Tom's Views

‎70% of Americans oppose the Muslim mosque near ground zero.  That’s a mandate majority.  That’s indeed strange, because   our constitution   was structured to protect entities from the whimsy and blind passion of the majority (mob rule). Is our constitution sacred enough to us to protect   Muslim   interests this time around?  Hopefully, the constitution will continue to safeguard freedom of religious expression for both Muslim and Christian Americans.

But I also hope that we will not change our constitution or write new laws that curtail religious freedoms for specific faiths.  Punishing the whole Muslim following for the actions of less than a tenth of one percent of them, is unjust and so, further deepens the divide between Muslims and Christians. Consider that men commit violence against women. But in general, we don’t punish the entire male population for the crimes of a few. Christians in general?  Heck, Jesus followers are always getting into trouble.  Yet no one denies Christians their freedom to lawfully erect churches anywhere they please.  It should be the same for Muslims, as only a small handful of people calling themselves Muslim executed the 911 attacks. That’s just.

Lots of Jews commit bad crimes too. But do you see restrictions being imposed on Jews as a whole group as result? Nope. Not to this degree.  Why are we so much harder on Muslims?  No, the fact that Muslim extremists perpetrated the 9/11 attacks is not a valid answer.

Deny any man or group anything based on their religious leanings, and you’ve violated their civil rights. You’re forcing them to endure segregation and other hardships simply because of their faiths. In this (the Muslim) case, popular opinion seeks to cut back freedoms based solely on the fact that the 9/11 hijackers claimed to be Muslim. It denies other Muslims rights that they would have without question, if they were not Muslim. In effect, the public is blaming the Muslim religion for the acts of a very small handful of its members. This is like the parent who can’t figure out which of his children spilled the milk on the kitchen floor. So he sends them all to bed early. Thus, denying this mosque is indeed punishing innocent Muslims wrongfully, just as sending all the kids to bed early is wrong to atone for the acts of just one of them.

Because a few extremists call themselves Muslims (those that committed the 911 attacks) we’re potentially subjecting all Muslims in the area of the proposed mosque to restrictions on how and where they practice their religion. Why should the wanton acts of a few bring condemnation to the whole?

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Mosque At Ground Zero
• Support Muslim Mosques Anywhere In America
• Two Weak Arguments Against Mosque At Ground Zero

One concern that people opposing the   mosque at ground zero   cite is that the   funding   for this mosque is coming from terrorist organizations.  But this dispute appears premature, for they don’t yet know precisely who will fund the mosque. They’re still assembling a portfolio now.

Is there direct evidence that the funding for the mosque at ground zero is being raised in shady ways and from shady groups? If so, let’s hear it. I’d be happy to entertain the data. But without direct evidence, then this claim is probably just hot air.  Might these people accuse that the funding is illegitimate because they think it may come from Muslim sources?  Have they implicitly equated Muslim with terrorist, and is this why they’re raising the funding issue?

If not that the sponsors of the ground zero mosque are Muslim, there’d be no issue with the funding of this establishment. The funding issue is just one more vane attempt by opponents of the mosque to further their hate-filled, oppressive agendas.  Yes, people accept a church (non Muslim) but not a Muslim mosque so it seems.  But how much more clear-cut does this sort of discrimination need to be before people realize that it’s far less about funding specifically, and really about denying religious freedoms?

I support most any nativity display so long as it’s done on private property. But when such scenes show up on publicly-paid-for land?  Then I object, because public lands are compulsorily paid for by people from ALL religions. That is, we don’t get to choose which public properties our tax dollars support. So, it would be unfair to expect the Christian Americans for example, to pay for land on which a Muslim display is housed. Likewise, it would be likewise unjust for Muslims, Jews, atheists, et al to pay to maintain Christian scenes on publicly-paid-for lands. So, to make sure no one religion has to pay to promote another, our laws forbid religious displays in publicly funded schools, government buildings, or any other location that obtains its operating capital from the tax payers at large. This is as it should be, since America is comprised of much more than a single religion or faith.

I’d make a similar argument for prayer in public schools. Said schools these days serve not just Christians, but many other religions as well. So why should the Jews for example, be made to sit through Christian prayers? Why should the Christians be made to observe Muslim rituals? No one should be forced to participate in religious practices not their own, and especially not in schools that they contribute tax dollars to operate (public schools). Since most public schools in America are integrated, it is likely that people of many different and conflicting faiths attend them; they are open to all. So to avoid trying to fairly host prayer in these situations, the best solution was (and still is) to not allow said prayer, by any religion, in these schools. Now if you want your kid to partake in prayer, then pay the extra money and send him / her to a privately-funded religious school. But if you want to take advantage of the cheaper costs of publicly-funded education, then the sacrifice you make is that prayer, in the name of fairness. Yes, I support the no-prayers policy in public schools.

One more thing: People object to the mosque at ground zero for far different reasons than they object to religious displays on public land.  The objections in the public land case make good social sense.  But similar objections against the mosque do not.  Why?  Because the mosque is to be privately funded as I understand it, and it’s to be built on private property and in compliance with local laws.  But when churches want to put a cross or picture of Jesus in a court house, on a downtown street corner, or on some other publicly-funded and maintained property, this is a horse of a different color. Such placements do break laws in fact.

I’m agnostic, and so, prefer that my tax dollars fund no religious stuff on public property.  Likewise, if I was Christian, I would not want my money funding Jewish or Muslim displays, publications, or other promotional activities.   Why should I be forced to fund religions in which I do not believe?  Surely you can see that with so many religions out there, that allowing any of them to post material on public lands is unfair to the rest.  Further, you couldn’t just allow all of them to put up scenes; lest you completely destroy the aesthetic appeal of landmark spots like court houses, congressional buildings, and so forth. Again, I maintain that the best solution, the one that serves everyone the best overall, is to disallow religious displays on ANY public property.  Indeed, you can get enough display by visiting the numerous private religious establishments around the country.  We don’t need that stuff on public lands.  Just like other churches (ones the people object to far less), this mosque is to be place on private property.  So from a funding standpoint, I fully support  building the mosque at ground zero, or anywhere else in America where it’s legal to do so, as defined by local regulations.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Majority Oppose Muslim Mosque Near Ground Zero
• Mosque At Ground Zero
• Support Muslim Mosques Anywhere In America
• Thoughts on Bigotry

Dear [Brandon],

Many views I struggle to tolerate, though I actually wish not to put up with them at all.  But I stomach them to preserve peace with others and avoid the heated arguments that face-to-face discussions of them can produce.

One common opinion I strongly oppose is the wide-spread opposition to building   mosques   at   ground zero   or   anywhere else   throughout America.  I find this hostile view toward Muslims offensive because such unfriendliness promotes inequality and perpetuates discord and hatred among religions.  When one religion (Christian) denies another (Muslim) the freedom to build a church (mosque), then much anger occurs as seen in the near-hysterical demonstrations against building the mosque at ground zero.  Curiously though, the Muslims supporting the mosque were virtually invisible and quiet, while it was their rivals (the Christian-American majority) who were doing most of the yelling, taunting, vandalizing the construction equipment, and so on.  Those acting the most righteous in this conflict were typically the most violent and hateful in the whole mosque-at-ground-zero affair.

It’s infuriating that the Christian-American majority is so uninformed and intolerant about how benevolent and peaceful non radical Muslims are. Ask Christian Americans why they oppose mosque building at most any location, and most are hard-pressed to answer.  Of course, because prejudice can rarely answer the tough questions like this without lots of stammer and uncertainty.  But when they do respond, their rationale seems woefully inadequate to justify the sorts of restrictions on an entire religion that opposing Muslim mosques in America embodies.

The Majority   is a great place to be as long as it never turns against you, as it apparently has against the religious freedoms of American Muslims. People hide their flawed thinking behind the banner of preponderance (behind each other), and so, never really have to justify their misguided positions on their own; without backup from others like them. It’s the old “safety in numbers” phenomenon. That is: Subscribing to majority rule makes it much easier to persecute a person, as many others are doing the same.  Majority rule (or better yet, mob rule) is  also very dangerous for those in the minority. Certainly, majority might makes not majority right. Yet Christian Americans continue to relentlessly fight Muslims who wish to build mosques.

You and I have lived in the minority throughout our lives.  Your sexual orientation makes you a minor (so to speak), as does my visual impairment make me a minor. So perhaps this has given us a keener appreciation and thus sensitivity about the sort mob oppression that happened surrounding the building of the Muslin mosque at ground zero. Nowadays though unlike yesteryear, I’m happy with my dealt hand of vision impairment, because it has made me a more tolerant and compassionate person toward those who are different.  I’m different myself, and I believe that that has enabled me to better appreciate and more fully accept others’ differences.  I understand the supreme benefits of a diversity-appreciating society, and the need to promote such a collective yet diverse existence.  Thus, I have no problem with Muslims building mosques anywhere they wish so long as the adhere to local ordinances.

Christians may dominate the American political landscape currently. But America is by no means an exclusively Christian nation.  We’re not supposed to be of one faith here; but a diverse and numerous set of faiths.  Both Christians and non Christians alike should keep reminding the population at large of that.  We need to replace this Christian righteousness regarding the mosques with a healthy dose of good old fashioned humility.

Many Christian American newspaper columnists I’ve read seem to just want to fight with all Muslims; particularly when they argue that the connection between Islam and terrorism is immutable — like Islam is a single person, and when a small few of them commit a violent crime, then the Christians fault all of Islam.

Finally, liberalism is sometimes discredited in America these days because it supports Muslim mosques. Well, liberalism has prevailed in most of the election cycles in the past century due to the high regard it places on the ideal of total equality. But while liberalism proved to be out of vogue in 2010 elections, many folks nonetheless espouse the liberal agenda. Numerous conservative columnists are dreaming if they think that liberal ideals carry no weight with folks.  When people are hard pressed, their conscience punishes them when they show too little compassion.  Many folks today are feeling ashamed that at one time, they opposed Muslim freedom, gay rights, enfranchisement of all races, and so on.  So too will it be the case with the Muslim mosque at ground zero.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Majority Oppose Muslim Mosque Near Ground Zero
• Mosque At Ground Zero
• Muslim Americans’ Rights
• Two Weak Arguments Against Mosque At Ground Zero