Beyond the proposed mortar of the polarizing mosque at Ground Zero lies something even more strongly woven into the foundation of America’s Christian ego and dogmatically-spirited grace: our seldom spoken-of limitations as a people.
And on a Tuesday in which the commander of ground forces in Afghanistan took the rare opportunity to voice his opinion in opposition to Florida pastor Terry Jones, who in recent weeks has taken to the social-networking airwaves in calling for a national day of protest by burning thousands of copies of the Koran, it has become abundantly clear that some are nurturing the roots of a movement dramatically juxtaposed to and in conflict with our nation’s earliest history.
To say that a Christian God is intertwined with our country’s founding is something that now most know to be a fallacy, and yet still the notion pervades and flourishes amongst even moderate evangelicals. One must remember that our founding fathers were products of the enlightenment, and many found little value for Christianity’s exclusionary hierarchy. Any thorough review of the Constitution’s explicit intentions will show a distinct mechanism by which to ensure equal footing for all religions. After all, as much as we harken to the importance of the document, it is important to remember that portions of it were reactionary statements to the national religious tendency of our British forbearers who held up Christianity as a state-sponsored religion – at the expense of the rights of their citizens.
Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to personally redact portions of the bible, omitting passages of the New Testament that contained Jesus’ miracles and supernatural dealings. The text, entitled “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” trusted that those who would study Jefferson’s legacy would be presented with the undeniable truth that the man was a deist at best, perhaps in other moments even straddling the line of an atheistic tendency.
Critics have often stated that God is implicitly mentioned in the Constitution as an indication of our founder’s intentions to establish a Christian state. What is often misconstrued is the fact that in observance of “God’s laws” and the natural laws surrounding man’s rights, the founders believed that a divine being was not interested in human affairs – that our insignificance was of little consequence to the universe’s master intention.
Regardless of the history, religion not only found its way into the lexicon of America’s national identity, but it also rooted itself amidst a country whose superpower status in the modern 20th century was aligned with a moral imperative to do right in a world fraught with dictators, poverty and war. In essence, when the United States did well in our foreign endeavors to liberate and bring peace, it became essentially tantamount to God’s perceived will for a prospering nation.
This sense of endowment, only perpetuated by politicians’ insistence to align themselves with this rise of an ever evangelically-minded voter, created the firestorm that is now fueling anti-Muslim sentiment, fermenting since that fateful day in September, nearly 9 years ago.
What has become nearly impossible to discern though in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque, is whether the origin of vitriol being espoused by many of the Christian Right who insist that the hallow ground of the new World Trade Centers is no place for a house of worship belonging to the religion of those who attacked the site, is rooted in something beyond the flawed talking points of people like Pastor Jones.
While the rhetoric of Jones’ argument is filled with hyperbole and revisionist history when he makes comments such as “we expect Muslims that are here in America to respect, honor, obey, submit to our Constitution,” he neglects the fact that the Constitution protects their right to do such things as build a mosque, even in the most morally questionable of permitted places.
And while the logic may be skewed, all of this leads us to the crux of what Jones and others may perhaps be really trying to say. While constitutionally protected, is placing this Islamic center so close to ground zero either couth or tasteful? Because fundamentally, what seems to be irking the bastions on the Right is the perceived arrogance of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the planned YMCA-esque community center.
Although protected by both the New York City zoning authority and the Constitution itself, what some have billed as an issue of America’s solidarity with a Christian God in a post-war civilian memorial, is at its core a question of general sensitivities and intentions. And whether those polarizing the debate can see the forest for the trees, the outcome will ultimately determine the climate by which peaceful American Muslims and their children will come to identify their country as either warm and welcoming, or hostile and segmented.
The subject of God, or God’s perceived allegiance to a nationality is something that will ultimately cloud the debate with extreme politics or perceptions. Whereas when focused on taste, we can all understand why sometimes it’s better to tread lightly as we forgive the indiscretions of others.
Nicholas M.H. | RootSpeak Staff
Nicholas M.H. is one of the founders of both RootSpeak and the site's parent publisher, Truth&Rights Collective. Between giving his fellow editors a hard time, he fills the remaining hours of each day with his own writing and excursions into the worlds of media cooperatives and creative consulting for various inspired upstarts.
Read more by Nicholas M.H. on RootSpeak
