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.
Related Posts
Tags: Religious Discrimination