A Modest Mosque Proposal

At a White House iftar dinner (a tradition dating back to the days of Thomas Jefferson) President Obama finally pointed out the blindingly obvious - that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to everyone, and that means New York's Muslim community has every right to build the Cordoba House community center and mosque in lower Manhattan.

As expected, the right wing exploded in often incoherent rage:

• Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican who has made quite the media career out of opposing the center, said that since 9/11 "was carried out in the name of Islam" anything Muslim anywhere near the World Trade Center site would simply be "salt in the wounds." (It should be mentioned that King's boundless sympathy for the 9/11 victims did not prevent him from blocking a bill providing medical aid for first responders who fell ill from working at the Trade Center site.)
  
• CNN's Eric Erickson tweeted that supporting Cordoba House on freedom-of-religion grounds is exactly the same as supporting human sacrifice, satanism and polygamy.
  
• The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer said that no more mosques should be built anywhere in the United States because "each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."
  
• Pamela Geller, the Muslim-hating blogger who more than anyone else has driven the false "Islamic supremacist mega mosque" storyline, even went so far as to claim that Obama is pro-terrorist: "If you had any doubt who Obama stood with on 9/11, there can be no doubt in our minds now."

As best as I can make out, the hysterical opposition to the center is based on this line of deduction:

1. 9/11 was carried out by Muslims.
2. All Muslims are the same.
3. The families of 9/11 victims, attack survivors and area residents should not be subject to the hurt and humiliation of having a reminder located so close. Plus, as Geller says, a mosque in lower Manhattan "is not a religious issue. This is a national security issue."
4. Therefore, nothing Muslim should be allowed anywhere near the Trade Center site.

Let's take a similar line of reasoning and apply it to a modest proposal, that Christian facilities should be located far away from schools, playgrounds and other places where children assemble:

1. For decades, the Vatican allowed priests to molest children.
2. All Christians are the same.
3. Abuse survivors' families and parishioners whose priests were hauled to jail for abusing children should not be subject to the hurt and humiliation of having a reminder located so close. Plus, protecting kids is not a religious issue. This is a child-security issue.
4. Therefore, nothing Christian should be allowed anywhere near schools or playgrounds.

Of course, this not only violates Christians' religious freedom, but also lumps all Christians in with the pedophile enablers in Rome. As it happens, King, Fischer, Geller et al are doing the exact same thing by pretending that our constitutional freedom of religion does not apply to Muslims and that all Muslims are the same as those who carried out 9/11. Stereotyping and bigotry is stereotyping and bigotry, whether it's applied to Christians, Muslims, Jews or anyone else.

The president should not have to underline such a basic American principle as the freedom of people to worship as they wish without government approval or interference. But with the fires of anti-Muslim bigotry being stoked higher and higher by reckless demagogues, he had to remind the nation that freedom of religion is for everyone, whether or not a particular belief may be popular with the majority.

Or, as Rep. Jerrold Nadler correctly told King, "We do not put the Bill of Rights, we do not put religious freedom to a vote."

Well put.