Wednesday, September 1, 2010

to build there, or not to build there

I have not studied this closely, and am therefore, ignorant possibly of cogent details. Such a situation does not stop americans to have opinions, including those in government or journalism. The topic in reference is a proposed mosque in New York City, either on, or near the former destroyed World Trade Center.

President Obama was quite correct that moslems have the right to build a mosque. This is in accord with the First Amendment. The governmental authority is the local city, New York City, and it has building codes that regulate construction.

National opinion is not particularly friendly to Mohammedanism, or Islam if you prefer. In Jefferson's America, in the America that fought for separation from the english and british empire, the free exercise of religion from an ensuing and succeeding government was understood, but needed to be guaranteed in the very document of government.

Now that should be admitted. Sensitivity to other matters suggest strongly that it is more than just a bad idea for such a building at such a place.

Agent assassins of a militant mohammedanism co-ordinated to kill people not only there in New York City, but also in the District of Columbia and ultimately in Pennsylvania. The proposed builders and the assassins were different people. They do share versions of the same faith, and much of America has difficulty in disentangling the two.

Some apologists have tried to liken this to anti-catholicism of a past age. This does not fit. Only in fantasy, fiction and the boldest of lies was there a catholic agency of assassination to harm the United States. Though catholic churches were not wanted in many places, and some were burned to the ground, no parish thought of securing a location liable to gall other americans. Of course, to some americans any catholic church anywhere was one too many, and there are americans to-day that still think the same, and a greater number may think that for a mosque.

There is the concept of reciprocity. Moslems in the Americas, Europe, Australia and elsewhere are, relatively extra-ordinarily, free to be moslems. Every christian in Turkey or in Pakistan is liable to be an instant martyr. There are mosques in european capital cities, perhaps in all of them. Turkey wants to join the european union. All of what is now 'Turkey' had been part of the christian byzantine world. Turkey declares itself a democracy. How many churches are open in Turkey? How many in the arabian peninsula? Spain defeated, and then exiled the moslem moors in 1492. To-day there are a million moslems in Spain. In the fantasies of some jihadists, there is a demand for the restoration of the caliphate of Cordoba.

As manifest globally, mohammedanism does not recognise reciprocity. Now, conquest is recognised and appreciated. If a mosque is built in such a Manhattan location, it will be used as a point of such reference to some. It is an unnecessary provocation to a nation still wounded, and a monument to triumph for others.
Here, in Cleveland, existing parish congregations are not harassed or censured by the public, or by government, but are extinguished by their clerical overseer. These congregations are not only denied their existing property and patrimony, but the freedom of association. If we are suppressed, why should we be upset when others are only denied a location?

No comments:

Post a Comment