Mosque Near Ground Zero, August 2010

The public debate concerning building a mosque near ground zero seems to have one "side," namely, the side that sees nothing wrong with building the mosque as proposed, unwilling to listen to the concerns of their opponents. Supporters use the classic "straw man" argument, claiming that their opponents are bigots regarding Islam, are against the freedom of these people to use private property as they wish, and do not really accept the constitutional protections for freedom of religion. The top executive of the United Methodist Commission and Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, Rev. Stephen J. Sidorick, Jr., takes this approach. This "side" of the debate, in other words, refuses to listen to their opponents, who make it clear that the objection is not to all mosques, that Muslims already have places of worship close to ground zero, and that Muslims have great freedoms in the USA to worship as they choose. 


As a United Methodist pastor, I must also deal with the position of the my denomination. The book of Resolutions calls for "better relationships between Christians and Muslims on the basis of informed understanding, critical appreciation, and balanced perspective of one another's beliefs." Another resolution calls for United Methodists to denounce discrimination against Muslims and "counter stereotypical and bigoted statements made against Muslims and Islam, Arabs and Arabic culture." We are called to love your neighbors, of course, and this includes our Islamic neighbors. 


What could possibly motivate someone to oppose the building of this particular mosque? What I am going to suggest is that opposition may come from an informed understanding of what Islam actually is, rather than what we wish it were. Opposition may come from a true reading of Muslims and Islams, rather than a bigoted and stereotypical one. Opposition may actually come from love, a love willing to say "No." 


For some people who live in the vicinity, the building should have been declared part of the memorial for ground zero, for the wheel of one of the planes that the World Trade Center hit the building. For some, then, the building becomes part of history that should be protected. 


However, much of the opposition comes from a reading of Islam and its objectives. Most of global Islam has not had an "enlightenment" period, in which Christians learned the value of the separation of church and state. Most adherents of Islam Former US Army Lt Gen. William Boykin, in an interview he gave to W. Thomas Smith on August 23, 2010, points out that Islam is not a religion in the sense in which we who live in Western Civilization understand religion. Rather, globally, Islam is a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. His experience in the field is that Islam is a legal, political, and financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure that differs in every way from what Western Civilization has constructed. He further points out that too many people are unaware of its history and basic tenants. He states that the major objective of Islam is to replace the American constitution with Sharia Law. If we take their history seriously, from the beginning, with Mohammed, who defeated the nomadic tribes in Mecca, they built a mosque at their holiest of sites. The message was one of triumph. Islam has defeated you and reigns over you. They did the same thing at Cordoba in Spain. They did it again in Jerusalem. The message was always one of conquest and victory. For him, then, Islam wants to build a mosque at the site of ground zero to proclaim that Islam reigns supreme. What it will mean to Muslims all over the world is that it will be easier to recruit people to the cause of Jihad against the USA and Western Civilization. For him, the support of pastors and rabbis for this project shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of what Islam is doing. 


Patrick Buchanan, in an article of August 17, 2010, notes that Islam is a rising faith, Islam is a rising faith, the largest on earth, with 1.5 billion adherents. It is a militant faith that believes it will one day encompass all humanity. It holds there is but one God, Allah, that his last and greatest prophet was Muhammad, that Islam, the path of submission, is the path of salvation. It believes that its sacred book, the Koran, should inform the culture, that Sharia should be the basis of civil law.


Buchanan offers this reminder of what happens where Islam becomes the dominate faith. It has been intolerant of rivals, especially Christianity, because it was the faith of the crusaders. He concedes that most Muslims are not of the Osama bin Laden variety, but many are uncompromising in their belief that, once their faith becomes the majority faith in a community or society, Muslims should write the rules and Muslims should make the laws.


Rev. Stephen Bauman, a United Methodist pastor who has worked with Feisel Abdul Rauf, the Immam leading the near ground zero projected Mosque, says he trusts what Rauf says concerning the purpose of the mosque. When I watch the interview in which Rauf says that bin Laden "was born in the USA," due to its policies, I must say that I see a typical Middle East cleric at work, one who wants to Sharia Law imposed on the USA. The matter of trust is a personal one, of course. No, I do not think the man is sincere. He wants to send a message of aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA and Western Civilization.


Those of you who support the building of the mosque, I simply invite you to consider a question. In your heart, do you think that Islam is consistent with pluralism, ecumenism, and a belief in the equality of religious and lifestyle pursuits, from the standpoint of legal right? Are these values it brings with it when it becomes the dominant religion in Africa or Asia? 


Now, I also invite the reader to consider that I have not called those who disagree with me names. I have invited you to consider the possibility that those who disagree with your support for a ground zero mosque being built may have reasonable grounds for doing so, if these reasons are not persuasive to you. Further, if I took the same approach to the argument as do you, who support the near ground zero mosque, I would be accusing you of homophobia and sexism, since Sharia Law discriminates thoroughly against both. My point, of course, is that we need to listen. We need to stop pulling out the bigot and phobia cards, and genuinely listen to what the other person is saying.