From Fox News:
Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans “have the right” to ban mosques in their communities. …
Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is “hallowed ground” to Murfreesboro residents and that they’re concerned about “the intentions of trying to get Shariah law” — the code governing conduct in Islamic society. …
It was really only a matter of time before one of the Presidential candidates began to assail even the basic rights granted to Americans in the Bill of Rights. Already those who argue that we must be secure argue that everything from highly intrusive TSA inspections to a loosening of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure must be allowed. It was but a matter of time before the next step was taken to pick a religion which many do not like in order to broach the idea that protecting this country must mean forbidding the practice of one of the major religions of the world. Of course, that is not how it is worded. The religion is not being forbidden per se, only the building of their worship buildings. Many of the anti-mosque people are the same people who argue that Russia is wrong for limiting the number of evangelical missionaries and for preventing certain Christian groups from establishing themselves in Russia.
The argument is that somehow the building of a mosque furthers Shariah law. That argument, of course, comes from the propaganda of some of the most radical branches of Islam, the very branches that did bomb the USA. The problem is that this continues an argument that the Arab spring should have destroyed, and that is the argument that all Muslims are alike. But then, as a Latino Father Orthoduck is accustomed to this type of tactic. A couple of years ago, during the height of the pre-election anti-immigration debate, some of the debaters quoted some of the more extreme small Latino groups in the Southwest who advocated the formation of a new country there that would be Latino run. The reality of the many Latinos who have faithfully served the USA in both the Armed Forces and in Congress was irrelevant. The fact that they found a small group that said it was proof that all of us Latinos really wanted that. And, it was within the lifetime of Father Orthoduck’s parents that American born citizens of Japanese ancestry were put in concentration camps in the USA over fears that they would betray us to the Empire of Japan.
Those who argue this will, of course, argue that it is the people’s right to decide who lives in their neighborhoods and to protect themselves. The answer is that the Bill of Rights was written precisely in order to prevent the people from expressing their will in the matters of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. Time after time local and federal courts, and the Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled that our Bill of Rights are a wall of protection from the mad impulses of mob mentality. This is precisely what is happening in Tennessee, happened in New York, and has happened in other states. Again, as a Latino, Father Orthoduck remembers quite well the many statements that were tossed about last election season that may have started out as supposedly only about the undocumented aliens, but quickly became about all Latinos.
Furthermore, Father Orthoduck can cite more than one instance in which a particular housing subdivision tried to prevent either the building of a church building or even the meeting of a Bible study based merely on a local housing covenant. Some of the older Pentecostals can remember times when they had trouble building in certain areas because no one wanted those “holy rollers” in their neighborhood. The people’s right to decide can all too often be the people’s right to exercise their particular bias. Almost every time in which such a dispute was taken to court, was a win for the Christian group. Time after time the courts have ruled that neither local housing covenants nor zoning codes may be used to prevent religious expression.
Sadly, the current state of this country is that for which the Bill of Rights was written. That Bill was written as a protection for times when the people would forget their promises and would try to restrict the rights of a disliked minority. Sadly, for the last several of years, matters which used to be only read about in radical publications now come out of the mouths of presidential candidates and serving Congresspeople. In every case, those matters are shrouded in language which sounds reasonable until one realizes that the end effect is to repress some group who is already here and whose members are already citizens. Father Orthoduck has heard both some on the extreme right and some on the extreme left making arguments of this type.
Whether it is arguments that churches must be prevented from discriminating against people (the extreme left on homosexuality) or whether it is arguments that certain religions must be repressed (the extreme right on Islam), both sides forget the Bill of Rights and the very walls of protection that our Founding Fathers placed around us. Mind you, the protections are not perfect. But, they are certainly better than the alternative, which is relying on the will of the people for protection. The Founding Fathers did not trust the will of the people when it came to certain issues, and neither should you.
Interesting Father!
I’m not sure how the so-called ‘Arab spring’ really affects such views. One consistent fruit of the ‘Arab spring’ has been increased persecution of Christians.
Interestingly enough, after searching both the USA Department of State website and the BBC news, I can find no backing for your statement. What I have found is that in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood is still trying to take charge. What the BBC calls secular democrats are still demonstrating in Tahrir square along with the Muslim Brotherhoods. There is very little doubt that there is a continuing skirmish between the secularists and the Islamists. Oddly enough, it is the Army that is maintaining order for now. Has the Muslim Brotherhood taken advantage to burn Coptic churches. Yes. Is this a “consistent fruit?” NO, it is neither Army policy nor secular liberalist policy, but rather the opportunism of the Brotherhood.
In Libya there is still open war going on between the rebels. Ghaddafi’s forces destroy without regard to religion.
In Tunisia the political police and the state security apparatus have been disbanded. Demonstrations are still going on, and an election is scheduled for three to four months from now.
In Algeria demonstrations are still going on, although the country’s state of emergency has been lifted after 19 YEARS of that state. More democracy is “promised” by the president. Don’t hold your breath.
In Morocco the king has promised democratic reforms.
But now, you need to read this last one. IN SYRIA, ASSAD HAS USED CHRISTIAN AND DRUZE TROOPS AGAINST SUNNI TARGETS.
You see, what has happened in many Christian groups in the USA, is that they have tried to claim every attack against a Christian church as proof that the “caliphate” is still forming. Usually there is very little analysis other than “a Christian church was attacked therefore this is proof that all Muslims are alike.” More than that, I notice that there has been NO reporting of the Christians (and Druze) allied with the Assad regime in Syria against the Sunnis. What do you think will happen should the Sunnis become the government? Will it be Christian persecution or will it be payback time for Christian atrocities?
The failure of most “Christian” USA “analysts” to deliver the full news is not only unfortunate, it is a prime example of cherry picking in order to maintain the beliefs about Islam rather than to come to a full featured understanding. This has been a challenge in the Antiochian Archdiocese where the Metropolitan devoted one entire clergy conference a couple of years ago to the issue of relations between Christian and Muslim in Syria. It was interesting to note that the “native-born” American priests refused to listen to the bishops and priest that had been born and grew up over there and actually knew the country!
One notes that were all Arabs alike Father Orthoduck would not be.
Heard a disturbing piece on NPR this morning about an Arab Muslim losing his position as a college professor after having been called out as having ties to terrorists. He apparently does not, but had apparently lied on his application and so was fired. It seems the real problem was, according to the “terrorism expert” who went after him, that he is not “patriotic” enough.
I am not particularly “patriotic”.
This anti-Muslim hysteria is like the McCarthy era all over again. A new Red Scare. Will we never learn?
Then, CNN did a piece on an alleged “former terrorist” of Palestinian origin who is making the big buck traveling the country and lecturing on the evils of Islam. The problem is, it seems that there is no evidence to support his back story…