Saturday, June 5, 2010

New York City Mosque Protest, Islam, and Religious Freedom

New York City Mosque Protest, Islam, and Religious
Freedom


Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L)
by Jeffrey Imm
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/06/nyc-45-park-place/

We stand in support of our universal human rights of freedom of
religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship for all people.


The "Stop Islamization of America" (SIOA) group has organized a June 6
protest in New York City against stopping a future "ground zero
mosque." While there have been plenty of angry editorials and petitions
on this subject, the specifics of the actual "mosque" in New York City
and the human rights impact of protesting a house of worship has
received limited reporting. Moreover, few seem to realize that this
"mosque" has already been in place as an active worship center since at
least December 2009. This article will address five connected topics:
(1) the reality of the "ground zero mosque," (2) the priority of our
universal human rights, (3) why denial of human rights affects
everyone, (4) the plank of hate in our own eye, and (5) the important
choices facing Americans.


I share this information not to criticize those who are concerned
about this issue, but to ask them to seriously reflect on the
consequences of protesting a place of worship in America, and the
message that it sends to the world. As human beings, we are all
imperfect and have made choices and mistakes that we regret, as
I have
and we all have. But the grand message of the human
experience is not only in where we have been, but most importantly it is
where we are going to - and this is where our choices continue to
allow us to shape our destiny, our future, and define our responsibility for equality
and liberty
.


The Reality of the "Ground Zero Mosque"


In December 2009, I first read about the July 2009 purchase of the
former Burlington Coat Factory building on 45 Park Place in New York
City by the Cordoba Initiative, led by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his
wife Daisy Khan. Both the
New York Times
and Der
Spiegel
reported in December 2009 how Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf had
purchased the aged building and told the NYC mayor in September 2009
that they planned to convert it to a worship center and a cultural
center. According
to the NY Daily News
, the idea that Feisal Abdul Rauf has is to
renovate the building based on a NYC YMCA style structure. But the
idea is not some "new" development. Cordoba has owned the building
for nearly a year, and the NYC mayor has known about this for 10
months. NYC Muslims have already been holding worship services there
for 6 months and presumably continue to do so today. So the idea of
NYC protests to "stop" Muslims from having worship services is about 6
months too late.


Back in December 2009 (and presumably today), the former Burlington
Coat Factory was nothing more than an outwardly grimy and dilapidated
building, where some NYC Muslim worshipers (including street vendors)
go during the day to pray. In all of the dramatic Photoshop
"graphics" of what this mosque and cultural center might look like
someday, there has been very little reporting on what it actually is
today. So I have prepared a collage of some actual photographs, not
graphic sketches, of what it actually looks like (based on published
photographs in the NYC and world media from December 2009). It is
certainly possible some changes may have been made in 6 months, but as
45 Park Place has not yet been renovated, these photographs should
essentially represent the reality today. Americans deserve to know
all of the facts to make balanced decisions.


-- Photos
of the entrance



'NYC:
NYC: 45 Park Place - the "Ground Zero Mosque" Photos of the
Entrance - (Photo 1 and 3: Spiegel, Photo 2: NYT)



-- Photos
of the interior



'Photos
Photos of Interior of "Ground Zero Mosque" (Photos 1 & 2:
Spiegel, Photos 3 & 4: NYT)



-- Photos
of the building



NYC: 45 Park Place - the Reality (Left - Photo AP) and Idea   (Right)
NYC: 45 Park Place - the Reality (Left - Photo AP) and Idea (Right)



To those who plan to protest this on June 6 - is this really what
you want to be protesting?


Do you want the world to see Americans protesting against what is
today a dilapidated old building where some NYC Muslims have already
been praying for the past 6 months? Is this how you plan to honor
yourself, your freedoms, and your country?


With the world watching, it is essential for Americans to use their
resources and time to publicly demonstrate their
commitment to our universal human rights
- not to show the world
that Americans are just as willing to deny such human rights of
freedom of religion religion as others.


To those who are wondering where is "Ground Zero" in any these
photographs, that's a good question. It's not there, because the fact
is that 45 Park Place is a good two blocks away from "Ground Zero," or
as one person has calculated about 600 feet (that's roughly about two
American football fields). In the dense concrete jungle of New York
City, two blocks might as well be a mile away in terms of visibility.
In terms of "hallowed ground," it is a fact that a piece of landing
gear from one of the 9/11 jets fell on 45 Park Place. But in terms of
preventing Muslims from praying in that area, the fact that Muslims
have been praying there since December 2009 already shows that it
really is impractical to decide where someone has the right to pray or
worship. Even if 45 Park Place was taken away from the Cordoba
Initiative who would prevent Muslims from praying anywhere else in the
area, even in cabs, as they go by the Ground Zero area?


The truth is that our
universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and
freedom of conscience
not only apply to everyone, they apply
everywhere - whether
some like it or not
. Moreover, as people in nations around the
world including Communist China, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, and increasingly
in the UK and Europe
continue to find out - there is no way to
prevent people from truly exercising their freedom of conscience - such
universal human rights
will exist no matter how others try to stop
them.


The SIOA has a different picture of
the area
, one based on graphics artistry, rather than actual
photography, designed to show the future plans for the 45 Park Place
building with a backdrop of the attack on the World Trade Center
buildings. Now that you have seen the actual photographs as well as the
planned redesign for 45 Park Place, let's
look at the SIOA graphic
. Apparently, according to the image by
the SIOA graphic designers, the message they seek to convey is that
people at the top floors on what the SIOA calls the future "monster
mosque" at 45 Park Place will be able to look down upon the wreckage of
the World Trade Center when they pray. Let's ignore the obvious
point that the World Trade Center is supposed to be rebuilt, and let's
set aside the question of whether (and when) people praying at a
rebuilt 45 Park Place would be able to "look down" on any WTC wreckage
two NYC blocks away. For the moment, let's assume the SIOA is correct
on all of the points of their argument.


If Americans "stop" Muslims from praying at 45 Park Place, what is to
prevent them from praying at any other place in the "Ground Zero"
area, or looking down on "Ground Zero" from any other part of the
nearby NYC area buildings? The answer is obvious. There is nothing to
prevent Muslims from praying anywhere at any time, or to prevent them
from doing so in the sight of any part of "Ground Zero," just like
Muslims have already been praying at 45 Park Place for the past 6
months (without protest).


SIOA Graphic Dramatizing 45 Park Place with Graphic of WTC Attack -  NOT showing it is Two Blocks Away
SIOA Graphic Dramatizing 45
Park Place with Graphic of WTC Attack - NOT showing it is Two Blocks
Away

So what exactly is SIOA protesting to stop?
Muslim worship services that have been taking place? If the SIOA is
only protesting that a larger mosque and cultural center is planned on
being built, does that mean that they have been fine with the Muslim
worship services that have already been taking place (and presumably
continue to take place) since December 2009? Or is it all of New York
City that some seek to ban the building of mosques and Muslim
worship, indeed all of America? The reality is that extremist views
on seeking to deny religious freedom ultimately break down into an
absurd rejection of our universal
human freedoms
that even
a totalitarian nation such as Communist China is ultimately incapable
of consistently enforcing
.


This demonstrates the lack of logic in protesting against others
exercising our universal human rights
, including our right
to freedom of religion and freedom of worship
, whether such
protests take place in Indonesia,
Pakistan,
the United
Kingdom
, or the United States of America.


The facts are that no matter how much some protest, we cannot and we
have no right to tell others how, where - and to who - they will
pray. Those who reject, disrespect, and defy such unqualified,
universal human rights do not change the rights of all people,
everywhere to such universal human rights.


Where Our Universal Human Rights Apply...

Where
Our Universal Human Rights Apply...

Our Strongest
Weapon in the War of Ideas - Our Universal Human Rights


You don't sacrifice what is important for what is not. If we are
ever to honor the losses of Americans with diverse races, religions, and
backgrounds who died on 9/11, we must stay focused on undermining the
tactics of terrorism by unflinchingly staying on the front lines of
the war of ideas. Our fallen Americans deserve such commitment by us
on the issues that really matter.


There are those who think that we will successfully struggle against
terrorist tactics only by tactics of our own, whether they are
military, law enforcement, immigration, foreign policy measures, or
counterterrorism; such individuals continue to be unable to see the
larger picture and the strategy that requires our consistent defense of
our universal human rights and pluralism in a global war of ideas. We
cannot fight our way out of this global ideological struggle simply
by bombing terrorist compounds, arresting criminals, deporting
individuals, and appeasing religious supremacists for counterterrorist
intelligence. We can't negotiate our way out of this with those who
play double-games with us and the enemies of freedom. This
existential struggle requires more than anger, muscle, or even
cunning; it requires compassion, thinking, and our hearts. It is that
serious. We can't afford to keep bungling around with nonsense tactics
while we continue to lose the war of ideas in America and around the
world more and more every day. Our world is at war, not
just militarily, not just with terrorism, but the world is at war
over the very idea of human freedom and human rights itself.


If we want to show respect to those who died on 9/11, we must
understand that terrorist attacks continue to happen around the world
every day to someone else, somewhere else in the world. Such terrorist
attacks are not a series of random, disconnected "isolated incidents,"
as our tacticians would have us believe. No matter who is the
terrorist actor, such attacks are consistent in one important way -
they are all based on hatred, and they are all based on defiance of our
unqualified, universal human rights. But whether it is a
Christian church burned in Malaysia
or a
Muslim mosque burned in America
, hate is hate, and those who defy
our universal human rights seek the same ends - to force others to
deny their freedoms. Freedom of religion is not "a luxury," it is a
part of our strongest weapon of universal human rights in a world war
of ideas - and in too many parts of the world, it is a defining
human right that differentiates us from the enemies of our human
rights.


If hate and denial of our universal human rights is the consistent
message of our enemies, then if we choose hate and denial of our
universal human rights for others here in America, we become no
different than they are. We become what we are fighting against.


Church Burned Down in Malyasia, Mosque Burned Down in United  States
Church Burned Down in Malaysia, Mosque Burned Down
in United States

What we can't afford is do is throw
away our strongest weapon in this war of ideas - our universal human
rights that guarantees freedom of expression, that ensures freedom of
the press, that demands equal rights for women, and that insists on
freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and yes, freedom of
worship
- not just for those like us and those we like -
but for all people, not just in America - but everywhere.


To Americans, these are not "just" universal human rights, these are
the very definition of America itself - "we
hold these truths to be self-evident"
that all men are created
equal and that our inalienable human rights include life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. That is what it means to be an American; it
is the declaration
of our identity. If we want to do something about 9/11, if we want to
effect change in the world, the first place to show that change is
with ourselves and our lives. We must live to show that we not only
hold these truths to be self-evident, but that we will defend such
truths of our universal human rights, and that our lives will show
that we are responsible for equality
and liberty
- not just for some people, but for all people.


If we want to honor the 9/11 fallen, then it is our obligation to
stay on the front lines of this struggle to consistently defend such
universal human rights, and not allow ourselves to succumb to the
weaknesses of fear and hate. We must be stronger than that, we must be
more American than that.


United We Must Stand - not only in our national defense of America's
homeland, but also in the defense of America's identity and in defense
of the rights that are inherent in our identity as human beings.


United-We-Stand


Denying Human Rights for One, Denies Human Rights for Us All


One might read this thus far and believe that I completely agree with
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, who are behind the
Cordoba Initiative's efforts to renovate 45 Park Place. In fact, I
don't agree with them on a number of key issues.


But when it comes to their universal human rights, it simply
doesn't matter.
That's the point - one that all Americans and
those who respect our universal human rights should understand. Our
basic human rights, as Americans and as human beings, extend to all of
our fellow Americans and human beings - whether we agree with them or
not. When seek to support denial of universal human rights to some,
including freedom of worship, we deny such universal human rights to
all. That is the point of "universal" human rights. We can't think
that we can select who does and does not have such rights, without
undermining such rights for everyone.


Perhaps next time it might be you and your faith that someone
disagrees with and seeks to deny your freedom of worship, as we see in
many parts of the world today. If we support universal human rights,
but we can't set an example to defend them, who will?


For those who will inevitably ask, I have a number of disagreements
and concerns with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan. Self-criticism
and willingness to consistently defy religious supremacists is
essential in any meaningful interfaith dialogue, especially one that
involves the red-hot topic of Islam. Such self-criticism of our
views with which we seek to shape the world is not a weakness; it is
our greatest strength in building relationships with our fellow human
beings. Such defiance against religious supremacists is not a treason
to our religions, but it is the foundational building blocks in a
pluralist society. If they seek interfaith relations, we need to see
such self-criticism of Muslim views and defiance to religious
supremacists more often from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan.


In too much of the world, people's human rights are suffering under
Muslim religious supremacists' interpretation of "Sharia," which in
the Qur'an simply refers to choosing the "right path." "Sharia" is
open to the interpretation of Muslim religious scholars and "students"
from the
Taliban (which means "students")
to those Muslims
promoting secular democracy and human rights
. But when we hear
about those who seek to implement "strict Sharia" invariably we hear
from those who seek to deny our universal human rights. This global
issue between some Muslims religious practices and our universal human
rights is an issue that all Muslim clerics and scholars should be
addressing as their top priority. In April
2009, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote a short article for the Washington
Post
trying to clarify it, but briefly dismissed the
interpretation of Sharia by the Taliban and too many others in the
world in one sentence as merely the views of " 'firebrand' clerics."
He then went on to explain how Sharia is comparable to the U.S.
Declaration of Independence and is something that we should not fear.


If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is serious about "reforming" Sharia (my
word), which may be one of the critical problems for Muslims in America
and the world in terms of interfaith relations and addressing human
rights, then this should be a focus of his. Instead, Imam Feisal Abdul
Rauf dismisses the endless reports of human rights abuses rationalized
by those under Sharia, with a very brief statement which essentially
states "trust us" on what is likely the largest issue in interfaith
relations in the world. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf 's "trust me" approach
on Sharia is not enough in a world where violence and oppression
continues every day rationalized by Sharia, nor is "trust me" enough
in his
calls for a "religious" solution in Afghanistan,
where women
continue
to
be oppressed by
religious
supremacists
and where Christians and other religious minorities
are persecuted, including a
reported recent call by an Afghan parliamentarian to kill Christians
converts.


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has also stated that we must understand how
terrorists think, and has blamed Christians as ones who have been
responsible for mass causality attacks, stating:
"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians.
But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in
Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets." If
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is concerned about building interfaith
relations and respect for Muslims in America and around the world, he
should be less defensive and less focused on what type of "methods of
war" is blamed on different religions, and more focused on the methods
of peace and human rights that we can all achieve together. There
are those in every religion that have been involved in war and
violence. There are those in every religion that have been involved
in denying human rights. But the question we must ask as human beings
is where are we going in the future together in peace and in human
rights?


Those promoting tolerance must reject a defensive style of appearing
to appease those who would deny human rights and reject freedom.
Tolerance and pluralism is based on our shared, unqualified, universal
human rights. In September 2008, I
wrote about the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project
, whose study
results
called for
American engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood (whose motto is "jihad
is our way"), whose study called for "engagement with political
representatives of armed and activist movements," whose study called for
U.S. engagement with the FTOs Hamas and Hezbollah, and whose study
stated that the U.S. should not expect that governments based on Sharia
law would have limitations in human rights. This study
was endorsed
and promoted by Republican and Democratic leaders
of Congress,
during the Bush administration. Members of the leadership group that
developed the recommendations for this study, included Imam
Feisal Abdul Rauf
and his wife Daisy
Khan
, along with 32 others from various religions, political
views, and professions. But in September 2008 as today, there has
been little concern or debate on this study, its conclusions, or its
bipartisan endorsement.


Daisy Khan also leads the American Society
for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)
, founded by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf,
whose mission is "building bridges between Muslims and the American
public." So in January 2009, it surprised me when I saw Daisy Khan's
summary of ASMA's Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow (MLT) meeting to include the following poll
results: "Are there Islamic values that are in fundamental conflict with
Western Values? 61% - Yes."
How is publishing this promoting
bridges between Muslims and the American public? In January 2009, the
CSM had a follow-up news
report on the ASMA MLT meeting where MLT members told the news media
comment
s such as "it's not an Islamic value to have absolute
freedom. Islam puts boundaries on you," and "It is freedom not to
submit [to God's will] that gives value to submission itself." While
every religion puts "boundaries" on our activities, are these the types
of message that Muslims want to send to the world on freedom -
especially from its future leaders?


The same
news report also reported ASMA's Daisy Khan's comments
on the
Muslim response to 9/11 as: "ASMA's Khan said that after 9/11, Americans
wanted to know why Muslims' denunciations of the terrorist attacks
were so muted. Although hundreds of Islamic religious leaders did
condemn the attacks, they were not heard clearly because Islam has no
central leadership, like Roman Catholicism's Vatican." Is this an
effective response to too many of those who distrust Muslims in America
and around the world? Rather than bemoan the lack of a "Vatican" for
those of the Islamic faith in America, doesn't it make more sense to
call for build a responsible group of Muslims in America whose voice
and leaders consistently reject violence, hate, and those attacking our
universal human rights?


Moreover, I can understand the
concerns of those who are worried about Saudi funds
in a rebuilt
45 Park Place, especially given
the history of the Saudi government in funding mosques that quietly
spread extremism
. I can understand how
other Muslims, such as M. Zuhdi Jasser, can question the wisdom of
building a planned future 13 story cultural center
in area sure to
be a target for criticism. Moreover, I would ask Imam Feisal Abdul
Rauf to consider in the interests of the national healing between
non-Muslims and Muslims, if it really makes sense to plan to announce
the rebuilt Islamic cultural center at 45 Park Place, on a day when the
nation is mourning an act of war two blocks away, and if respectful
modesty might build more bridges than giving the appearance of ignoring
the feelings of those who continue to be wounded by the 9/11 attacks.


As I have pointed out, there are plenty of areas where I disagree
with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan. But whether I agree with
them or not (and whether or not they agree with me), I respect them as
my brothers and sisters in humanity. I will defend their universal
human rights, just like we must defend the universal human rights of all
of our fellow human beings, including the right to freedom of
worship.


I have summarized the points in the preceding paragraphs -- not
primarily to catalog how I disagree with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and
Daisy Khan -- but to publicly demonstrate how we can disagree with
others, while still defending
their
universal human rights
,
including and especially their right to
freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship
.


I don't have to agree with others to respect their religious freedoms
and their right to worship. Whether I agree with them or not,
whether or not I share their religious views, whether I am critical of
their positions or not -- all of these have nothing to do with
defending their universal human rights. They have a right to their
religious center at 45 Park Place, whether I like it or not, whether I
agree with them or not, and they have the same religious freedoms as
every other American and every other human being.


In April 2010, I saw Muslim leader Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser appear in a
conference on diversity and human rights at the Smithsonian Institution
in Washington DC. Dr. Jasser spoke of his background and his
experiences in America, but also about his commitment to challenging
what he calls "political Islam." Dr. Jasser spoke of his commitment to
challenging those who believe Islamic religious views should be
imposed on governments and legal systems. Dr. Jasser leads the American Islamic Forum for
Democracy (AIFD)
whose mission is "building the the future of Islam
through liberty and freedom." His group is not the only one in the
United States. Other groups include the American
Islamic Congress (AIC)
that champions women's rights, religious
freedom and pluralism, and the Center for Islamic
Pluralism.


To those who believe that Americans can start calling for the banning
of mosques and who plan to protest against the building of mosques, I
assert that we can't afford to deny such universal human rights to
American Muslims. What next, will some call for banning the
religious freedom of other Muslims such as Dr. Jasser, AIC leaders,
and the CIP leaders? And who has the right to decide what Muslims'
house of worship, we will call to ban and those we will not?


When we starting denying freedom of worship for some, we start
denying freedom of worship for all. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in
the world who are watching to see how Americans will act on this. In
the global war of ideas, we need to show that we stand behind the
courage of our convictions in our human rights and freedoms. We must
demonstrate that those of us committed to such human rights will stand
with our Muslim brothers and sisters in defending their right to
freedom of religion and worship.


Mohamed Yahya and Jeffrey Imm Grasp Hands in Solidarity Together  on Lincoln Memorial Calling for Justice and Human Rights in Darfur
Washington DC: Muslim Mohamed Yahya and Christian
Jeffrey Imm Stand in Solidarity to Challenge Genocide and Support Our
Universal Human Rights




The Plank in Our Own Eye


While some are anxious to criticize Cordoba and its Muslim leaders
for its plans at 45 Park Place in NYC, there is plenty of shame and
disgrace among non-Muslims that we must not be silent about.


To begin with, there are the comments
of hate and derision against Islam by political leader Mark Williams,

who stated
that Muslims worship a "monkey-god."
We have no place for such
raw and vulgar hatred
in American politics, but Mr.
Williams has decided that this
is his way of disagreeing with the
45 Park Place renovation.


I have seen similar comments of hatred in blogs and by anonymous
posters, including one
comment (still there) on a New York Post news story on its web site
by a poster "Truthful" who states
that "I say let them build it
and when that expensive beautiful building is built, someone should
blow it up... 9when it is filled with people... What a fitting tribute
to 9-11." Nor has such blatant hate and open calls for terrorism
been restricted to cranks and anonymous Internet posters.


On May 26, 2010, on American radio station
KPRC-950 AM
, radio broadcaster Michael
Berry
said
regarding 45 Park Place,
"I'll tell you this -- if you do build a
mosque, I hope somebody blows it up," and then restated this again, "I
hope the mosque isn't built, and if it is, I hope it's blown up, and I
mean that." (audio
file).
What type of nation is America becoming when open calls
for terrorist attacks on houses of worship are being treated as
unimportant? Promotion of hatred has consequences.


A steady stream of anti-Muslim hatred throughout America has
continued to inspire violence and bombings against Muslims and their
mosques. In May 2010, a
Michigan mosque was vandalized twice in one week
, and in
Jacksonville, Florida, a terrorist sought to attack a mosque with 60
people inside with a pipe bomb and gasoline.
In Tennessee, there
has been "pro-Christian" vandalism of one mosque
, and another
mosque has been burned to the ground
.


Hate in America: Florida Mosque Being Attacked by Bomber (L),  Tennessee Mosque Burned Down by Terrorist (R)
Hate in America: Florida
Mosque Being Attacked by Bomber (L), Tennessee Mosque Burned Down by
Terrorist (R)
'Tennessee:
Tennessee: Hate in America defacing Mosque with
"Christian" symbols and hate message (Photos: The Tennesseean)

Is
this type of cowardly hatred, what we will tolerate in the land of
the free and the home of the brave?


Or will we say "enough" to hate? Will we say "enough" to attacks on
houses of worship?


In the 21st century, an important way for us to speak out is via the
unregulated Internet. We must recognize that some are using the
Internet to promote hate and violence against all of our fellow human
beings. Such antagonism begins with the consistent promotion of
intolerance of those of various religions, races, and other identity
groups on too many web sites.


Regarding Islam, in
September 2009, I wrote about the Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)
group
and international
media reports in September 2009 of SIOA plans to disrupt a public
worship service
on the Capitol grounds in Washington DC. I am not
surprised to see the SIOA leading the June 6 protest against the 45
Park Place Muslim worship center, given its history of intolerance
towards and rejection of Islam in totality. Regardless of the words it
uses, the message that SIOA has conveyed has been clear, it has not
simply sought to challenge "supremacists" among Muslims, it has been
against all of Islam. The current SIOA website shows its sister
organizations, including the Stop Islamization of Europe
(SIOE)
, which has a history of protesting against mosques in the
United Kingdom and Europe. At a recent
SIOE protest chanting "no mosques in our streets,"
a Nazi
organization joined the SIOE march against a Danish mosque
, and
it wasn't until the Nazi group went to raise
a banner with a Nazi swastika on it in front of a photographer, that
the SIOE broke off the march
in Denmark. This same SIOE leader
will be one of the speakers at the June 6 NYC protest against the 45
Park Place mosque.


Human rights issues cannot be addressed by promoting intolerance.
Intolerance attracts more of the same, not those who care about human
rights.


The plank in our eye also includes other houses of worship in America
that openly promote intolerance and hate. We have reported
on the "Christian Identity movement" and its efforts to promote
resurgent racism
, including in houses of worship such as the
Abundant Life Fellowship Church in Indiana
.


We have reported
on the Kansas Westboro Baptist Church
that regularly
promotes hate against Jews
, promotes
Holocaust Denial
, and that
protests Jewish synagogues
, that
praises the murder
and shooting
of police officers
, that
praises terrorist bombings against mosques
, and that
even praises terrorist bombings against fellow Christians.


But there is no one calling for closing these houses of worship, and
even these houses of worship are protected with their universal human
rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of
worship.


The Florida-based
Dove World Outreach center church
, which formed
an alliance with the Kansas Westboro Baptist Church
, also has
such universal human rights and freedom of worship. While the Dove
World Outreach center enjoys such freedom of religion and worship, it
seeks to deny the same rights to Muslims and has led a nationwide
campaign that "Islam is of the Devil" in high
schools,
churches,
protest
events
, and a
large sign that states "Islam is of the Devil" in front of its
church.


This same
Dove World Outreach center was part of a November 2009 protest event,
in Columbus, Ohio
led by the current Executive Director of the
SIOA who is leading the June 6 protest in New York City. At first, I
thought that Dove World Outreach's involvement was a random group that
sought to gain publicity from the November Columbus event, until I
saw their
photographs
posted
on the website
of the current Executive Director of the SIOA.


Dove World Outreach at November 2009 Columbus Protest Led by  Current Executive Director of the SIOA (Photo 2: AtlasShrugs)
Dove World Outreach at November 2009 Columbus
Protest Led by Current Executive Director of the SIOA (Photo 2:
AtlasShrugs)

I then later saw appeals
for funding for this same Dove World Outreach Center on the SIOA
Facebook web site
, and then further discovered that the Dove
World Outreach Center was a supporter of the SIOA since its founding
in 2009
.


But we must defend the universal human rights of freedom of religion,
freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship even of those houses of
worship that are a "plank in our eye" as well. While I may disagree
with the racist views of the Abundant Faith Fellowship or the
"Christian Identity," I may disagree with the anti-Semitism and praise
of violence by the Westboro Baptist Church, and I may disagree with
anti-Muslim hate of the Dove World Outreach Center -- my disagreement
with their views does NOT give me or anyone else the right to deny
their universal human rights -- whether it is freedom
of expression
or freedom
of religion and worship
.


Our universal human rights apply to everyone, everywhere. That
remains the heart of our argument in the world war of ideas with
supremacists and those who seek to deny our human freedoms - no matter
what their religion is.


We can't fight hate with hate. We can't fight intolerance with
intolerance. We can't address human rights abuses by denying human
rights for others. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is something we
all logically realize. But we need to know this more than an surface
level, this knowledge must be internalized into who we are and how we
live our lives - responsible for equality and
liberty
.


together-for-humanity



The Choice to be Responsible and Uncompromising on Our Human
Rights


There are important choices for Americans and our other fellow human
beings on these issues. To those who are frustrated by the seeming
lack of defiance to supremacist views and the apparent lack of action
on those who defy our universal human rights, there are actions that
you can take. Activist groups regularly have events and volunteer
opportunities
were our passions can be productively challenged to
help change our world and educate our fellow human beings.


But the most important choice to effect change doesn't begin with
reaching someone else - it begins within ourselves.


The crisis point in the world war of ideas attacking freedom and
human rights demands that we make a decision about ourselves as
individuals. Will we surrender to fear and hate, and seek to find
"security" by denying others the rights that help define our very
humanity? Will we avoid such responsibilities as human citizens and
simply hope that someone else does our job for us? Or will we choose
to stand up for our universal human rights - for all people - to
demonstrate to the world what freedom is really about?


Our world, our fellow human beings, our future cries out for all of
us to stand up and choose to be responsible for equality and
liberty
. Our destiny as a human race demands that we recognize that
there is no future in compromising on our
unqualified, universal human rights
. We cannot compromise on our
freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship - no
matter how much it might make some feel temporarily satisfied.


We will never be empowered by denying our fellow human beings their
universal human rights, because what we take away from them, we also
take away from ourselves. We must not compromise on such human
rights.


Living in Washington DC, I have seen more than my share of people
compromising on our universal human rights, while the city has many
monuments with marble inscriptions promoting such human rights. The
assumption that many people make is that such people who compromise on
human rights are "bad guys." But that's not true. Many are decent
individuals, even well-meaning individuals, who started off by making
one compromise, then another, then another, and after a while, they came
to believe that compromising on human rights was the way things got
done. Some believe that being uncompromising on universal human rights
is not "practical." Some have even come to believe that compromising
on human rights is the only way to lead and the only way to be
popular.


But New Yorkers and all of us can choose another path. While the
9/11 terrorist attacks still traumatize New Yorkers (as they have
Washingtonians), and destroyed a symbol in New York's skyline, another
symbol of NYC's skyline still stands proudly - the
Statue of Liberty
. It is a symbol of liberty that stands for all
people, of all ethnic backgrounds, all races, all genders, and ALL
religions. It is a symbol of our universal human rights that stands as a
beacon and as an invitation to the world.


When you come to America, the first symbol you see is not crossed
swords, but these outstretched, open arms of equality and liberty for
all. This is the America that so many of us are struggling to protect
and defend. Never forget that this is what we are really fighting for -
not just American economic needs, not just American political or
territorial needs - but the very truths
that we hold self-evident
that all human beings are created
equal, with the universal human rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.


Yes we lost the World Trade Center and 3,000 of our fellow Americans
to hate and intolerance, and we mourn their loss. But let's not also
lose the symbol of freedom to the world, and let's not lose the war of
ideas against our human rights and freedom that defines not just who
we are, but also who we will be.


nyc-liberty


The heart of the world war of ideas is a challenge by those who seek
deny such unqualified, universal human rights, and instead seek to
promote "relativism" of freedom of religion, "relativism" of freedom of
conscience, and "relativism" of freedom to worship. This struggle of
ideas against religious supremacists seeks to deny such universal
human rights and inalienable human freedoms for all people around the
world. We can never defeat those who seek to only offer "relative"
human rights, by only offering "relative" human rights to others
ourselves.


The world is watching to see if we really have the courage of our
convictions on human freedom, or if our support for universal human
rights is nothing more than lofty "words." In this war of ideas,
never forget that history will not just judge those who fought against
our universal human rights in other parts of the world and from
supremacist thinking, but history will also judge those of us who were
too possessed by hate and by fear to defend our universal human
rights and who knew better.


We must show the world that we will not live controlled by fear and
hate.


We must show the world that we will choose love, not hate.


We must show the world that yes, we will stand fearlessly, with the
courage that only compassion can inspire, as individuals responsible for equality and
liberty
.

No comments:

Post a Comment