Ten points on Freedom and the Mosque (w/Video)
I’ve never done a “low quality webcam video speaking to camera” thing before, but felt compelled to do so on this issue. I’m surprised more people haven’t spoken up.
If you get bored or hate videos, here’s a loose summary of the what I had to say:
- Feelings of anger, loss, sadness and fear about 9/11 and the resulting wars are real – and are worthy of acknowledgment, empathy and respect.
- One definition of wisdom is care in choosing how convert feelings into actions. A valid feeling can be used as motivation for actions which we regret or betray our better natures.
- Freedom is not convenient. The idea is not just the pursuit of our freedom, but recognizing, despite how inconvenient or unpleasant it is for us, that it’s critical others can pursue their freedom too.
- Private property law is clear. The building is being sold by an owner of private property.
- The Bill of Rights – The first amendment says, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.
- If you don’t agree with 4 or 5, your argument is not with this mosque. It’s the same law that allows the other churches, temples and other places of worship to exist in NYC and elsewhere. And explains why the Mayor of NYC, who actually lives there, is in support of the Mosque (video / transcript). What is legal is not necessity right – I agree. But for American citizens we should be erring on the side of granting rights.
- Al Qaeda is not a nation. It’s not a religion. This is not 51 Al Qaeda place. If it were, the argument “don’t let known terrorists build buildings”, near WTC or anywhere else, would be universally supported. If it turns out this building will house criminals or terrorists, or illegal behavior of any kind, we could stop it purely on those grounds. And being under the watchful eye of the same NYPD whose heroes died on 9/11, and who watches over the other mosques in the neighborhood seems like good choices. And more positively, if the occupants are peaceful and good for the community, wouldn’t that be best for everyone involved? Wouldn’t that be the last thing our enemies would want to see?
- It’s bad logic to confuse the act of one person with acts of an entire group, nation or religion. Even if the majority of a group behaved in ways not to our liking, a law-abiding American citizen should still be judged based on their own actions. We wouldn’t object to a Christian shrine near Oklahoma city, despite the affiliations of the people who caused that tragedy (see comments).
- Approximately 3000 people were killed at WTC on 9/11/2001. There were 16000 murders in the U.S. last year. Since 50% of American’s are Protestant and 23 % Catholic, we can assume most of these homicides were done by Protestants and Catholics. Should we ban those kinds of temples near the burial grounds for those people? Ask that they not be within a certain distance of where certain murders occurred? Even if somehow the poor logic of #8 is defended, it’s not consistent with our behavior for other tragedies and for good reason.
- The WTC was more than 2 buildings – it’s a 16 acre site. This is enormous for any city, much less the extreme density of NYC. The proposed mosque site is 2 city blocks away – about 600 feet (see this potent map here). In your neighborhood two blocks might not seem far, but In NYC this is a large distance. There are many things you might find equally disrespectful to you, or a memorial, in the same radius: from strip clubs, to off track betting sites, to empty and abandoned buildings. The culture and standards for this area are incredibly diverse.
- A better focus for outrage is the WTC site itself, which after 9 years still has no proper memorial, and is still locked in planning debates. I suspect much of the outrage at the proposed mosque is misplaced outrage for the owners and organizers of the WTC site.
- We are all prone to error. And given the choice of erring to a) slide into choosing which Americans have which freedoms within how much distance from what kinds of special places, vs. b) having to deal with the existence of something some people don’t like a few blocks away, where they can easily avoid it (or might never even stumble upon it altogether), seems like an easy trade. We will make mistakes in either direction, but mistakes towards b are far less dangerous.
- Rather than expending energy protesting and being angry about things you do not like, a better application of that same energy might be putting it towards something good – I’ve spent hours thinking about this issue which helps no one – So I decided to do something good and donated $250 to fund a group that supports the families of injured or killed NYC Police and Firefighters, the actual heroes of the event at the center of this entire debate .
Possibly good points.
But REALLY bad marketing decisions on the part of the “information center.”
Like putting a Nazi museum in a Jewish neighborhood on the lower west side. Or maybe an atomic bomb construction and testing movie in downtown Tokyo.
Intent is irrelevant, it is he behavior that counts. Not once has there been condemnation of the acts of the terrorist in any truly public manner. It took the Catholic Church 20 years to figure out that being right is irrelevant if the public think you’re a “bad guy.” I say that as a Catholic.
Possibly the speaker should walk a few miles in combat boots as I have, to appreciated the the principals of freedom are backed up by the blood of your comrades.
We were attached by individuals. But their home nations fed and clothed them, their culture speaks about infidels, and those very nations failed act to stop the continued funding of those very same people.
Hi Glen – how are you? :)
I’d have few complaints if people were protesting bad marketing. That’d be great. But that’s not what the complaint is about.
> Possibly the speaker should walk a few miles in
> combat boots as I have, to appreciated the
> the principals of freedom are backed up by
> the blood of your comrades.
I have never served in the military and i have respect for everyone that has.
But as I understand it the military functions to protect the freedoms and interest of Americans. Assuming it is American citizens who choose to practice their faith a 51 Park, it is that right that military service seems designed to protect.
The comparisons to Nazis/etc. would be apt if the building in question were a shrine to Al-Qaeda or to terrorism.
If that turns out to be true, I would be outraged. So far I have not heard any evidence this is true. Have you?
Thanks Scott
You cannot slice and dice how liberties, rights and the constitution are to be interpreted.
You sometimes have to stand for something you believe in even if you are not winning the popularity contest.
Serge
http://www.sergetheconcierge.com
Hey Scott,
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the proximity and fundamental rights issues relating to the mosque. They do have the right to build a mosque wherever they want, but the arguments that I am hearing against it don’t deal with where it is so much as who is building it and where the funding is coming from, which you have not addressed at all.
I am getting really tired of everyone comparing the WTC with OKC. It is a straw-man argument and a weak one at that. They are in no way comparable. McVeigh was NOT a Christian (although he did “grow up catholic”) and did not ever claim to act “in the name of Christ.” He was an agnostic and his motivation was anti-government, not religious even a little bit. All of the terrorists on 9/11 claimed to be acting in the name of Allah and believed that they were doing the will of their God. A more appropriate comparison would be building a Neo-Nazi or anarchist headquarters near the OKC bombing, which I am sure would attract just as much outrage as this mosque.
@mj Did you see the Jon Stewart clip where he shows “where the funds are coming from”?
While it is hard to separate the religion from the terrorism tha is done in the name of it, I think we need to understand that a lot more untold terrors were committed in African/South American and Asian countries in the name of Christ. That does not make Christianity a religion of “terror” but there were a number of criminals who used Christianity as an excuse to commit those acts of terrorism.
Now, I am yet to hear an equivalent protest from nations that have suffered under violence about Christianity. In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite.
MJ: On the OKC comparsion – fair enough. I think all of the comparisons are bad, as there are differences in all of these situations.
However the point I was trying to use OKC to make is a valid one. Just because Fred and Sally commit do something horrible “in the name” of X, Y or Z does not mean we discount or reject the interests of American citizens who believe in X, Y or Z.
Divya: I haven’t seen Jon Stewart cover any of this issue yet. I’ll take a look.
Excellent post. Those of us who live in NYC and/or were here on 9/11 are absolutely disgusted by the political opportunism of despicable slimebags like Palin and Gingrich ginning up “controversy” over this among masses of ignorant slobs who have zero connection to NYC or 9/11.
@mj The question of “where the financing comes from” is a red herring. Anybody who was actually suspicious of the financing would do a little research and discover that it’s coming from legitimate private investors, including the second-largest shareholder in FOX News’ parent company. They would also discover that America has no fewer than 51 separate agencies that track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks. What are the odds that NONE of these agencies would have identified terrorist funding of 51 Park?
This information is incredibly easy to find on the internet, so I have to assume that those people “arguing” about where the money is coming from are either a) not trying, or b) entirely disingenuous about their concerns. My guess is the latter. As soon as that “argument” is deflated, they’ll pick another one to hang their prejudice on.
There is some interesting discussion around this topic related to Christopher Hitchens’ piece in Slate earlier this week: http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/ The bit about the Mardin Fatwah (in the comments) was particularly interesting — and quite a conundrum if accurate.
Scott, thanks for point #2. Have not heard it said quite that way before and I’ll be using that.
I’m with you, Scott. It would clearly be unconstitutional for government to get in the way of this center being built. Public opinion, unfortunately, is another thing altogether, and the voices that are rising in protest are those ignorant of Islam. It makes sense that we’re seeing a lot of anger from people whose only exposure to Islam is terrorism. If people took it upon themselves to learn about religions other than their own, wars would be greatly reduced, and we could all be focusing our collective energies into projects that generate peace.
Quote: “However the point I was trying to use OKC to make is a valid one. Just because Fred and Sally commit do something horrible “in the name” of X, Y or Z does not mean we discount or reject the interests of American citizens who believe in X, Y or Z.”
Hello Scott. I really enjoyed your ‘Confessions of a public speaker’, by the way.
However, yet again I meet someone who doesn’t understand the tenets of a religion bent on the abject subjugation of ALL those who don’t agree with those tenets. If Fred and Sally do something horrible BECAUSE X, Y, or Z specifically permits it, it is right, nay ABSOLUTELY vital to our (American) interests and safety to look askance at AND YES, REJECT, those who profess to hold X, Y, or Z beliefs.
Islam is not a religion of peace or love. It permits and COMMANDS its adherents to overthrow BY FORCE any government other than one based on Islamic law. That any Muslim doesn’t throw on the suits of armor and go fighting for Islam against the American form of government is because that Muslim has willfully forgotten or chosen not to propagate those tenets of that religion.
Unlike many, I have lived in a country under the jackboot of Sharia law. It is not fun, it is not free, and it most certainly is not fair. Were it left to those who believe in the same principles as those building this whatever in NY, you couldn’t do a third of the things you do today with your time and effort.
If you value your very freedom to like or not like things that make you angry, as you put it, it is your very duty to oppose Islam. Read Nomad by Ayaan Ali Hirsi, see what this religion promotes, protects, and pursues.
Your point (#5) about the Bill of Rights is inappropriate. Congress–the United States government–is not making or passing any laws restricting the building of whatever they’re calling it. People, private citizens, free to say what they want, are raising a hue and cry about this. I’m sure you’ll permit them the same rights to free speech that you have used here.
> However, yet again I meet someone who doesn’t
> understand the tenets of a religion bent on the
> abject subjugation of ALL those who don’t agree
> with those tenets.
1. There is no religion on this world completely unified in its beliefs. All religions, including Christians, are heavily factionalized. Christians have Protestants, Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses and people who call themselves Christians who don’t align neatly with any group. It’s also notable how much factions tend to hate each other, including Christian factions that have gone to war over their differences. Some groups will always be more militant and fundamentalist than others. Any argument that hinges on lumping 100% of people of a faith, or nation, into a singular simple mindset is very hard to agree with.
> Islam is not a religion of peace or love. It
> permits and COMMANDS its adherents to overthrow
> BY FORCE any government other than one based
> on Islamic law
I am not an expert on Islam. But I’ve read enough of the Quoran, and the Christian Bible, to know they are both filled with love and hate. There is plenty of smiting of infidels in Christian scripture and in Christian history. You can extract from most sacred book calls for love or calls for violence, if you look hard enough for what you want to find.
> Were it left to those who believe in the
> same principles as those building this
> whatever in NY, you couldn’t do a third
> of the things you do today with your time and effort.
I could say the same about the DMV. Or McDonalds. Or the Catholic church. There are many organizations who, if put in control of a nation, would enact stupid, draconian or backward ideals. But they are all allowed to own private property provided they break no laws and fit in with their community.
> If you value your very freedom to like or not
> like things that make you angry, as you put it,
> it is your very duty to oppose Islam. Read
> Nomad by Ayaan Ali Hirsi, see what this
> religion promotes, protects, and pursues.
It is my very freedom that makes it impossible for me to reject an entire system of belief. I want to be free to think whatever I want, and I realize I have accept other people’s freedom to do the same. Some people believe in UFOs. Some people believe I’m going to hell. As long as they mostly keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. They have that right.
Have you looked for books about peace written by Muslims? Are you truly convinced not a single Muslim in the history of the world has ever advocate peace?
60 seconds on the web found this: Muslims for peace. http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/.
So if the people who made this website were to move in to Park 51, and you believed they were sincere, would it then be acceptable to you?
> Your point (#5) about the Bill of Rights is
> inappropriate. Congress–the United States
> government–is not making or passing any
> laws restricting the building of whatever
> they’re calling it. People, private citizens,
> free to say what they want, are raising a
> hue and cry about this. I’m sure you’ll
> permit them the same rights to free speech
> that you have used here.
How is it inappropriate to quote our bill of rights? It might be irrelevant, but I think it’s useful for people to know the law. Especially when we talk about fighting for the rights of Americans. The bill of rights defines those rights.
I certainly believe people have the right to protest.
But I have the right to explain why I think their protest is misguided, unfounded, poorly-informed and contradictory to their own beliefs about America. They are clearly angry, but they are directing that anger in a way I suspect they will regret when they talk to their grandchildren.
Just for fun – it’s ironic, but the WTC itself was protestedwhen it was proposed.
I read this fantastic quote that came across Twitter. Sums it quite nicely:
“We don’t honor the 9/11 victims by rejecting our values while succumbing to the very fear and hatred their murderers were trying to provoke”
Cheers,
Brian Hansford
You say you’re no expert on Islam, but you know enough about the Qu’ran and the Bible to know they’re both filled with love and hate. All right, but here’s something you don’t seem to know and that’s forgivable since you’re no expert: there’s a major difference– whereas Christianity does not countenance violence, Islam does. Explicitly so, in fact.
Any Christian who takes up the sword to drive before himself or herself unbelievers is doing so in utter and complete disregard of all the rules and tenets of Christianity, regardless of sect. And by the way, just because there are Christian factions doesn’t mean anything. 100% of Islamic ideology advocates a certain way of living, factions or no.
Your freedom, granted under the auspices of a Judeo-Christian aegis by the way, does indeed afford you whatever you like to think, unlike what would be extant under Sharia Law. However, understand that I am not looking at Muslim discussions on the vagaries of Islam. I’m looking at the Qu’ran itself directly. There is very little wiggle-room for Muslims intent on just living peacably in a representative democracy: either you are working to formulate the Islamic Caliphate or you’re not. Any other nuanced translations or whatever else is in direct contradiction of the Hadith and the Qu’ran.
I use “inappropriate” appropriately. Your quoting the law is not germane, but hey, we live in a free country! :-)
Fred:
> Any Christian who takes up the sword to drive
> before himself or herself unbelievers is doing
> so in utter and complete disregard of all the
> rules and tenets of Christianity
By that definition the U.S. was founded on a disregard for those rules and tenets. Columbus had similar disregard. There were “unbelieving natives”, who we call Indians, that we killed and subjugated en masse for decades. The history of North and South America is littered with similiar disregard.
Taking moral high ground on the basis of any religion leads to these contradictions. All major religious histories are filled with violence and awfulness, as well as benevolence.
> 100% of Islamic ideology advocates a certain
> way of living, factions or no
I’ll say this for the last time. Any argument that claims 100% of any group numbering in the 100s of millions all believes the same thing is impossible to agree with.
Unless you can look at your own religion (e.g. Catholic vs. Unitarian), or nation (Republican vs. Democrat), and see it as 100% believing in anything, how can you sensibly apply that assumption to another religion or group?
If nothing else the fact that you and I, both Americans, disagree about the Bill of Rights, a few paragraphs of text, should suggest there might more range of belief and ideas among other faiths and nations than you assume.
I pointed you here, but you offered no comment:
http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/
There are similarities between the above initiative, and the group at Park 51:
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/
Video — finally! Love the post.
Scott:
I don’t understand why you’re bringing up how the US was founded or what happened with Columbus. It’s not germane to my statements about the tenets of Christianity. Surely you see that.
It’s not my argument that 100% of Muslims ACT in a certain way. It is my argument that 100% of Islamic ideology fully supports the violent overthrow of any government not Islamic, fully supports the furtherance of their religion by violent means, fully supports the defense of that religion by violent means. That your muslimsforpeace.org refers to those Muslims who prefer not to take up the sword as their religion authorizes means nothing more than those particular folks are peaceful people, period.
The moral equivalence hypotheses people fling out at the slightest provocation is lazy thinking and stops us from seeing things as they are: the fact is, in an Islamic society TODAY, women are chattel, there’s no freedom of religion, there is no room for discordant thinking, there is death for homosexuals, there is death for (female) adulterers, etc, etc., etc. ALL THESE are EXPLICITLY allowed by the Qu’ran.
I’ll repeat:
ALL THESE ATROCITIES are EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR, and in some cases, COMMANDED by the Qu’ran.
The sad reality is, much as I’d laud those Muslims who choose the path of peace, they’re doing so by turning a blind eye to the very tenets of their religion. The vast majority of Muslims act in direct accordance with the dictates of their faith which includes violence and terror. I will ALWAYS be opposed to such a line of thinking.
And by the way, while you and I disagree about the Bill of Rights, the fact remains you’re wrong, I’m right. :-p
> I don’t understand why you’re bringing up how
> the US was founded or what happened with Columbus.
> It’s not germane to my statements about the tenets of
> Christianity. Surely you see that.
All I see is your comfort in double standards of convenience. If you tell me “any Christian who takes up the sword to drive out unbelievers is incomplete disregard of all the rules of Christianity” then you make Christians germane. Our history as Americans and Europeans is chock full of atrocities and horrors committed in the name of god, with support from our churches.
> ALL THESE ATROCITIES are EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR,
> and in some cases, COMMANDED by the Qu’ran.
You can justify nearly anything from any book of scripture if you look hard enough for it.
The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, dozens of wars in europe, the near genocides in North/South America, were all justified or funded by the church, rallied with quotes from scripture, and seen as holy missions.
If you want me to see how evil the followers of Islam are, I might consider it if you acknowledged how much evil is in the history (and perhaps present) of Christian and other faiths.
> The sad reality is, much as I’d laud those Muslims
> who choose the path of peace, they’re doing so
> blind eye to the very tenets of their religion.
Ok – this is where I call bullshit.
You have not lauded anyone on this long thread. You have not said a single positive thing about “those Muslims”, or acknowledged “those Muslims” will occupy this building. Honestly, I don’t think you’d laud them at all.
You’ve harshly criticized a billion people on grounds your own history is guilty of, without any Christian remorse or compassion.
As has been my point, the specific group of people choosing to build this particular place, have the right and deserve the benefit of the doubt to create this place and to be judged on what they actually do there, rather than what our fears imagine they might. You have an opportunity to laud them by supporting their right to reside there.
If you want to continue to disparage and entire religion please go elsewhere. It’s a pointless debate to have in this forum.
While I agree with some of your points, and have no strong opinion either way on the overall topic, I find your last 4 or 5 points pitiful, esp the “2 blocks” one. I lived 3 blocks from the WTC for 4 years. In lower Manhattan, 2 blocks is the same as it is everywhere … 2 BLOCKS.
You should have quit while you were ahead.
Scott:
You’re jumping all over the place like a Mexican bean, assigning words and meanings to things I’ve said and things I’ve never said. Here, e.g.:
I said: “I’d laud those Muslims…” as in, “I WOULD laud those Muslims”, I DIDN’T say “I HAVE lauded those Muslims,” yet you accuse but whatever …
I have never contested the RIGHT of those building the Ground Zero Mosque to build the mosque. Of course they do. The wisdom of doing so, however, is what I take umbrage at. If we did everything we had a RIGHT to do, we’d not long survive as a society much less as individuals. Japanese-Americans have a right to build a temple to the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor right on private land next to Pearl Harbor, but they don’t. When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it.
He didn’t say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp.
—
I have never said evil has not been done in the name of Christianity; as a matter of fact, it has, but as we’re actually NOT talking about Christianity but Islam, that sorta makes sense, but apparently only to me. You keep insisting on pointing out the moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity when even your video doesn’t discuss Christianity or any other religion at all. Not Germane.
Here is what I HAVE said:
Islam is a religion that suppresses freedom (I notice you haven’t bothered to respond to those accusations). Islam is a religion which authorizes violence–another assertion you haven’t bothered to respond to.
Instead, you cry havoc and let loose the dogs of moral equivalence. Indignantly asking “… and what about you?” is not a valid defense of an action.
Continue erecting your straw men, Scott. Unfortunately, yet another hero of mine falls: after reading all your essays on clear thinking and logic, I’m quite amazed to get in what I thought was a friendly exchange of ideas only to see you devolve into a pitiful emotional display in defense of a religion that factually, you couldn’t bear to live under.
If you were intellectually honest, you’d see this. You’d read this. You’d post this. Then you’d respond without resorting to all those logical fallacies you think you have a handle on.
> Unfortunately, yet another hero of mine falls:
> after reading all your essays on clear thinking
> and logic, I’m quite amazed to get in what
> I thought was a friendly exchange of ideas
> only to see you devolve into a pitiful
> emotional display in defense of a religion that
> factually, you couldn’t bear to live under.
Speaking of rights, you’re free to stop commenting on my blog – and if you no longer like the way I think, you’re free to stop reading what I write :)
> I have never contested the RIGHT of those building
> the Ground Zero Mosque to build the mosque. Of
> course they do. The wisdom of doing so, however,
> is what I take umbrage at.
That’s fine. That’s a reasonable and popular position to take.
However the core of your “>first comment was about your low opinion of Islam. Perhaps I should have ignored this as irrelevant, but your multiple paragraphs on it made it hard to ignore.
I have distaste for all major religions. After study I find them flawed and problematic. I can’t help myself whenever a member of one religion harshly criticizes another on moral grounds, as any sense of history renders these judgments arrogant, if not insane. But that’s an argument for another day.
Slacktivist has a nice post about this issue:
Please forgive me for the actions of extremists I have never met who commit acts of violence that I have never advocated
Scott: you have an open strong tag in the comments section which makes all the comments bold. I think you want to close it right after the comment form.
John:
I’m aware of it – not sure what’s causing it but will get it fixed soon. Thanks for mentioning.
John: Bold/strong issue should be fixed now.
Scott:
Sorry, man, but Fred owns you here. My first time reading your blog will likely be my last, as you prove unwilling to look squarely at inconvenient truths. Your disappointing evasiveness and elision in that “debate” is the stuff of 3rd graders. It’s as simple as this: The new testament promotes mercy. Everybody knows that. Does every Christian do that? Of course not. The Koran promotes vengeance. Does every Muslim pursue that? Of course not. But the difference between the two religions nonetheless remains stark, incontrovertible, and critical. And, that makes all the difference.
Hitchens splits the difference – he has criticisms for both sides:
http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/
What many Americans don’t seem to understand is that Islam, while a religion, is also a political ideology. And its’ ideology is largely in conflict with our Western values and culture. There are many kind Muslims of good character. But a frightening few are willing to unequivocally and consistently denounce their religions’ aim of aggression and dominance through jihad. To compare Islam to the current state of any other major religions is, therefore, inadequate. And the “Ground Zero Mosque” issue is not an argument about “rights.” As Americans we have the right to do many things that are horribly insensitive, offensive, culturally destructive, and inappropriate. These (the builders) do not appear to be people of good will.
“He has showed you, O Man, what is good. And what does the LOrd require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”
[Bible:- Micah chapter 6 verse 8]