It is interesting to note the response to  the president invoking the name of Jesus to justify higher taxes on the wealthier Americans.  It seems that those who act horrified at the use of Christian references in the political discourse when invoked from the right are suddenly quiet when such references are used to justify their own ideology.

Aside from the fact that America is home to many religions that do not worship Jesus, this is the worst kind of political pandering.  Does the pro-choice crowd really want to invoke Jesus to justify their position? How would they like it when the pro-life crowd uses the same justification as Obama to justify his confiscatory policy?

Would Jesus approve of taking money from families to reward political donors with tax money to invest in failed solar projects?  Would Jesus distinguish between voluntary act of one giving his own money to help the needy as opposed to politicians taking it to spend as they wish?  Would Jesus assume that all money spent by government is spent wisely, as opposed to how one would spend their own money?

To assume that all government expense benefits man while those who create the wealth do not is naïve and ignorant. In fact the very way that the government tries to help the poor does little to truly help them.  We have spent trillions to help the poor, yet their number seems to increase.  Perhaps there is better way to help them?

Those in government sell you on their altruism but their stock in trade is power.  Congressmen use their office to enrich themselves , to use inside information, and pay themselves far greater amounts than  those who pay their taxes are able to earn.  Those who advocate government aid the most give the least from their own pocket.  Biden’s charitable contributions should be embarrassing to any leader.  They use the poor as a tool to gather power and riches for themselves.

I wonder what Jesus would say about that?

Bloodlust by Russell Jacoby is a tour of the roots of violence from biblical through modern times.  The essence of the book is that it is not those that are different that pose the greatest threat, but those that are similar.  Since Cain and Abel those who acted most violently against us were those only slightly different.

One can examine the violence between the Sunnis and the Shias in the middle east.  They both accept the basic tenets of Islam but often fight violently over their visions.  The Catholics and Protestants, two Christian sects, battled for centuries in Ireland.  The Puritan and Huguenots were brutalized by other Christian sects in Europe. More died from the hands of other Christian sects in Europe than from the Muslim invaders of the eighth century. Few people can identify a Hutsi from a Tutsi in Rwanda, but that did not stop a horrible slaughter.  Our own Civil War, our bloodiest so far, pitted brother against brother.

There were other factors besides ethnic and religious differences, but these lay at the core and seemed most evident as sides were drawn.

Perhaps this explains why assimilation did not protect the Jews in Europe. It seemed that the more they tried to be like their Christian hosts the more violent reaction became to them.  Again it was the slightly different that caused the biggest reaction; the remaining differences, rather than the similarities weighed heavier.

America certainly had its history of violence and not all of it can be explained by “this narcissism of minor differences”, but we have evolved to a point of acceptance of differences that makes us very different.  Ancestors of slaves are now elected to the highest offices; women have gone from the kitchens to leadership positions in public and private offices.  Widespread anti-Semitism, with roots that were centuries old in Europe, never took root here. While slavery was a blot on our history, what other country paid so heavily to eliminate it?

And perhaps this explains the bitter partisanship of our political world. While there are fundamental freedoms we nearly all agree upon there are a few critical distinctions that amplify our differences. But our political differences are less and less defined by ethnic and religious differences, with a few exceptions and more defined by economic consideration.  Whether you have a 401k or shop at Walmart is often more of a determinant of political leaning than race or sex.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment or exceptionalism of the United States is the incredible luxury to be able to identify our differences based on ideas rather than blood and tribe.

.

The zoning of the Mosque is an issue for the city.  We may have an opinion, but it is a local zoning issue.

We either have religious tolerance or we do not.  We either believe in freedom of religion or we do not. We cannot be just a little bit pregnant here. If that site was used to build a church or a synagogue would we have heard a peep? If the answer is no then we are being clearly discriminatory.

Either we hold all Muslims accountable for the action of the few on 9/11 or we do not.  If we do not hold all Muslims accountable then the Mosque should present no dilemma.  If the 9/11 terrorists were all Christian would we hold all Christians accountable?  I hesitate to ask the same question if the terrorists were Jews, because I fear many would hold all Jews accountable.

Much of the language surrounding the Mosque controversy has crossed the bounds of prejudice.  Many of us only hear of Muslims when the news involves terrorist attacks or acts of violence.  Too many seem unaware that moderate Muslims even exist. Examples are Fareed Zakaria and Irshad Manji.  We have allowed the news to feed our prejudices.

Irshad Manji

Newt Gingrich’s analogy is shameful. To compare building a Mosque in New York to Nazis building a memorial at Auschwitz is both morally and intellectually fraudulent.  To suggest that we will allow the Mosque when the Saudis allow churches and synagogues is pure demagoguery. Are we to set our standards by the most repressive examples?  Are we to lead by principle or follow by spite?

Newt Gingrich

A far better analogy was when the Carmelite nuns wanted to build a monastery near Auschwitz and the Jews were offended that another religion would try to usurp what they now considered holy ground. The Pope deferred to the sensitivity of the Jews and pressured the nuns to relocate which they did. The difference is that no single religion is claiming ground zero to be theirs.  Ground Zero is American.

Nuns at Auschwitz

George Bush chose to lead. When 9/11 hit he quickly cautioned America not to hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a few. Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie understands this.  But clearly many other Republicans do not.

If this building goes forth the next act should be to clear the way for the rebuilding of the St. Nicolas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on 9/11 across the street from the site.

St. Nicolas Greek Orthodox Church before it was destroyed on 9/11

Muslims have a PR problem and many would consider it deserved.  Yes it would be wise to understand the funding sources for this undertaking, but once again we would never ask such from another religious group.  The Muslim religion has a problem that only they can solve.  We can either choose to be open and support the moderate elements or side against the entire religion.

While we are certainly sensitive to the feelings of the victims and their families,  should this have priority over basic principles and local law?

Perhaps this situation should be defused by relocating, but the damage done by the extreme rhetoric on this issue will continue.  It is amazing how many Muslims scholars I have found on Twitter with  the #tcot (top conservative on Twitter) hash tag.  I have learned that Muslims build churches where they have conquered.  Haven’t all churches done this? I have yet to find a bible that could not be used to sanction violence or intolerance in a mind already so predisposed.

Muslims have a real problem confronting and delegitimizing their radical elements.  We do not help them by trying to delegitimize their entire religion.

When critics of Israel are labeled anti-Semitic, the question arises, “when is criticism of Israel not anti-Semitic?”

Alan Dershowitz answered this question as clearly as it can be;  it is anti-Semitic when you hold Israel to a standard that you would hold no one else to.  It becomes a prejudice when you hold one group to a standard you would expect no one else to bear.

The opposition to the Cordoba House or Ground Zero Mosque has crossed that line.  Yes, yes I know we are addressing the sensibility of the issue to the families and the greater community of those lost at Ground Zero; we are not addressing the rights of the Muslims to worship as they please or build mosques anywhere else.  And yes I realize that many Muslims also oppose the location because they fear it is making relations worse when the stated purpose is to make them better.

And yes I realize Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the project has raised points, even when the wounds of 9/11 were fresh that were very discomforting at best, patently offensive to many.  But tolerance is not about tolerating only comfortable positions.

But in the voicing of our objections are we not holding American Muslims to a different standard?  Do we hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of the most radical 7% to use Charles Krauthammer’s number, even if that number equals eighty million worldwide?  Should we even hold them accountable if the percentage were higher? Either we do or we do not.

Would we be raising objections if the center were for a Hindu or Buddhist center?  If not then we are holding them to a different standard.

Muslims have a very real problem addressing their radical element.  Yet this monumental problem is not likely to be solved outside of their religion.  We can either support their moderate elements or alienate their entire religion.

Yes, we should respect the feelings of the Ground Zero community and on that issue it would be better to relocate the Mosque.  But we should tread cautiously with our rationale, for if we choose to hold any group to a different standard our own standards become suspect.

I have to confess that much of the rhetoric from the right on Muslims in America has crossed a line that I find uncomfortable.  Much of this is centered around the controversies of the mosque proposed a few blocks away from ground zero.

One problem is that Muslims are rarely portrayed in the media except in instances of terrorism or other forms of confrontation.  The danger is to assume that Muslims have no moderate base at all.  I would guess that Muslims would find it indignant to have to defend their faith from the acts of extremists, just as Catholics would reject being labeled by the antics of Mel Gibson or the Jews by the words of Meir Kahane ( of the Jewish Defense League).

Rabbi Meir Kahane

On the Zakaria GPS show on CNN today (8/15/2010), Fareed Zakaria interviewed Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Fareed is a Muslim who questioned Ali as to what extent the radicals were a fringe element.  Fareed believes that the vast majority of Muslims are solid American citizens with American values.

Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali

But the interesting exchange was between Manji and Ali. Ali has rejected Islam totally and accepted Christianity.  Manji, who is a very  progressive feminist remains devout to her Muslim faith yet does not hesitate to chastise Muslim moderates for not being more aggressive in  holding the more radical elements more accountable.

The interview has not yet been posted on the Zakaria GPS site, but hopefully it soon will be.

What we should be careful to avoid is painting all Muslims as a monolithic group with a single voice. Just as with Christians and Jews there is diversity within the Muslim ranks. Many Muslims came to this country to escape the more intolerant strains of their religion from abroad.

Fareed is correct that we would be wiser to encourage the more moderate elements than to remain adversarial with the entire religion.  He explains his position in this video where he voices his support for the Mosque.