Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Weighing in on Freedom of Religion

The Cordoba Initiative to build an Islamic "community center" a few blocks from the Ground Zero site in New York has hit a nerve with Americans. The more coverage the media gives to this issue, the higher the level of anger. Yet, I think many Americans do not yet realize the real issues; they just know, in their gut, that there is something wrong and that building this mosque is not about freedom of religion or property rights for Muslims. The real issue is the Muslim religion and the ideas it offers to mankind.

This mosque is an open and deliberate attack on American values. First of all, a piece of the Airplane that destroyed one of the Twin Towers fell on the building where the mosque will be built. This makes the land for this building sacred to many Muslims because it represents the "martyrs" (read murderers) who were in that plane. They were as "gods fallen from the sky" and where they landed was determined, for them, by God. In the same way that other Muslim Mosques around the world have been built at places of great military victories, this plane hitting this Park51 building represents "the hand of God" to many Muslims. It represents a miracle from God, divine intervention in the affairs of men. Even the name "Cordoba Initiative" is symbolic of the practice of building Mosques at places of great Muslim victories. Read about the history of the Cordoba, Spain Mosque and the symbolism it holds among Muslims even today.(1)

I think most Americans know that there is something very wrong with the insistence of progressives and "moderate" Muslims that this mosque be built at this particular spot. You have to ask yourself why the government of the freest nation on earth is spending tax dollars to enable Muslim Imams to travel the world on behalf of their religion. Is this not a violation of the separation clause of the Constitution? Why is our government enabling the leaders of any religion to travel the world on taxpayer dollars? Why is our government taking up common cause with people who will not criticize Hamas as a terrorist organization? When will our leaders begin to expose the racism, bigotry and genocide of people who think, in the name of their religion, that they can shame Americans by killing them?

Americans were not born yesterday. We know that refusing to answer a direct question means that the worst is true. And we know the significance and the meaning of having our rights trampled by government; and when we recognize it, as we did with the original Tea Parties before our Revolutionary War, we will express our opinions. We will not stand by idly and pretend that we are not being insulted.

And worst of all, we recognize that so-called moderate Muslims are not important when it comes to building the mosque. What is important are the terrorists hiding in Pakistan who will celebrate when they learn that Americans have allowed a mosque to be built a mere two blocks from the site of their brutality. This mosque, to the terrorists, is not about building bridges of understanding among moderate people; it is about the capitulation of America.

There are many reasons why Americans should question this project

  • Project leaders are not willing to listen to the objections of those who oppose the mosque.
  • They refuse to come clean about where they are getting the money for this building.
  • They tell us they want to build bridges with Americans but give every indication that Americans should change their minds about Islam (and Israel?) and convert to Islam. This is not building bridges; this is the beginning of Muslim evangelism, brainwashing, political spin and lying to the American people.
  • Project leaders have not expressed a desire to learn about such concepts as separation of powers, separation of church and state, individual rights and even the suffering of those who were victimized by the September 11 attacks.
  • The Muslim religion has a political component that insists that Sharia law be the law of the land for Muslims regardless of where they live. This is a clear violation of the American principle of separation of church and state.

It seems that the bridges they want built, the understanding they seek is our understanding of their need to impose their religion on us and their fervent belief that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel worthy of punishment.

With this in mind, I posted the following on Daniel Pipes' blog today.

"I think the basic differences between Islam and Christianity are that Christianity had to go through the Enlightenment and had to moderate itself in order to survive in a secular society where the government was prohibited from establishing a religion. The brutal forms of altruism in Islam were not expunged from the religion because Islam never had to survive in a free society with secular laws. This is why this issue is becoming so important today. (The brutality of Islam comes to us full bore straight from the Middle Ages into a modern, secular, technologically advanced society built by reason and respect for the rights of individuals. Islam has come into the modern world without the mediation of reason and knowledge, without a recognition of the value of man and of what it means to be free. People should come to America for their own freedom, not to enslave free people.)

If Islam wants to survive, we must tell (those who want to "build bridges") in no uncertain terms that they must accommodate our system of government, (they must recognize) the separation of church and state and (know) that Sharia law will never be allowed in this country...period. (If they want a dialogue with us about our values, we must tell them that their idea of a God who rules people is anti-thetical to our way of life, that there is no authority over us that can demand obedience and submission. We must let them know that we will not submit to anyone.)

If they don't like this, then they will forever be resisted by free people in this society. The more debate we have about this issue, the more we secure the right of all people to think as they will. Victory for Americans after the first Tea Party was the victory of reason against the imposition of ideas based on faith, supernaturalism and force - and the more open debate we have on this issue, the more secure will be our liberties. What a shock that the left doesn't understand this...

Yet, we must realize that the basic premise that Islam shares with all other forms of religion is altruism. This morality demands the sacrifice of more than "material" possessions. It demands that men give up their minds and their most basic critical faculties (as well as their values). (Altruism) is the (moral) crime that accounts for the utter ignorance and brutality of so many who practice Islam. Altruism negates the human mind in the name of "the good". When a group of people give up their minds to faith all they have left is brute muscle and cruelty." (parentheses and small edits added)

(1) For an excellent article on this issue, see

1 comment:

  1. Robert emphasizes what I have contended for a long, that if Islam is to be "reformed" so that it can "survive" in a secular, individual rights-based society and culture, what he calls the "brutal" elements of it must be surgically removed, so that it is muzzled and pacified. Could it still be called "Islam"? I doubt it.

    Another important component in Islam is the character of Mohammad. Any reformation of Islam must dispense with him or reinterpret him beyond recognition and certainly beyond credibility. As a “prophet” he is the source of Islam’s alleged wisdom. Muslim theologians may tinker with what he said was the Islamic “moral” life to make Islam’s imperatives palatable not only to Muslims but to non-believers. But to discard Mohammad is to discard the whole system, so it‘s a no-win conundrum for the reformers. And to discard Mohammad, or subject him to a more civil make-over, is also to subject Allah to the same grooming. It would be tantamount to transforming Alaric into a fashion plate for Gentleman’s Quarterly, and Jehovah into Clarence the angel from “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

    Robert also points up another aspect of Islam that I have dwelt on, which is its altruist nature. Individuals would subscribe to it for a number of itinerant reasons, none of them rational, and risk surrendering their identities and volition to a system that demands unquestioning acceptance of all that emanates from the Koran and Hadith. As Robert notes, Islam, like Christianity, demands that men give up their minds and their thinking faculties and substitute the fiat authority of a supernatural being as a moral guide. Islam, as he also points out, has never undergone any conflict with a secular state, as Christianity has. Nor has it ever really experienced the kinds of internal strife that Christianity has.

    There are the major Sunni and Shi’ite factions within Islam, but the differences between them, at least to an “outsider,” are inconsequential in light of the overall fearsome character of Islam. They are both anti-individual, anti-freedom, misogynic variations on the same theme and willing to use force to compel conformity and submission. Christianity, once dispossessed from the political sphere, allowed and still allows Christians (and Jews) mental “breathing room” to live outside the altruism (what I call compartmentalization). Islam does not allow such breathing room. It is all or nothing, even for those who manage to enter professions such as medicine or journalism or engineering. I do not see such internal strife within Islam. The best minds have abandoned it altogether (Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others), leaving behind Muslims who are prisoners of their own dogma, and who are not likely to instigate a “revolution.”

    Robert is also right, that the left doesn’t get it. It doesn’t get it because the left is as ambitiously totalitarian as is Islam. The kettle is not likely to call the pot black.