Photo by crystalina on Wikipedia

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida is planning “Burn a Quran” day to honor the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  There is a concern this will spark more than a little outrage from the Muslim community both here and abroad.

Recently I wrote about there seeming to be a general consensus that building the so-called ground zero mosque was legal, but many felt that even so, it was still insensitive of the Muslim community to not take into account the feelings of the 9/11 survivors.  Further, I asserted that the only way for the proposed mosque to be an insult was if someone was prejudiced against all Muslims and holding them accountable for the WTC attacks—a point reinforced by the planned book burning which clearly is blaming all of Islam for 9/11.  Further, are all Christians prepared to take responsibility for the Quran burnings?  If not, then why are all Muslims responsible for 9/11?  Still, several people wrote in response to that article that even if the emotional reaction to the planned construction was irrationally prejudiced, it was still appropriate to consider people’s feelings.

There are a couple of problems with that line of reasoning.  First and foremost is that if hurting the feelings of groups of Americans really mattered, then events like “Burn a Quran Day” would be generating outrage at the level similar to the Manhattan mosque.  But there is barely a peep in the media.  Is this simply too small an event to get noticed?  Gen. David Petraeus doesn’t think so, and has expressed concern that should this go forward it will place his troops in the Middle East at significant risk of reprisal.  Further, can you imagine the outrage from politicians and the media if an imam were planning a “Burn the Bible Day” in Kuwait?

Clearly the issue here is not about respecting the feelings of others in general.  But perhaps it’s not everyone’s feelings who count.  Perhaps the issue is that 9/11 was such a significant physical, emotional, and psychological scar that we owe special deference to the site and to the families and friends of those who died or were injured there.  How then do you reconcile that House Republicans overwhelmingly drove the defeat of the  9/11 health bill.  This fully paid for bill provided medical assistance to 9/11 survivors and their families now suffering aftereffects from the disaster.  Yet the same group that killed this bill is now crowing the loudest about the proposed Muslim Park51 Community Center.

It seems 9/11 is only sacred when it’s politically opportune.  And that perhaps is the key lesson in all this.  “9/11″ is politically powerful.  George Bush was reelected on it in 2004.  Rudy Giuliani’s entire 2008 Presidential bid was based on it.  It has been used as a basis for justifying the Patriot Act, rendition, torture, and other policies and programs that should make freedom loving Americans cringe.

9/11 was the most significant American tragedy of our time.  We should never forget that.  We should honor it, and the men and women who suffered because of it, and continue to suffer.  But there is no honor in using it as a political lever as is being done with the mosque controversy.  And there is no honor in Terry Jones’ plans to burn Qurans.  We’re better than that—at least we profess to be.  It’s time to start acting that way.

Photo by Steve Evans

The ongoing debate over the Islamic Community Center to be built over two blocks from the WTC site in New York City continues to spiral out of control.

While many loud voices are out there claiming such, there can be little defense for opposing the construction of this building in a land whose Constitution guarantees religious freedom, and whose laws support the right of citizens or groups to own property and build on that site within legal building codes and regulations.

What’s more concerning is the number of people who accept that this effort should not be illegal, but are expecting sympathy on the statement that for a Muslim group to construct the center so close to “ground zero” this soon is at least insensitive and in poor taste.  That it is somehow disrespectful to those who died there.

It’s tempting to ask when such a structure wouldn’t be too soon given that 9/11 happened a decade ago.  For perspective, that’s like opposing any notion of Japanese heritage or culture in Hawaii in the mid-1950s.  Or maybe the question is, how close is too close?  There is already a prayer room four blocks away, so it seems that must be okay.  But who decided anything less than four blocks is an insult?  And an insult to whom?  There were Muslims who died in that tragedy as well.  And many 9/11 families have come out in support of the project.  Do we take a vote?  Who gets to vote?  Or is it just that as long as anyone is offended, then this isn’t okay?

Yet putting all those questions aside, the very essence of the notion that anything about this project is remotely insensitive is predicated on equating Islam with terrorism.  Think about that.  There is zero evidence this Muslim group is in any way tied to any terrorist organization.  The imam leading this group, Feisal Abdul Rauf, was vetted and deployed by George Bush to promote America to the Muslim world after 9/11.  Unless you hold that all Muslims are at some level responsible for terrorism, then there is no way for this group or their plans to build a gym, pool, culinary school, prayer room, and meeting center to be a threat or an insult to anyone.

Finding this project insensitive requires that you hold over a billion people responsible for the acts of dozens.  Even if you allow for one million Muslims worldwide to be terrorists, a number that seems pretty darn large, you are holding all of them accountable for the acts of less than 0.1%.

If your child were killed by a person who looked like you, and was part of your culture and religion.  One who claimed he was on a mission from God.  You would hate him and want justice and maybe revenge.  But you wouldn’t then hate the others in his church or in his community because that’s your group too.  You’d have to blame yourself.  Yet when someone different commits an atrocity, it’s all to easy to conflate your hatred for the individual with a hatred for, or fear of, the group as a whole.

Consider that when you talk about this project showing Muslim insensitivity, perhaps what you really mean is that you find them being insensitive to your bigotry.  Then ask yourself if that’s really the position you want to lead with.

I’ve believed that most people don’t steal, they don’t kill, and they don’t rape and pillage because at their core they believe it’s wrong.  But a couple of recent comments have caused me to ponder just how much of our world is held together by force.  I don’t mean forces like gravity or the strong nuclear force, but rather the threat of punishment.

A commenter on the recent post contrasting the 2nd and 14th amendments opined, “the 2nd amendment is there to allow citizens to fight off an oppressive government, whether a foreign one or our own. But the most important reason for it ,is to preserve our God given right of self defense..Without the 2nd amendment…all the other ones can be taken away.”  The underlying theme of his comment seems to be that governments only behave because of the constant palpable threat of insurrection by the people.

In a completely different vein, another person opined regarding atheism that he could never himself be an atheist because he felt there would then be no reason not to just get up every morning and do whatever he felt like.  He feared that without the threat of God’s wrath, he’d become a complete hedonist.

In both these cases, the people are ordinary everyday folks.  These are not borderline criminals or people you would otherwise fear.  Yet they both seem to feel it is only the threat of punishment that keeps their world from falling into chaos.

This is causing me to seriously question whether these two guys are an anomaly or whether they actually represent a far greater portion of the population than I might have expected.  If it is only by force that much of this world is held together, then maybe that explains some things.  Perhaps this is the underlying motivation behind those who would seek to impose rigid rules with draconian punishments on the minutiae of our lives.  Whether those rules are religious, political, or just organizational, they are the rope that binds their own worlds from bursting apart, and they wish to assure that no one else operates outside those constraints.

It’s understandable that if you feel that without being strapped to your seat you’d be running amok in the cabin that you would question the motives and actions of anyone not similarly bound.  It’s not that I thought these people didn’t exist, but rather that they existed at the fringes of society, not in its mainstream.  And I’m now coping with the dawning realization this may be a naive view.

The ease with which looting and rioting break out in otherwise civilized cities is perhaps further indication we are not as evolved as I might have hoped.  Maybe we are really just very large children, constrained only by the watchful gaze of a parent figure.  Yearning to be free of that yoke and run wild through the neighborhood.

If true, a sad reality indeed.

Much ado has been made over last week’s defacement of a secular organization’s billboard in North Carolina. I personally thought this was kind of a non-event.  But then Chrissy Satterfield had to go and defend the vandalism as God’s work.

The billboard was hardly an overtly atheistic statement. After all, the snippet reflects the Pledge of Allegiance as originally written in 1892, and as it was up until the insertion of the words “under God” in 1954.  Yet it was still a clear jab, and was kind of asking for it.  So when I initially heard this news I just smiled.  Somewhat ironically, the defacement of the billboard called national attention to a message that otherwise would have gone largely unnoticed on a local highway.  Whatever.

But then Satterfied had to go and declare the vandalism as a sign from God.

Just when I start believing there is no hope for our country I get a little reminder from my God that all is not lost. …so the vandals inserted “Under God” with spray paint – and I couldn’t be more relieved. It’s nice to know that I am not alone in my beliefs and that some people are still willing to stand on the right side of truth.

I also need to extend a thank you to some people in Sacramento and Detroit. In February, 10 atheist billboards were defaced in the Golden State and a slew of atheist bus ads were vandalized in Detroit. My dose of honesty this week: I am not happy that vandalism seems to be the only way to get an atheist’s attention. I’m happy that I can count on other Christians to stand up for themselves and for Christians everywhere. It gives me hope.

She does bother to point out that she would never encourage vandalism, but apparently she isn’t above being grateful for it.  Whatever.  The real issue I have is with her statement about the organization who put up the billboard.

They probably figured that because the Bible teaches Christians to turn the other cheek, we’ll just take their abuse forever. We will only take so much before we stand up against our oppressors.

Ummm… maybe she has a version of the bible I’m unfamiliar with, but Matthew 5:38-40 says:

³⁸“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’^{[a] 39}But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Jesus doesn’t seem to be saying just put up with it until it pisses you off.  And even if he did feel that rebellion was appropriate at some point, are we to believe that having your possessions  taken is forgivable, but billboards are over the line?  If she wants to advocate for small crimes as free speech and appropriate expressions of outrage, fine.  But I fail to see she has any grounds to justify those actions as being what Jesus would do.

Further, “stand up against our oppressors.” Seriously?  Secular beliefs in the US hover in the mid-single digit percentages.  Less than 2% of Americans self-identify as atheists.  In the vast majority of the country an atheist couldn’t be elected dog catcher.   How bad can the oppression possibly be?

In Jesus’ time, Christians were oppressed and persecuted.  The Jews of the Old Testament were similarly downtrodden.  In fact, most all of the bible is written to preach a message of hope to the hopeless.  It’s one of the reasons the Abrahamic religions found such purchase among the commoners of Europe and the Middle East.  But that was then.  No one sends Christians to the lions anymore.  Yet I do wonder sometimes if this victim mentality somehow survives despite Christians being the vast majority of the population of western counties and the driving cultural force of western society.

To Chrissy: on behalf of myself and the handful of other atheists in your midst, mea culpa.  We’ll try to be more careful so as to not rattle the panes in your glass mansion as we ride by on our bikes.