There are a number of arguments that politically liberal Christians \u2013 and non-Christians \u2013 seem to enjoy making in defence of allowing the building to go ahead:<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not a mosque, it\u2019s a cultural centre with a prayer room.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is true up to a point; it is a cultural centre, a large Islamic cultural centre with a large \u2013 a very large \u2013 prayer room. The prayer room will be large enough to house up to 2000 people; I am uncertain whether a reluctance to call this a mosque is the blinkered response of people refusing to allow a cherished preconception to be demolished or whether calling a room designed to house 2000 praying Muslims a mosque inflicts semantic violence on the word. And I don\u2019t particularly care: the question remains \u2013 should a large Islamic building be constructed on a site where 3000 people were murdered by individuals whose inspiration was Islam.<\/p>\n The Imam pushing the construction is a \u201cmoderate Muslim\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n I confess I have difficulty understanding the meaning of \u201cmoderate Muslim\u201d; the only reason the term is in use at all is because there are so many immoderate Muslims wanting to blow people up – when it isn’t convenient to behead them. There is no such thing as a \u201cmoderate Christian\u201d; the nearest category I can think of would be a \u201cnominal Christian\u201d. From the perspective of Christians who take their faith seriously, a nominal Christian is someone who doesn\u2019t; and I suspect the same is true of Muslims.<\/p>\n I would like to posit the existence of another category: the \u201cstealth moderate Muslim\u201d, the Muslim who, living in an environment hostile to his ideology, holds fast to it but pretends not to. Muslims in this category occasionally let their slips show, though. A few years ago on the Michael Coren show a \u201cmoderate Muslim\u201d, a lawyer \u2013 an apparently personable and rational fellow \u2013 admitted when pushed that yes, indeed, the Koran does advocate the death sentence for those who abandon Islam for another religion. He didn\u2019t look particularly comfortable about it but, since it is in the Koran, he couldn\u2019t disagree. I think Imam Feisal is in this category. Although he condemns the 9\/11 murders \u2013 what idiot wouldn\u2019t \u2013 he nevertheless thinks that \u201cUnited States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened\u201d, <\/em> that sharia law is nothing other than natural law in another guise, that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation.<\/em> He is a man who takes Islam seriously.<\/p>\n The building won\u2019t even be at ground zero, it is two blocks away<\/strong><\/p>\n The building that was standing in the spot where the mosque is to be built was destroyed by the events of 9\/11. Why would it not be considered part of the devastation that constitutes ground zero?<\/p>\n To prevent the building of the mosque would be a curtailing of religious freedom<\/strong><\/p>\n Religious freedom does not include the natural right to build a place of worship anywhere you want. Let us imagine \u2013 it might be a strain, I admit \u2013 that a group of demented Christians decided to blow up the Taric Islamic centre in Toronto killing a 1000 or so Muslims. After the dust settles, a Christian developer manages to buy the land where the mosque stood and decides to build a cathedral \u2013in the interest of religious harmony and outreach to Muslims. Does anyone believe either that his motives would be sincere or that he would be allowed to do this in the name of \u201creligious freedom\u201d? He would not, and rightly so.<\/p>\n Further, there are 200 mosques in Manhattan: no-one is suggesting closing any of them; land some distance away from ground zero has been offered and turned down. Muslims are as free to worship as anyone.<\/p>\n The fact that Imam Feisal even wants <\/em>to build his Islamic centre is a portent of ill intent.<\/p>\n Allowing the mosque to be built is the Christian thing to do<\/strong><\/p>\n First, the decision is primarily a political one: although freedom of religion is guaranteed in the US, this freedom, like any other, is not without its limits and doesn\u2019t necessarily encompass building a place of worship anywhere \u2013 particularly when it infringes on another\u2019s freedom. Time will tell, but I strongly suspect that Obama\u2019s implicit approval of the mosque is another nail in his political coffin.<\/p>\n Second, from a Christian perspective some seem to think that allowing the mosque to be built is the tolerant and loving thing to do – after all, perhaps this Christian hyper-tolerance will so shock Muslims it will tip them over the edge into Christianity. Others think it is the wimpy thing to do.<\/p>\n A Christian who takes his faith seriously cannot believe that Islam is true \u2013 if it is, then Jesus was merely a prophet and Christianity a lie. While Christians have to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s \u2013 and freedom of religion is Caesar\u2019s in our democracy \u2013 Christian tolerance does not mean acquiescing to the promotion of false faiths \u2013 there is absolutely no Christian <\/em>imperative demanding tolerance of a ground zero mosque.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There are a number of arguments that politically liberal Christians \u2013 and non-Christians \u2013 seem to enjoy making in defence of allowing the building to go ahead: It\u2019s not a mosque, it\u2019s a cultural centre with a prayer room. This … Continue reading