and Christians played a part in this tragedy. Could not the same logic be applied to prohibit the construction of churches within a few blocks from the Trail of Tears"

Interesting perspective and one that I have had experience with. The nearby tribes that live on reservations have a unique view all to themselves of organized religion . Especially the Catholic Church. Just a lttle more then two generations ago the Catholic Church here was responisble for many children to be taken from their homes and taught in their Catholic schools and housed in their dorms . They lost their language , most of their culture , all in the name of civilization and Christ. To this day the only Catholic church on their premises is a historic one . This atatck on their culture was done throughout Canada also.

I believe the best way to handle this situation would be much like duhsciple speaks to , by ourselves reaching out . My denomination has a church on the reservation , but we help with money , resources, and Bibical teaching . The church itself is run by Natives and the whites who live there.

Ground Zero really belongs to all Americans , so i would disagree with the Mosque being there , but defintiely not disagreeable with some of the sincerity of the reasons why some people want it there.

Perhaps it would have been better if the folks at the Mosque would have seen the past of our history with the natives , and drew from the experience . Because now they are acting somewhat like the catholic Church and not realizing all the aspects of just building right at Ground Zero . History lessons are meant for all of us , the folks who are building the mosque are Americans . No better or less then the Catholics or any of us.

Should we have to say that ?

by: Joel225A

08-18-2010 @ 1:08am

"The question for those who oppose the community center, why impose your wishes on another city, for the people who live and lived through 9-11, Manhattanites, support it. The above quote is wise advice by a founding father that we should take now. "

My brother in law died on 9/11. He was a first responder , going to give aid to anyone who needed it. Regardless if they lived , worked, or were just visiting NYC. I am not sure what his opinion would be , but one thing for sure he would support the right of anyone to have one and offer it . Knowing him he would promote civility. Ground Zero has become an area that many in this country believe deserves special recognition . Almost like a cemetary, a national park .

Using your logic the funding for this facility should also come from just the city inhabitants. I don't think you really gave much thought to what you were saying ? I believe the best reason I can find in y heart is if your a Muslim , a Mosque is something that advocates the best in you . So I take the mosque actually as a good thing , but the location a bad idea.

by: Joel225A

08-18-2010 @ 1:08am

"The question for those who oppose the community center, why impose your wishes on another city, for the people who live and lived through 9-11, Manhattanites, support it. The above quote is wise advice by a founding father that we should take now. "

My brother in law died on 9/11. He was a first responder , going to give aid to anyone who needed it. Regardless if they lived , worked, or were just visiting NYC. I am not sure what his opinion would be , but one thing for sure he would support the right of anyone to have one and offer it . Knowing him he would promote civility. Ground Zero has become an area that many in this country believe deserves special recognition . Almost like a cemetary, a national park .

Using your logic the funding for this facility should also come from just the city inhabitants. I don't think you really gave much thought to what you were saying ? I believe the best reason I can find in y heart is if your a Muslim , a Mosque is something that advocates the best in you . So I take the mosque actually as a good thing , but the location a bad idea.

by: Jamie Smith

08-18-2010 @ 1:31am

I think it is easier to discuss morality as an abstracted ideal than to discuss in terms of the gritty reality of developing human relationships in which morality is actually experienced. The reference to slavery, for example, is just fine in terms of abstractions, but at the time, as a legal and social norm (and also a legal and social norm that had the weight of thousands of years of history behind it), it wasn't an abstraction it was something that people had to eventually move beyond through normal social developmental processes. The same is true of the Native American thing. It took time for the American social consciousness to grasp these realities as problematic. It's not really a fair argument to now look back on a complex developmental history and tar the entire developmental process with the one brush and then bring it over and compare it to a new and developing social reality and say to everyone "see, you should get over it." It's just not realistic to expect that. However, in each of these processes, there were always people speaking against the great swath of uncritical human interactions going on around them. So I don't want to either disagree or reject the appeal of the blog, but I do suggest that we realistically accept that a lot of people are pissed off with muslims and it will take time for the public consciousness to sort out the differences between terrorists and muslims, and will take time for them to prove to Americans who they are, and even then the American branches of Islam will naturally go through their own developmental changes and sort out what they think of non-Muslims ("infidels" or "others").

by: Jamie Smith

08-18-2010 @ 1:31am

I think it is easier to discuss morality as an abstracted ideal than to discuss in terms of the gritty reality of developing human relationships in which morality is actually experienced. The reference to slavery, for example, is just fine in terms of abstractions, but at the time, as a legal and social norm (and also a legal and social norm that had the weight of thousands of years of history behind it), it wasn't an abstraction it was something that people had to eventually move beyond through normal social developmental processes. The same is true of the Native American thing. It took time for the American social consciousness to grasp these realities as problematic. It's not really a fair argument to now look back on a complex developmental history and tar the entire developmental process with the one brush and then bring it over and compare it to a new and developing social reality and say to everyone "see, you should get over it." It's just not realistic to expect that. However, in each of these processes, there were always people speaking against the great swath of uncritical human interactions going on around them. So I don't want to either disagree or reject the appeal of the blog, but I do suggest that we realistically accept that a lot of people are pissed off with muslims and it will take time for the public consciousness to sort out the differences between terrorists and muslims, and will take time for them to prove to Americans who they are, and even then the American branches of Islam will naturally go through their own developmental changes and sort out what they think of non-Muslims ("infidels" or "others").

by: Jamie Smith

08-18-2010 @ 1:31am

I think it is easier to discuss morality as an abstracted ideal than to discuss in terms of the gritty reality of developing human relationships in which morality is actually experienced. The reference to slavery, for example, is just fine in terms of abstractions, but at the time, as a legal and social norm (and also a legal and social norm that had the weight of thousands of years of history behind it), it wasn't an abstraction it was something that people had to eventually move beyond through normal social developmental processes. The same is true of the Native American thing. It took time for the American social consciousness to grasp these realities as problematic. It's not really a fair argument to now look back on a complex developmental history and tar the entire developmental process with the one brush and then bring it over and compare it to a new and developing social reality and say to everyone "see, you should get over it." It's just not realistic to expect that. However, in each of these processes, there were always people speaking against the great swath of uncritical human interactions going on around them. So I don't want to either disagree or reject the appeal of the blog, but I do suggest that we realistically accept that a lot of people are pissed off with muslims and it will take time for the public consciousness to sort out the differences between terrorists and muslims, and will take time for them to prove to Americans who they are, and even then the American branches of Islam will naturally go through their own developmental changes and sort out what they think of non-Muslims ("infidels" or "others").

by: Lord_Voldemort

08-18-2010 @ 1:36am

In principle Mr. Jackson has a point. On the specifics things get a bit tougher.

The organizer of this particular project has refused to denounce the terrorist group Hamas, and has ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

It would be one thing if a primarily white congregation put up a church near an old slave market. It would be a whole other thing if that church had ties to the KKK, or if its pastor refused to condemn racism. The first might be insensitive, the second would be the kind of provocation that would be hard to swallow.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

08-18-2010 @ 1:36am

In principle Mr. Jackson has a point. On the specifics things get a bit tougher.

The organizer of this particular project has refused to denounce the terrorist group Hamas, and has ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

It would be one thing if a primarily white congregation put up a church near an old slave market. It would be a whole other thing if that church had ties to the KKK, or if its pastor refused to condemn racism. The first might be insensitive, the second would be the kind of provocation that would be hard to swallow.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

08-18-2010 @ 1:36am

In principle Mr. Jackson has a point. On the specifics things get a bit tougher.

The organizer of this particular project has refused to denounce the terrorist group Hamas, and has ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

It would be one thing if a primarily white congregation put up a church near an old slave market. It would be a whole other thing if that church had ties to the KKK, or if its pastor refused to condemn racism. The first might be insensitive, the second would be the kind of provocation that would be hard to swallow.

LV

by: kansasmennonite

08-18-2010 @ 2:23am

Would the mosque (commuity center) be ok if the Iman denounced the Hamas and denounced his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood? Maybe he has and the media isn't reporting it. I just read a headline whereas he worked with the FBI on counterterrorism.

The conservatives would find another thing to blame. You see, conservatives have to have an "enemy" to demonize and that becomes their excuse for strife. Nothing is good enough for them.

by: kansasmennonite

08-18-2010 @ 2:23am

Would the mosque (commuity center) be ok if the Iman denounced the Hamas and denounced his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood? Maybe he has and the media isn't reporting it. I just read a headline whereas he worked with the FBI on counterterrorism.

The conservatives would find another thing to blame. You see, conservatives have to have an "enemy" to demonize and that becomes their excuse for strife. Nothing is good enough for them.

by: kansasmennonite

08-18-2010 @ 2:23am

Would the mosque (commuity center) be ok if the Iman denounced the Hamas and denounced his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood? Maybe he has and the media isn't reporting it. I just read a headline whereas he worked with the FBI on counterterrorism.

The conservatives would find another thing to blame. You see, conservatives have to have an "enemy" to demonize and that becomes their excuse for strife. Nothing is good enough for them.

by: jesse3

08-18-2010 @ 5:02am

I haven't read anything here about Glen Beck lately. Just sayin.

by: jesse3

08-18-2010 @ 5:02am

I haven't read anything here about Glen Beck lately. Just sayin.

by: jesse3

08-18-2010 @ 5:02am

I haven't read anything here about Glen Beck lately. Just sayin.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2010 @ 5:52am

"Could not descendants of slaves ask for a moratorium of new Caucasian churches near former slave auction sites, plantations, and even the locations of thousands of lynchings?

Obviously most Christians today are deeply saddened by our historic complicity in the forced removal of Native Americans and the enslavement and segregation of African Americans. To ban churches from sites that once perpetuated these evils would be an absurd response to historic tragedies that instead demand confession, repentance, and transformation." Troy

There are few (if any) sites publicly acknowledged as memorials to those atrocities. Native peoples have many sacred sites that are routinely trampled on and disrespected by the broader culture.

You pose these analogies as if it would be ridiculous to create such sacred locations. I would argue we have fundamentally failed to create and respect such sites. This failure does not represent some grand experiment in freedom.

We will run a road through a Native sacred site as if it were nothing. We can run the Mosque up as if it were nothing.

Doing so does not make us free.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2010 @ 5:52am

"Could not descendants of slaves ask for a moratorium of new Caucasian churches near former slave auction sites, plantations, and even the locations of thousands of lynchings?

Obviously most Christians today are deeply saddened by our historic complicity in the forced removal of Native Americans and the enslavement and segregation of African Americans. To ban churches from sites that once perpetuated these evils would be an absurd response to historic tragedies that instead demand confession, repentance, and transformation." Troy

There are few (if any) sites publicly acknowledged as memorials to those atrocities. Native peoples have many sacred sites that are routinely trampled on and disrespected by the broader culture.

You pose these analogies as if it would be ridiculous to create such sacred locations. I would argue we have fundamentally failed to create and respect such sites. This failure does not represent some grand experiment in freedom.

We will run a road through a Native sacred site as if it were nothing. We can run the Mosque up as if it were nothing.

Doing so does not make us free.

by: letjusticerolldown

08-18-2010 @ 5:52am

"Could not descendants of slaves ask for a moratorium of new Caucasian churches near former slave auction sites, plantations, and even the locations of thousands of lynchings?

Obviously most Christians today are deeply saddened by our historic complicity in the forced removal of Native Americans and the enslavement and segregation of African Americans. To ban churches from sites that once perpetuated these evils would be an absurd response to historic tragedies that instead demand confession, repentance, and transformation." Troy

There are few (if any) sites publicly acknowledged as memorials to those atrocities. Native peoples have many sacred sites that are routinely trampled on and disrespected by the broader culture.

You pose these analogies as if it would be ridiculous to create such sacred locations. I would argue we have fundamentally failed to create and respect such sites. This failure does not represent some grand experiment in freedom.

We will run a road through a Native sacred site as if it were nothing. We can run the Mosque up as if it were nothing.

Doing so does not make us free.

by: john316

08-18-2010 @ 12:32pm

"...why only now has it become an issue?"

Could it possibly be related to the Nov election?

by: john316

08-18-2010 @ 12:32pm

"...why only now has it become an issue?"

Could it possibly be related to the Nov election?

by: john316

08-18-2010 @ 12:32pm

"...why only now has it become an issue?"

Could it possibly be related to the Nov election?

by: BlueDeacon

08-18-2010 @ 12:41pm

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

Well, there are a lot of people who don't agree with the claims of Jesus or the actions of Christians, and yet in this country they don't forbid us.

by: BlueDeacon

08-18-2010 @ 12:41pm

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

Well, there are a lot of people who don't agree with the claims of Jesus or the actions of Christians, and yet in this country they don't forbid us.

by: BlueDeacon

08-18-2010 @ 12:41pm

As a side note, being a Christian, I am troubled by the building of any Muslim center, or of any other religion. It represents the expansion of a false religion that is leading souls away from God and into hell.

Well, there are a lot of people who don't agree with the claims of Jesus or the actions of Christians, and yet in this country they don't forbid us.