In case you have not been paying attention to the news for the last several weeks, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf plans to build an Islamic cultural center (i.e. Mosque) two blocks away from Ground Zero. As this news has gradually quieted, Rev. Terry Jones announced that he was going to have a Quran burning at his church in Florida. Now, the question I have through all of this is: Why are people bending over backwards to stand up for the rights of the mosque but not for the rights of the Pastor?
Please do not get me wrong. I do not believe that it is right to have a Quran-burning celebration. As Christians, we are not to provoke others to wrath. We are told to go out and be a witness to those who do not follow after Christ. By participating in such divisive acts, there is no possibility for testimony to the unsaved, Muslim or otherwise.
However, I am left struggling with the thought that we are told that we are Islamophobic if we do not support a mosque being built so close to the place where Islamic radicals took the lives of 3000 people. Why are we told to respect a religion that encourages its followers to either convert or kill those who disagree with them? Many say that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is just not true. Michelle Malkin has done a tremendous job outlining the radical nature of Islam and its followers. There are Muslims who are peaceful people. I do not deny that. But the teachings of Islam lead to the violence that we see outwardly manifested in the actions of radicals.
The liberals in the media and in Washington tell us that Muslims have the right to build this mosque, and according to our Constitution, that would be a true statement. However, I find it utterly contemptible that the same people who do not want any form of Christianity in the public square are now so willing and ready to stand up for the First Amendment when it applies to Islam. These people have no shame.
The Imam that wants to build this mosque has just returned from a fund-raising trip to the Middle East that was paid for by our tax dollars. This fact is completely repulsive. But what is even more repulsive is that he went to the Middle East to solicit funds from Islamic groups and nations that celebrated the fact that the US was attacked back on 9/11. I still vividly remember scenes from these countries where people were out in the streets cheering and celebrating the fact that we were attacked that fateful day.
This same Imam has also stated in the last couple of days that he will not find another location for the mosque. This is humorous, if not for the fact that he has said that he is seeking to build bridges to the non-Muslim world through this cultural center. Yeah, he sounds like a real bridge-builder to me. He has also said that if they move the mosque to another location, then this will provoke the Muslim world to violence. The last time I checked, they really needed no provocation to attack their enemies.
Now, we have self-righteous American politicians and media people telling us that we are no better than the terrorists if we do not let them build this mosque. Are you kidding me? When did these guys suddenly become religious people? If this were a Catholic church, or a synagogue, or a Baptist church, would they be this zealous in defending people's rights to build the church? I think not. Then why are these people defending a religion that seeks the destruction of those who are not in agreement with their religion?
The people who adhere to this peaceful religion attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us. There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when we were attacked. There was no Guantanamo Bay. We had done nothing to provoke them, but they still attacked. What this tells me is that they do not need a reason to attack us. They do not care who is in power. They attacked us under President Clinton and President Bush. They laugh at President Obama.
But the defenders of the mosque continue to pull out the freedom of religion card in this debate. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has everything to do with a certain religion making inroads into a people's way of life. They seek to assimilate and get people on their side. Then they seek to dominate, and eventually annihilate. You may call this is Islamophobia. I call it the facts. This is what they do. Their goal is complete domination. Just read the Quran. This is what it teaches.
Now, compare the treatment that Islam is getting to the treatment that Rev. Jones is getting. Again, I do not condone what he wanted to do. However, does he not have first amendment rights also? Is he not free to express his religion in any way he sees fit, provided he does no harm to others in the process? His church has no more than fifty people in it. What harm can this small congregation do?
(As a side note, this is not the same as Hitler or Stalin burning books. Hitler and Stalin were the government. They were burning books to get rid of them, and as the government, that amounts to censorship. This guy is the Pastor of a small church. He is not censoring anything. There is no comparison, other than the fact it involved fire and books.)
To show what a peaceful religion Islam is, the adherents to this religion have been having global protests in anticipation of teh Quran-burning. To show their peaceful nature, they have been burning American flags and threatening violence should this Quran-burning take place. Yep, these are really peaceful people. They handle adversity and religious differences well.
And let us not call the Quran a 'holy' book. The only Holy book that we have today is the Bible. Holiness means purity, without sin, without blemish. The Quran does not fit this profile at all. Just because it is a religious book does not make it a holy book.
Does anyone besides me see hypocrisy in these two scenarios? The people who are in favor of freedom of religion when it comes to building a mosque are showing moral outrage at a man who wants to burn Qurans. If you are for freedom of religion in one case, then you should be for freedom of religion in the other one also. In contrast, those who oppose the mosque are also voicing their opposition to the Quran-burning. They understand that both are legal, but they also believe that both are inappropriate.
There is also the issue of violence. Those opposed to the mosque are demonstrating in a peaceful fashion. They are fighting the mosque plans they way that they should be - by letting their voices be heard and fighting the mosque in a legal way. Those opposed to the Quran-burning are displaying a more violent side - they are burning American flags and threatening violence. They do not know what civil discourse is, nor do they want to know.
So, why are people like Mayor Bloomberg standing up for the mosque? Are they afraid of the violence that may occur should the mosque not be built? Perhaps. Are they afraid to be labelled as an Islamophobe? Possibly. Are they attempting to buy votes? Definitely. Is it their goal to slowly remove God from the public debate and replace Him (not completely do away with a supreme being) with a religion that does not believe in this same God? Probably. Are we in danger if we do not return to God and follow Him? Most definitely.
