7 Comments

Anthony Di Russo
September 3rd, 2010 | 11:31 am

Tho we need not be biased against Muslims, it is only fair to demand reciprocity from them. When can Christians worship openly in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim majority countries?

“Tolerance without reciprocity is appeasement.”

Steve Billingsley
September 3rd, 2010 | 12:08 pm

Anthony,

Extremely well said. What some call tolerance, others could call a cultural death wish.

Fred
September 3rd, 2010 | 1:50 pm

Anthony, I’m sure you and I would agree on many things, especially the Ground Zero mosque, but your specific argument is kind of weak. I wouldn’t favor beheading people for witchcraft, arguing “When the Saudis stop doing it, we should stop doing it.” The same goes for any of the barbarians’ unspeakable folkways. I think opponents of the mosque cede too much ground when they agree that the GZ mosque is an issue of religious freedom at all. It’s an issue of self-defense. That’s why I agree with Steve. Tolerance is a virtue or a vice, depending on what’s tolerated.

R Hampton
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:10 pm

Our Bill of Rights should be determined by the laws of other countries, like Saudi Arabia? That’s just plain crazy.

Joe DeVet
September 5th, 2010 | 11:50 pm

As an actual devotee of the Whore of Babylon, let me weigh in with a bit of a politically-incorrect perspective on the question.

It seems to me there’s a huge difference in the persecution of Catholics in this country, and a possible withholding from Muslims of the usual legal toleration which other religions enjoy (at least up till now.)

The difference between the Catholic question and the Muslim question is this: mistrust of Catholics reflects badly on those who did the mistrusting, exposing their bigotry and ignorance of the Catholic faith. Mistrust of Muslims is rooted in some very disturbing aspects of Islam itself.

The question which our body politic may have to come to grips with, possibly even in order to survive, is whether Islam is the kind of religion which warrants protection under the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Judaism and Christianity (including Catholicism) clearly are. It’s surely not clear that Islam is.

I’m guessing that the Founders would not have included the ancient Mayan religion among those protected under the Bill of Rights. In their religious practice of human sacrifice a stone chisel was used to break open the breastbone of the still-living victim, exposing the heart which was then held aloft, still beating. The United States Constitution does not guarantee freedom to follow this kind of religion.

Go ahead. Read Sharia law and tell me it’s not equally barbaric. Right now there’s a news story about a woman in Iran sentenced to 99 lashes for failure to properly wear a head scarf. The punishment will probably kill her–the epitome of “cruel and unusual.” To protect this kind of religion would tie the Constitution in self-contradictory knots.

Gail F
September 6th, 2010 | 3:44 pm

As a Catholic and an Irish one at that (many of whose ancestors were of the lower-class sort) I’d like to say — Please! Catholics in this country worked hard to prove they were as patriotic, or moreso, than anyone else. Yes, they were persecuted. We had an entire amendment to the Constitution (remember Prohibition?) enacted just to end our drunken, lawless ways. We had gangs. We had criminals. We also had legions of policemen and soldiers, and we built schools to better our lot and hospitals to help everyone. We put American flags in our churches! The success of Catholics in America, especially poor, unskilled Irish Catholics who were dumped here by the millions, has been amazing.

My point is that the persecution wasn’t fair. But the response of the Catholics, especially the Irish Catholics, was to fight persecution by proving how American they were. I don’t think that’s too much to ask of Muslims. Americans have been remarkably tolerant of Muslims, considering their previous responses to Catholics, Jews, and freed slaves in the 1800s, and to German- and Japanese-Americans in the 1940s. People have bent over backward to show that they didn’t blame 9/11 (or other terrorist acts) on their Muslim neighbors. Muslim Americans need to accept that they too have to prove themselves, as so many have had to do before them. Is it fair? No — but it’s probably necessary.

OR mom
September 7th, 2010 | 1:07 pm

I’m willing to favor the Park51 plan if they:

Can show that none of the money to build it comes from radical Islamic countries or groups.

They publically acknowledge the appearance of disrespect and their understanding of why Americans would suspect their motives.

Show respect to 9/11 victims by creating a large public memorial space for visitors that condemns in no uncertain terms what muslim terrorists did on 9/11, that they believe it was an abomination of islam, and explain how they intend to call on Muslims in this country and around the world to prevent this type of terrorism in the future.

The plan for this museum is developed by a group of multi-religious leaders and 9/11 family representatives.

Remove the name Cordoba and not use any other name that reflects islamic triumphalism.

I know it won’t happen though because even if the organizers believed it they would be too afraid of their brother muslims to open themselves up to a terrorist attack. I think we will have to rely on the building trade unions to keep it from being built.