The “Reverend” Fred Phelps and his congregation have made quite a name for themselves. They are the small independent Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka who wander the country, gratuitously insulting people and making asses of themselves. They carry signs that say “GOD HATES FAGS” and picket the funerals of servicemen killed in action, claiming that their deaths are punishment for America’s homosexual sins. They are so repulsive that I have found myself wondering if they are not, in fact, Unitarians or secularists, posing as fundamentalist yahoos to serve their own ends. I have often wondered the same about all manner of over-the-top public figures, from the late Jerry Falwell to Al Sharpton to Alan Keyes, who has become the Al Sharpton of the Right. The world is full of figures so ridiculous that they seem to have been made up by their enemies. But alas, they are no doubt sincere.
But interestingly, no one has suggested that because of their hatefulness no Christian churches should be allowed to conduct military funerals. Or even that Baptist churches should be forbidden services for fallen soldiers. Why not? Well, because that would be stupid. The antics of a hateful minority do not reflect on a (mostly) benign majority.
But something very like this is being supported by a majority of Americans. I speak of the uproar over the proposed Islamic cultural center in Manhattan, not far from where the Twin Towers fell. That so many are opposed to what is intended to be a center of moderate Islam and interfaith study is troubling, not least for the glaring incongruity of trying to suppress religious expression in a nation that prides itself on its heritage of religious freedom.
Troubling, too, is the tendency of so many Americans to generalize about Islam: because the young men who piloted airplanes into the World Trade Center did so in the name of Islam, therefore any Muslim presence within the area of the tragedy is an affront, an outrage. But Islam is at least as diverse as Christianity; to blame all Muslims for the acts of extremists is like blaming all Christians for the hatred spewed by the members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauh, who is behind the Cordoba Initiative, is a Sufi Muslim, an opponent of religious violence who has always condemned the 9/11 attacks, a man who has long been respected by his Jewish and Christian partners in interreligious dialogue. Visit the website of the Initiative to see for yourself: www.cordobainitiative.org.
Moderate, tolerant Sufi Islam has about as much in common with the Wahabbi puritanism espoused by Al Quaida and the Taliban as Fred Phelps has with a Benedictine monk. Opposing this center, which is precisely the sort of Islam we should hope will prevail, not only violates our tradition of religious liberty, it feeds the fire of Islamic extremism. The Wahabbists and other radical Islamists want Muslims to believe America hates their faith. To prove them right defies not only our stated ideals but common sense.
—Daniel Nichols
I very much agree with the thrust of this post. Certainly, I have been dismayed by the recent upset at these events and the lack of distinctions they suggest. And Sufism is a brand of Islam I admire and would much rather see prevail than the fundamentalist radicals.
However, I wonder at one small comment you made: that the Phelp’-like radicals may be Unitarians-in-disguise. Like Sufis, my experience with Unitarians has been only positive, as they have been extraordinarliy kind and tolerant — more so than most of my “orthodox” friends.
I agree with the jist of this post and with Jeremiah.
One must be cautious, however.
The claim that it will be a center for peace and tolerance would be wonderful, however, if only Muslims may worship there and not have a place set aside for non-Muslims to pray, meditate and worship, is a slippery slope.
I find myself uneasily in agreement with President Obama for a second time (which makes me wonder who I am!).
I do believe accomodation must be made for the rebuilding of Saint Nicholas Orthodox Parish Church.
I’m pretty sure that most Unitarians would get the joke, but for the oversensitive among them- and secularists too- I meant no offense to anyone. I was just trying to be funny.
And Matthew, if you follow the link you will see that the center is meant to be interfaith, that no religion is allowed to have a majority. So the board will be 50% Muslim, no doubt, with Christians and Muslims making up the rest. There will be a small mosque within the center; I am not sure what accomadations will be made for prayer by other faiths.
The Christianists would say that you are one of Islam’s “useful idiots”.
As George Orwell predicted in 1984, the indoctrinated masses can switch enemies without missing a cliche.
I wrote several years ago about how Islam now fulfills the role that Marxism once played for those in power: a useful tool to scare the masses into compliancy with militarism and nationalism. Of course, Marxism was a real danger. And of course radical versions of Islam are real dangers, but the paranoia was and is way out of proportion to the threat.
Even the terms- “useful idiot”- remain the same. I agree with Orwell, but disagree with you on just who has switched enemies without missing a cliche. Indeed, that you could cite this right after implying that I am a useful idiot without irony is pretty funny.
Did you visit the site? Did you read what the Cordoba Project is about? Only a mind already committed to suspicion would fail to see that this is not the enemy. Islam- a billion souls and growing- is here to stay. It can evolve, or it can be radicalized by the haters. Religions can evolve and become peaceful, even with violent histories. Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Mormons have managed this (though violent minorities remain in each). It is possible for Islam as well. Granted, their prophet was a warrior, but the Jewish scriptures are pretty violent as well, even citing God as commanding the death of non-combatants, whereas the Koran at least forbids this.
Oh, I forgot. EVERY Muslim is out to kill us all, and those who SAY that they are intent on peace and tolerance are lying through their teeth. Only us useful idiots believe it possible. And what is the alternative? Holy war?
It occured to me driving home that I had totally misconstued your comment, Steve, that in fact you were being ironic. Duh. Sorry, I read it through the haze of just finishing a day working in the 90 degree heat…Still, I feel pretty dumb, as your meaning now seems obvious. I should probably refrain from responding to anything when I am exhausted….
Interesting thoughts,
Tolerance, it seems the only thing we are not tolerant of are those who for the sake of their views will not adhere to tolerance.
The american people today are led around by the nose because they dont think for themselves. Lets examine the idea of tolerance…
People tell Christians that they need to be tolerant of others views, that everyone is entitled to their own worldview if you would.
Ok, well my world view says that those who are without Christ are under the just condemnation of God. There is no way to heaven apart from Him. Can I have that view?
Nope, I am all of the sudden an intolerant bigot who lives in the 1700′s. So what’s being said is this, “we want tolerance of all peoples views as long as they coincide with ours.” There is no such thing as tolerance, only those who feign it in an attempt to deny the reality of absolutes.
That being said, do i hate Muslims? No, however it is clear that if you look at the world today the way that Islam spreads is through two main faculties. First, by birth they are having almost three times as many children as the average person. Second, they doing so by fear, although not in this nation but in many around the world Islam is forced upon people. They convert or suffer the consequences.
It is not hard to see the strategy that is being used outside of this, they attempt through cultural needs to win over a culture. I.E. They at one point offered to rebuild a college in africa as long as they could destroy the church that was on the campus and in place build a mosque. They offer free higher education to families as long as they allow their children to be taught Islam.
I would say that we must understand no one attempts to take a cultural, a people by saying, “hello we are here to take over.” The best way to take over is by coming from within, under the guise of peace, and the flag of tolerance. Just my thoughts I could be wrong. (No i am not a “Islam is taking over the world freak, just observing what I have seen.)
Your thoughts?
I had not planned to jump into this conversation, but, perhaps foolishly, I’ll take your bait, Jordan. I think one has to make many distinctions in order to cut through a lot of the nonsense that many are saying.
First, yes, Islam, is a false religion, in fact, a Christian heresy, which I believe St. John of Damascus (who lived under Islam) was the first to note. But as a Catholic I do recognize that a Muslim in good faith can attain salvation, through Jesus Christ to be sure, since God will not punish anyone for invincible ignorance.
There is a lot of truth is what you way about Muslims spreading their religion through force, and of course through births. As for the latter, one can hardly blame them – not sure what you mean by “more children than the average person” – do you mean the average secularized Westerner? Offering scholarships, etc. so that people will convert is a technique not unknown to Christians either, and I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with it. But actual force and violence is another matter, of course.
I am reading the Koran now and I do recognize that it is assumed that the chief way of spreading Islam is through war, certainly a strange notion to me! Although some of the violence spoken of in the Koran has to be put into the context of the back and forth of wars between Mecca and Medina during Muhammad’s lifetime, nevertheless there remains a residue of violent conduct recommended, indeed commanded, toward outsiders until they submit. Obviously this is problematic, since it is behavior inculcated not in spite of, but because of a command in their scriptures. Catholics have perhaps sinned in that respect as much as Muslims, but we did it despite the teachings of the Church and often in face of the clear commands of popes. (I’m thinking here of the late medieval papal bull forbidding enslavement of Africans, for example.)
Another distinction is in order, however. The United States claims freedom of religion. I don’t see how someone basing himself on U.S. law can seek to legally forbid Muslims from building a mosque and trying to evangelize a culture according to their beliefs. I am a proponent of a Catholic society, and I think such a society has a perfect right not only to forbid mosques but to prohibit all who adhere to a false religion to immigrate there – and by the way, this would include Protestants too! But I’m afraid that America never was an officially Christian polity and one is hard pressed to find a legal reason to prevent the mosque being build. In fact, at least one person I heard raving against the mosque on the radio said she had absolutely no problem with building a mosque elsewhere in New York, but just not on the “sacred ground” where the World Trade Centers stood! I’m afraid this is not a principled Christian position, but mere nationalism. Any sacred ground in the U.S. is where our saints are buried, e.g., Elizabeth Seton or John Neumann, or churches where the Blessed Sacrament is housed, not a commercial building that happened to have been destroyed by some terrorists. But the real religion of most American Christians is American nationalism, not Christianity of any kind, and they get more upset by political than theological threats.
Can Islam change to that it repudiates its violent precepts? I don’t know. It would certainly be good if it could, but even if it did it would still be just as much a false religion. Which is (objectively) worse, to inculcate violence or to deny the deity of Jesus Christ? Catholics should oppose the expansion of Islam by any legitimate means, but not because of the violent tenets of the Koran, but because of its theological errors.
I probably will have pleased neither party in this debate, but this is how things seem to me to stand.
I note that on the “sacred ground”, which is apparently anywhere in the neighborhood of the site of the attack, there stand liquor stores, strip joints, and all manner of businesses. So apparently that is not a problem, but Muslims of a moderate stripe, who preach religious tolerance, worshipping violate the “sacred ground”!
The whole thing has become a source of much demagogory, often inaccurate. Newt Gingrich, for example, asked if the Japanese would be allowed to construct cultural centers near Pearl Harbor, apparently ignorant of the fact that there is a Shinto shrine within sight of where the attack occurred! (Hawaii has a large Japanese minority).
In religious matters I am a sentimental ecumenist, thinking we should find common ground and find a way to live together. In regard to Islam, we have more in common than with any other non-Christian faith. Jews, for example, though we share common scriptures, traditionally have believed that Christ was a false prophet, and that he was conceived by Mary’s illicit union with a Roman soldier. Muslims, however, honor Jesus as a great prophet, believe that He will judge the world, and that His Mother was a virgin.
Granted, there are great areas of disagreement, but that is a lot of common ground. That is also why when Islam or Muhammad is mocked they never respond by mocking Christ. That would be unthinkable.
By the way, when I mentioned “the nonsense that many are saying,” I was thinking of neither Jordan nor Dan. I was thinking chiefly of that woman I heard ranting on the radio.
Time magazine this week reports that a Taliban cleric says that oppostion to the Cordoba Initiative has been their biggest recruiting tool since Abu Ghraib. Ironic; if such a center, dedicated to moderate and tolerant Islam was erected in Afghanistan the Taliban would blow it up. Way to go, Americans. Islamophobian creates terrorists.
For or for ill, American culture tends to profoundly change the adherents of traditional faiths who immigrate here. We’ve seen it with Roman Catholic and Jews. It is now happening with Eastern Orthodox Christians. We will also see it with Muslims.
Jordan, you write: “Ok, well my world view says that those who are without Christ are under the just condemnation of God. There is no way to heaven apart from Him.”
A response
http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
to supplement what Thomas Strorck has written above.
Here’s an good Catholic article by John Zmirak on GZM.
Well, it is a good example of alarmism…
Why do you think they refuse to condemn Hamas?
Imam Rauh has condemned terrorism, and has condemned it when carried out by Hamas. As Hamas also does social service and is the elected Palestinian government, he cannot condemn everything that Hamas does. Go to his site; the only way to take the incendiary article you link to seriously is to absolutely disregard everything the guy says, and to ignore his history. I mean, good Lord man, he was a sort of ambassador to the Islamic world under George Bush!
You are right in that Rauf eventually condemned terrorism and named Hamas back on Sep 8, 2010. So good for him, because he initially refused to do so as late as June, 2010. His response at that time was something like “Look, I’m no politician and the whole thing is very complex.”
I am an Irish nationalist who opposes violence, but if someone clearly in league with the British oppressor was asking me to condemn the IRA, I might not want to give them the pleasure. Is that so hard to understand?
The IRA is a terrorist group and worthy of condemnation just like Hamas or Hezbollah. It’s very easy for a normal American Catholic to condemn them regardless of who got pleasure from it.
I take it you are not Irish…
Re: ancestry, I have some Irish blood, but it is contaminated by other types I’m happy to say. I’m an American.
Wondering when “American” became an ethnicity…
Maybe American is not an ethnicity. In that case, I’m not sure I really need one. I don’t think you need one to get into heaven–that’s what I mean. There are “clubs” on earth that you need an ethnicity for membership, but since I can watch football games and drink beer at home, I’m not interested in them.
But supposing I did need one, which one do I choose? My great-grandparents were German, Irish (Catholic), Scotch-Irish (Protestant), English, German, English, Lithuanian and German. I guess German wins, and I do have a cuckoo clock and some long socks. But I also own a kilt and play the bagpipes. And since the neighbors probably never heard the cuckoo clock, I’m assuming they think I’m Scottish.
Saying I’m American simplifies things dramatically, and since it doesn’t really matter I suppose it helps that I’m proud to be American and don’t have any problem being identified as an American. Plus that’s what it says on my passport.
Wonders if pride in one’s nationality (especially when empire is involved and not ethnicity), is really appropriate, especially from a Christian POV:
“for here we have no lasting [nation], but seek that…which is to come.”
BTW, one problem in northern Ireland is that the paramilitaries on BOTH sides could be considered “terrorist”.
LOL. I prefer the Holy Father’s take on America.
Trying to remember what exactly Bennie said about the United States. In any event, while it certainly has its strengths, it also has its weaknesses, and I am certain that the Pope would not equate it with “the Kingdom of God”.
I linked it on the word “take”.
I certainly wouldn’t equate any country or place on earth with the “Kingdom of God” either. Not even Ireland or Norway. So that sounds like a red herring, Father.
Perhaps not explicitly, Pauli. Implicitly, however, may be another matter.
The Pope’s words are interesting, rhetorical as they are, both for what they say and for what they do not say.
Not wishing to get too far off track (or too far out in “left field”, if you will)—if I had recently arrived in this country it might very well appear to me that the national religion of America would be sports–which of course brings to mind one of several similarities with the Roman Empire before it’s fall. Not the kind of thing I like to think about, but do we even get nearly as passionate about the things of God? Just wanted to put that out there for consideration, I’m no authority on the matter, for sure.
I can agree that too much emphasis is placed on sports in American society. But there has been a lot of nonsense in other countries over Football (i.e., soccer) with people even being murdered over it.
I just figured out an ethnicity for myself: Earthling. From what I know about the book of Genesis in the Bible–although I’m not a theologian–I think I can claim to be 100% purebred Earthling on both my mom’s and dad’s side.
Having made this decision, I can imagine an alien invader asking me about some other alien that supposedly got killed by the ERA (Earthling Republican Army) an telling him to shove it up one of his butts.
This might sound crazy to some people, but it can’t be. I just found out that there is a groups called Knights of Earth.
Okay, Pauli. Fair enough. It is sad, however, that the next thing that comes to your mind is conflict with an alien invader.
Aye, but not a wee green man. Sure and begorra–he was an Orange man!