Oklahoma's Shariah Law Ban -- Sightings

I have opined before about the recent passage of an Oklahoma law banning the use of international law and sharia law in court procedures in that state, and I published a guest posting by a member of my congregation who happens to be a lawyer.  We return to that issue again this morning.

The question that this action, which was passed by 70% of the voters, raises -- concerns why voters made this decision, and why Oklahomans aren't alone in their desire to do so.  Make no mistake, there are terrorists who take inspiration from their interpretation of the Qur'an and from other Islamic teachings, and women are mistreated in a number of Muslim countries -- but one could ask whether this is because of Islam or other cultural dynamics present in those countries.  But that's for another day.  The question is why Oklahoma's voters acted as they did?   Is it fear?  Hatred?  Ignorance?  Insanity?  That is, are Americans losing their minds?   And a further question -- do acts like this not play into the hands of extremists?    Well, Martin Marty has chosen to address some of these questions in today's Sightings column.  As usual, this is worth considering.

********************************

Sightings 12/6/2010

Oklahoma’s Shariah Law Ban

- Martin E. Marty

In late November Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a permanent injunction on the “Oklahoma shariah law ban” leaving Oklahoma at least temporarily unsaved by the “Save our State” Question 755. The constitutional amendment had been approved by 70% of the state’s voters on November 2. Sightings blinked when debates over the proposition began. It seemed too outlandish to dignify. Next Sightings squinted and filtered out headlines about the post-election debates. To avoid losing Oklahoma subscribers from Oklahoma by insulting them? Hardly: voters like the Oklahoma majority presumably live in all states.

The debate does not die down simply because of the permanent injunction. Readers who will scan the hundreds or thousands of retrievable documents discussing the issue in print or on the web will find that the early framework for discussion revolved around two questions: was this measure inspired simply by hate or simply by fear? The measure would “forbid courts from considering” international law or, the point at issue, using Islamic religious law, known as shariah, which the Oklahoma amendment defined as being based on the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

The first explanation for the vote is fear. Fear of “the other” is so natural, so cultivated, and so exploited in recent years that, in the eyes of many, it can account for much of the support for the measure. Next, hatred of “the other,” in this case of Muslims and Islam is so patent, so palpable and contradictory to the norms about truth-telling and love held by the Christian (and other) religious majorities of the state that it can also account for the support.

More recently, however, two other factors have been at play in diagnoses. One is simply ignorance, not about terribly terrible actions against women in many shariah-based polities, for example. Innumerable stories of inhumane actions are reported domestically even though the shariah laws on which these actions are based are enforced in far-away Islamic-ruled countries. Instead, what drove Oklahomans to vote for the ban is ignorance of the nature of religious law as it is or can be effected in the United States. Thus Catholic canon law has numerous strictures against many kinds of actions by Catholics. Halakha, the Jewish code, starts with 613 laws, which are supposed to be binding on Orthodox Jews, but it holds no base or potential for civil legal action.

Some religious leaders, of course, grounded in their canon law and halakha may work to influence the mentality of voters, hoping they will vote in ways congruent with those of the religious body. But they have to persuade voters to render such preferences in civil law, something that the 30,000 Muslims of Oklahoma, whose population is 3.7 million, are not likely to achieve, even if any of them wanted to do so. (Those Muslims often include “your” Oklahoma doctor, nurse, engineer, accountant, and good neighbor.)

The other supposition by analysts of this ban is insanity. That is an uncharitable judgment, but as columnist Leonard Pitts put it, “we are gathered here today to mourn the loss of America’s mind,” a loss exemplified in the Oklahoma argument and vote. “Thoughtful people ought to be alarmed,” for these actions based on fear, hate, ignorance, or insanity give victories to terrorists, Jihadists, and others, who want us to fear. Pitts writes that they can say “America is scared stupid. Mission accomplished.” Shariah won’t do us in, and canon law won’t save us. Civil law and civil citizens, also in Oklahoma, can help do so.

References

Bill Mears, “Judge issues permanent injunction on Oklahoma Sharia law ban,” CNN, November 29, 2010.

Leonard Pitts, “Oklahoma paranoia strikes deep,” Miami Herald, December 3, 2010.

Omar Sacirbey, “Oklahoma Muslims Wary after Shari’a referendum,” The Christian Century, November 4, 2010.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

A Legal Response to OK's Anti- Sharia Law (Guest Post)

I recently posted thoughts on the new Oklahoma referendum that bans the use of Sharia and International Law in deciding cases in that state.  I find it first of all discriminatory, but it would also seem unconstitutional.  But, I'm not an attorney, so I invited one of my church members, John McCauslin, who is an attorney, to address the issue from a legal perspective.  He did so in the comments section of the earlier posting, but I thought it valuable to bring it out front here to get more of a conversation going.  I appreciate John's willingness to take this on.  So I invite you to attend to his response.

*********************************************

Bob asked me to give some thought to the just passed Oklahoma anti-Sharia referendum. My response is a rejection of the law on technical-legal grounds and for personal reasons.

Here is the heart of the new law, Oklahoma's State Ballot Question 755:

The [Oklahoma courts], when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. . . .

My response from a technical perspective (after admittedly very limited research) is that the new law is patently unconstitutional in a variety of ways. Off-handedly, I can see that on its face it violates the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Impairment of Contracts Clause. When the law is applied to specific circumstances it will likely come into violation of other Constitutional provisions, most certainly the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... .” The Supreme Court held in Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the Due Process Clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.

In the words of the Court in Everson:

The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'

The Free Exercise provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)." The Free Exercise Clause pertains to the right to freely exercise one’s religion. It cannot be disputed that in disallowing a Muslim to contract under Sharia law, which one would only do as an expression of Islamic faith, the government is interfering in a Muslim’s free exercise of religion.

The kinds of analysis which will shoot down State Ballot Question 755 under the Establishment and Free Exercise provisions of the Constitution include the fact that the law does not have a secular purpose, that its primary effect advances one religion and specifically inhibit another religion, and that it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion. Further, the State doesn't even have a legitimate purpose in banning the use of Sharia law, except the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.

State Ballot Question 755 violates the Full Faith and Credit provision of the Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, provides, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v M E White Co, 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin."

State Ballot Question 755 violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Commerce Clause has been interpreted as a prohibition against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. To deprive Oklahoma courts of the ability to interpret and apply international law, especially with respect to contracts with companies and citizens of other nations, must be viewed as an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.

State Ballot Question 755 violates the Impairment of Contracts Clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 forbids any state from passing a law that retroactively impairs the obligation of contracts. Such contracts would include wills and commercial and more private contracts between parties in which the parties agree that Sharia or other principles of international law will be applied for purposes of interpretation and/or enforcement.

There are just so many Constitutional problems with the State Ballot Question 755 that I just cannot see how it can withstand scrutiny.

On a personal level, I see the passage of the new law as an expression of Christian counter-Sharia, stemming from a mindset of fear and panic, which has been stoked by a fascist leaning media and politicians into a horrific and wholly un-American anti-Muslim frenzy.

The Nazi horror was theologically rooted in the fiction of the divinely wrought Aryan Nation. The American fascist movement is theologically rooted in the fiction of divinely wrought American Exceptionalism. As I perceive fascism, one of its core tenets is that the demand for strident nationalism trumps civil rights, especially the civil rights of minorities whose very existence has been identified (by the state) as threatening to the well being of the divinely inspired nation.

The Nazis, identified the primary threat to the Aryan nation as coming from the Jews, the Gypsies, the handicapped, from non-Aryans in general, and from those who would seek to protect and defend them. For contemporary American fascists the current threat to our nation has been identified as Muslims, homosexuals, illegal aliens (and maybe still from blacks, Jews and Catholics, as in former years), and those who would seek to protect and defend them.

Finally, I believe that the Republican Party is being led by neo-fascists and has begun promulgating a fascist agenda. Having identified the threat from certain minorities within our boarders, their objective is to vilify them at every turn and see to the systematic dismantling of their civil and human rights, and that this targeting against internal minorities is being undertaken in the name of patriotism (the Patriot Act) and the idolatrous belief in American Exceptionalism.

John

Sharia in America? Oh NO!

In the recent elections which saw a conservative backlash against all things moderate and liberal (remember most of the Democratic seats lost in Congress will be so-called Blue Dogs, many of them Pro-life Democrats, who like Bart Stupak saw Health Care Reform as being essential but were called baby-killers even though they were strongly anti-abortioin -- but that's another debate).   One of the measures that passed in this election cycle was a restrictive piece in Oklahoma that would forbid Oklahoma courts from considering international law or Sharia in their findings.  70% of the voting populace supported the measure, and its likely to crop up other places.  A judge has stayed its implementation pending appeals (I believe) on the basis that it likely conflicts with the Constitution.

Listening to some analysis recently it was pointed out that this measure is first of all discriminatory because courts take into consideration all the time Jewish and Christian and other religious laws and teachings in settling estates and other legal matters.  The same would be true of estate plans for Muslims, who use their own religious teachings to guide implementation of their wills and estates.  This would preclude that possibility.  There is, of course, another problem with the law since it would essentially abrogate treaties and other agreements that are based in international law.  Businesses in Oklahoma may see a chilling effect as companies decide that this isn't a good climate to do business.

So, why this new law?  Well there seems to be this fear that Muslims will take over the country if they are given any place in society.  Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.  That's why there is an effort to unseat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress.  It would seem that many Americans want to make the country a Muslim free zone.  But how does this square with our own Constitution, which guarantees Americans the freedom to practice their religion as they please.  Of course, US Law always trumps religious law, if those teachings/practices conflict with the law.  Thus, we can't follow the teachings of Deuteronomy and stone our kids if they back talk or eat too much (Deut. 21:18-21).  We've figured this out, and can do the same with Sharia, which in any case isn't an established set of laws, but a variety of laws, rules, and regulations that vary from culture to culture.  The reality is that only a few rather radical Muslims would even think about imposing such a requirement on the whole populace.  

So, what's the problem?    Is this not another example of a growing anti-Muslim sentiment in America?  Is this fear any different from lingering fears that have suggested that Jews are trying to control the nation by controlling the banks and other levers of society?  By singling out a particular religion, this law has abrogated the first amendment rights of Muslims in Oklahoma to have their own practices taken into consideration when in the legal system.  We wouldn't think of doing this with Christians or Jews, but it apparently is okay for us to treat Muslims in this way.  Or, is it? 

Muslims, Middle Schoolers, and Lawsuits -- Sightings

We have heard a lot lately about the deficiency of American religious literacy.  Very little is taught in schools about the bible as literature, even though biblical references can be found throughout western literary works, or on comparative religion, even though America is becoming increasingly diverse religiously.  So how do we respond?  Well one way is to introduce children to other faith traditions, which is something that has been undertaken in a certain Boston area school.  But due to certain parties that possibility is under attack.  The question at hand is this:  Does the First Amendment free exercise clause prevent schools from introducing children to other faith traditions?  You wouldn't think so, but if a law suit has its way, that may be the interpretation of the Constitution.  And this comes at the wrong time!  Take a read of Joseph Laycock's report.

********************************************

Sightings  10/14/2010

Muslims, Middle Schoolers, and Lawsuits

- Joseph Laycock

In May, Wellesley Middle School took a class field trip to see the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) in Roxbury. The curriculum had previously included field trips to a synagogue as well as performances of gospel music and lectures by Hindu religious leaders. As with most middle-school field trips, students must bring permission slips and parents are recruited as chaperones.

           

While the school had organized field trips to mosques before, this was their first trip to the ISBCC, which opened in 2009. The ISBCC is the largest Islamic center in New England, featuring an elementary school, an interfaith center, an exhibition space, and a morgue for Muslim burial services. Its weekly services are attended by Boston Muslims of 27 different ethnicities. It hosts visits from numerous youth groups and learning institutions, including Harvard.

           

But the ISBCC has also been plagued by controversy. Construction began in January 2004 amid allegations that Dr. Walid Fitahaihi, an ISB leader, had made anti-Semitic comments. In October of that year, opponents of the project formed the group, “Citizens for Peace and Tolerance” (CPT). The group’s website tracks the “radical links” of several ISB leaders. In a maneuver that is now all too common, a handful of comments and financial connections are used to implicate an entire community center that serves thousands.

           

When an anonymous Wellesley mother who volunteered to chaperon contacted the CPT, she was asked to videotape the field trip. The tape was then edited and uploaded onto the opponent group’s website in a ploy similar to those used against ACORN and Shirley Sherrod. The edited footage shows that after the students received a history lesson from an ISBCC representative, five students participated in the midday prayer, at least somatically, by bowing towards Mecca. The chaperon does not intervene but whispers the words “Oh my God!” in apparent horror.

           

To be certain, this scene was not ideal pedagogy and seems to reflect a lack of communication between school officials and ISB representatives. Generally, religious practitioners are not experts in the history of their own traditions or the constitutional distinctions between teaching and proselytizing. The task of the teacher is to incorporate the voice of the practitioner into a balanced and critical perspective of the course content. But the footage does not show the teachers––who are presumably licensed and competent––preparing students for their visit or debriefing them afterwards. In fact, it is impossible to discern what message students took from the field trip as their voices have been completely absent from the ensuing media coverage.

           

Now, attorney Robert N Meltzer has stepped forward, representing the anonymous mother and claiming that the field trip violated the students’ First Amendment rights. He is quoted saying “We believe that a school cannot bring middle-school children to any house of worship. Period.” Most jurisprudence concerning religion in schools debates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, rather than the Bill of Rights. Rather than arguing that the field trip represents government support of Islam, Meltzer is claiming that it violates the religious freedom of students not to set foot in a mosque. The fact that students chose to enter the mosque and participate in a prayer is irrelevant, it is argued, because middle-schoolers lack the autonomy to make such decisions for themselves. However this argument fails to address the fact that parents signed permission slips and were physically present when the five students participated in prayer.

           

Meltzer has announced that the lawsuit will go forward unless the school district agrees never again to offer field trips to places of worship. Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, this will have a chilling effect for public schools across the country. This may be a local conflict, but the collateral damage is national education. The fear of lawsuits not only deprives students of a genuine multicultural experience in a curriculum increasingly dominated by standardized tests, but it also stymies religious literacy at a crucial time in our nation’s history. 

References

The Pluralism Project profile on the Islamic Society of Boston Community Center.

Kathleen Burge, “Mosque trip violated rights, lawyer says,” Boston Globe, September 22, 2010.

The official website of Citizens for Peace and Tolerance.

Joseph Laycock is a PhD student in religion and society at Boston University, and the author of Vampires Today: The Truth About Modern Vampirism (Praeger Publishers, 2009).

Sightings is published by the Martin Marty Center. 

Until There Are Churches in Saudi Arabia --Sightings

The debate over the presence of mosques in the United States seems to go on without end, and much of the debate is based on misinformation (both intentional and non-intentional).  Martin Marty takes up some of this in an especially pertinently entitled piece.  I invite you to read and enter a civil and informed conversation, so the tantrums of the day can start to die down.

***********************************

Sightings  9/20/2010

Until There Are Churches in Saudi Arabia

-- Martin E. Marty

The tantrum—let’s call it what it is—against government, taxes, Muslims, and moderates continues to rage, and will through November and perhaps long after. A child in a tantrum eventually stops stomping and rejoins the family, where speaking and hearing, agreeing and disagreeing, can resume. Sightings would like to move on to other topics about religion and public life, and may do so soon, out of boredom, fear, weariness, or, dare we hope, with hope for better, tantrumless times.

In the meantime in these mean times, out of thousands of choices from columns, blogs, and books, let me select two, one of the best, and one of the worst. In The New Republic Leon Wieseltier challenges readers with a question: Is Islam, as some defenders say, “a religion of peace?” He answers, “It is not. Like Christianity and like Judaism, Islam is a religion of peace and a religion of war,” depending on which era and which circumstances bring forth “the tendencies” within the religion. To relate terrorism to movements within Islam “is not Islamophobic. . . Quite the contrary: it is to side with Muslims who are struggling against the same poison as we are.”

As for the World Trade Center attacks, he pleads, don’t erect a cross as a memorial. “Christianity was not attacked on September 11. America was attacked. They are not the same thing.” American Christians who use the cross in their ads against Islam “do not deplore a religious war, they welcome one.”

Now read William McGurn in The Wall Street Journal. Ask yourself what does he and the tantrum-throwers to his far right, the Newt Gingriches and company want? Peace? Moderation? Can you find the beginning of the beginning of a way to peace in the McGurn column? Note that, for good measure, he links American liberalism to radical Islam. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, “perhaps” a “moderate Muslim,” Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations, and others support “‘interfaith dialogue,’ and called for American Muslims and non-Muslims to ‘break bread’ together.” Not on your life, says columnist McGurn. Stooping lowest he asks, “What are the fruits” of the efforts at moderation and dialogue?

These efforts, he writes, produced as fruit the “obscure Florida Pastor” and other would-be Qur’an burners, those who tear out pages of the Qur’an in front of the White House, and—this one is half right—“angry marches between pro- and anti-Islamic Center crowds,” all to be blamed on one “typical experiment in liberal bridge building.” He implies that there should be no efforts at “interfaith dialogue,” “breaking bread together,” or differentiating moderates from extremists in all faith traditions. Whom to blame for the current rages? Muslims, of course; one Imam, of course; and “folks who cling to their liberalism and their antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

McGurn does have the grace to scold “Republican politicos” who, thanks to “liberal hectoring,” exploit tensions, “saying no mosque near Ground Zero until we see a church in Saudi Arabia.” Which sets us up for Wieseltier’s best line: “I also hear that there should be no mosque in Park Place until there are churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia. I get it. Until they are like us, we will be like them.”

References

William McGurn, “'Bridge Building' and the WTC Mosque,” The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2010.

Leon Wieseltier, “Mosque Notes,” The New Republic, September 2, 2010.


Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at http://www.illuminos.com/.


--------



Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

The Inanity of the current "Islam" Debate

It is rather difficult to believe the inanity of the "conversation" going around about Islam right now.  It is fueled by a number of currents, some political and some cultural and some religious.   You have this huge disconnect about the President's faith -- he's a CHRISTIAN folks, not a Muslim.  It is fueled in part by at best misinformed people like Franklin Graham who go on CNN and say that Obama was born a Muslim because his father was a Muslim, and then when asked whether Obama is a Christian, gives this tepid answer -- when he knows the truth.  Then you have the hullabaloo surrounding the Cordoba House (now Parc51) Islamic Center (today I got an email declaring that she had been told by someone that Osama Bin Laden is funding it).  You have Newt Gingrich comparing Islam to the Nazi's.

Right now, we're in the midst of this "debate" where facts no longer seem to matter.  And so, I think Stephen Prothero, Professor of Religion at Harvard, is exactly correct when he responded to a question from CNN's John King as to whether the current conversation about Islam is helpful.  Prothero, who has a new book out (which I've not yet read) entitled God is not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World -- and Why Their Differences Matter, responded by saying that it's not helpful because the conversation about Islam is taking place at a "below kindergarten level."  

One of the reasons why the debate is so skewed is that Americans suffer from an intense form of religious illiteracy, and that is dangerous.  As Prothero demonstrates in his earlier book  Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn't, is that most Americans don't even know the tenets of their own faith.  And if we're going to put an end to the misinformation, it's going to take those of us who are Christians to step up and say no to it. 

I think that Prothero's presentation on CNN is something that needs to be heard.  It's straightforward, pulls no punches, and gets to the bottom of the issue.  So, take a look:

H/T Media Matters

See my review of Prothero's book Religious Literacy. 

Ground Zero: Exaggerating the Jihadist Threat

It does seem as if this is a story that won't quit. It doesn't matter that much of the rhetoric is either misplaced or politically expedient. As Romesh Ratnesar writes in a Time Magazine online piece entitled Ground Zero: Exaggerating the Jihadist Threat, the "jihadist threat" that everyone is so worried about is actually fading away. Yes, the militants are still doing their thing -- largely in Muslim countries and rarely in the West --but their support in Muslim countries is dissipating fast.

What I find unfathomable is the idea that a mosque sponsored by a moderate group of Sufi Muslims would constitute a victory for radical Islam. I simply don't get it. What would constitute a victory in my mind would be the ongoing fear mongering that grips our nation. The goal of terrorism is to terrorize people -- make them afraid. I think, from all the rhetoric, that these militants have done just that. The American people have been cowed, which makes the susceptible to demagogues such as Newt Gingrich. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggests:

"We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else," Bloomberg said on Governors Island, the Statue of Liberty behind him in the distance.

In the long run this is an "debate" that will go nowhere.  The group seeking to build the center have the right, according to the Constitution, to build at the site.  No court in the land would disallow this and its not the government's business to decide between religions.  The Constitution's guarantees don't simply apply to Congregationalists in New England and Anglicans in Virginia, or Presbyterians in the middle states.  We've outgrown the question of which Protestant church will dominate. 

But perhaps even more importantly this "debate" maybe focusing on an threat that no longer really exists.  Remember it's 9 years since 9-11.  We've been in Afghanistan for much of this period, with no end in sight, largely because we put Afghanistan on the back burner to engage another phantom threat in Iraq (where we've been at war now for seven years). 

But, whether the threat is receding or not, I can't stop reiterating the fact that principles of American identity are at stake in this debate -- the principles of religious freedom.  And if Muslims and other minority religions are denied their Constitutional rights, then our nation will have betrayed its founding principles.  I know the President has taken a lot of heat for his position -- David Gergen, whom I normally regard highly, made a statement last night that stunned me -- that in this President Obama demonstrated a lack of understanding of the feelings on the part of the American people.  I'm sorry, but standing up for what is right when religious freedom is under threat for political reasons (even among Democrats) is astounding.

Welcoming the Manhattan Mosque

Word has come down that a City Commission has cleared the way for a Muslim Group to build a mosque in a Manhattan neighborhood close to the former World Trade Center site.  The commission voted 9-0 to deny landmark status to a 152 year old building that has little artistic, architectural, or historical value -- other than it is 152 years old.  Had any other use been proposed it would likely not have been a big deal to tear it down, but since it's near (a couple of blocks away) the WTC site it became a symbolic point of contention for those who seem intent upon defaming Muslims.  The argument stated in support of landmark status was that it had been touched by debris from the 9-11 attacks, but as a member of the commission noted that applies to hundreds of buildings on Manhattan.  The rationale for landmark status was simply a cover for an ongoing anti-Islamic campaign.

In conversations with Muslim friends, they continually express dismay that they have been linked with Osama Bin Laden and with extremists.  They reject categorically the rhetoric and the actions of these extremists, and yet their statements continually get drowned out by those who wish to put all of Islam into one basket. 

As I noted the other day, while I find the statements of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich unfortunate, it's not surprising since it fits their "Christian America" focus.  What I found most disheartening were the statements of ADL head Abe Foxman.  Foxman is quoted as saying in an interview with the New York Times:

“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

Here is the head of a group, the Anti-Defamation League, which was founded for the purpose of opposing this very kind of thing, saying that the anguish of loved ones entitles them to positions that are irrational and bigoted.  But its not the families whose bigotry is at issue, but the bigotry that is present in the broader public.  This isn't about the anguish of victims loved ones, this is about politics, and right now being anti-Muslim will, at least in some quarters by you votes.  This is why I am so dismayed that the ADL has chosen to align itself with such a tide.  As Mark Silk points out, in his statements Foxman has allied himself with the very people who connect all Muslims with 9-11, by suggesting that building a mosque, one to be opened by a moderate Islamic group, would cause anguish to families of survivors. 

We will not get beyond hatred and misunderstanding as long as we remain committed to stereotypes (something that I taught as a project coordinator for the ADL's "No Place for Hate" program I was charged with exposing).  If there is no place for stereotypes that lead to hate in our communities -- as I consistently maintained in that role -- this includes stereotyping Muslims and espousing hate against them.   So, as for me, I welcome this mosque, especially since those who are opening it seek to bring dialogue to the community.

Lincoln, the Know Nothings, and Nativism Old and New

Earlier I wrote about my disgust with both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich's demagoguery concerning Muslims in America.  Actually, Palin's rant wasn't as dangerous as Gingrich's.  But both are what some call "Christianists," and in their understanding of "real American" is quite narrow.  The Nativism that is driving the debate in Arizona and in New York is not new.  It has a fairly strong pedigree, that goes back to the early days of the Republic.  It fueled the dispossession of Native Americans from their lands, kept blacks in servitude, excluded Asians, and targeted Catholics, especially Irish Catholics.

Back in the 1850s a political movement emerged that came to be known as the "Know Nothing Party" -- a party that targeted Catholics.  It had some political success and even recruited a former President to run on its behalf in 1856 -- Millard Fillmore.  The response that Abraham Lincoln gave in a letter to friend Joshua Speed dated 1856 speaks clearly to what is happening today.  Although the majority of the letter speaks to the question of slavery and the impending admission of Kansas to the union, the letter also speaks volumes not only to the situation then regarding immigration and the other, but to that which exists today. 

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

So, in response to Gingrich's demand that no mosque be built whilst churches can't be built in Saudi Arabia, perhaps we who love liberty should move not to Russia but to Saudi Arabia, for if the "Know Nothings" of today take over, then at least we'll not live with they hypocrisy of our pretensions of liberty for all.  

They're Going to take over! -- Anti-Muslim Political Rants

Who would have thought that the decision to build a mosque in Manhattan, a block or so from the World Trade Center site, would take on a national political spotlight.  But, as we know, none other than Sarah Palin has twittered her opposition, and created a word of her own in the midst of the tirade.  Now, I really don't care about Palin's use of the word "refudiate."  The accurate word would be "repudiate," but that's the least of our problems.  It's easy to ridicule Palin, but all that seems to do is endear her more to people across the country -- the ones Palin calls "real Americans."  "Real Americans" are, as you know, Christians.  More specifically conservative ones -- the ones that Richard Dawkins has determined are to be considered real Christians as well.  

Newt Gingrich chimes in by saying that there should be no mosques near ground zero as long as there aren't churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

My question is -- when did a theocratic/autocratic country set standards for the United States.  I thought that this was a free country, where we are free to practice our faith as we please.  Would Sarah and Newt think it okay for a church on that site?  If so, then how can you discriminate against Muslims who wish to have a place to worship in Manhattan?

Now, I'm not naive -- there are terrorists out there who are Muslim.  There are also Muslims who dream of a world empire.  But there are Christians with the same dreams and attitudes.  But, anti-Islamic rants and policies will do little to bring down the tensions or promote peace.  They do little to enhance the American reputation as a place of freedom and opportunity.

Of course, these are politicians and they are appealing to people who have been lead to believe that a Muslim horde is about to descend.  Demagoguery of right and left has always worked well, especially when it has played on religious fears.  Remember 1960 and the fear that Jack Kennedy would get his marching orders from the Pope?  Now, there is a play on the fears that seem to infect a near majority within the Republican Party that the current President is a secret Muslim.   Plant the fears now and you don't have to be overt with attacks later when you're a candidate.

But, according to Newt, the Islamists are bent on taking over, and thus destroying our society.  Consider this:

America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

It is unfortunate that we are at this place in time.  But, with the nation at war in two Muslim countries and provocative behavior coming out of several others, you can see how this is problematic politically.  But, I'm not a politician, I'm a pastor and a theologian.  My greatest concern is that we are failing in our call to love our neighbor.  So, can't we stop the rants?!  I say now is the time for Americans to recognize the genius of the nation and embrace the freedoms placed in the Constitution that protect religious expression.

Praying for Publicity

I'm probably playing into Franklin Graham's hands.  He seems to like the spotlight, and his disinvitation to pray at the Pentagon has made his day.  He's made all the rounds, played up the issue, said that Islam "gets a pass" from the President, complains that Christians are being persecuted -- and on and on it goes.

The latest is that on Thursday, Mr. Graham, who seems to want to reach the same level of importance as his famous father, gathered with a few of his friends and prayed on the sidewalk outside the Pentagon.  Following this, according to news reports, he gathered the press together at the September 11 monument (apparently one of the few places that cameras are allowed on Pentagon property), and reiterated his complaints. 

I know Franklin knows the passage, but just in case he doesn't I want to share words of Jesus with him. 

‘And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.*

 ‘When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.   (Matthew 6:5-7 NRSV).