http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38613

 

Obama Backing Mosque Defies Religious Freedom 

by  James
<http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=James+Zumwalt%20>
Zumwalt 

08/19/2010 

 

As the emotional debate over building the Ground Zero Mosque continues,
President Obama announced his support for the Muslim initiative. 

On August 13, at a White House dinner celebrating the Islamic month of
Ramadan, he emphasized that "Muslims have the same right to practice their
religion as anyone else in this country. This is America and our commitment
to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all
faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by
their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must
endure."

In citing the need to preserve "the writ of our Founders," Obama ignores
history and a major concern about Islam cited by two of our Founding
Fathers. He also fails to grasp the concept that religious tolerance does
not mean embracing religious intolerance. 

Two of our Founding Fathers-Thomas Jefferson and John Adams-serving as
America's ambassadors to France and Britain respectively-met in London with
Tripoli's ambassador to Britain in 1786. Their mission was to negotiate a
peace treaty to end unprovoked attacks against American ships that were
being launched by pirates from various Muslim countries along the Barbary
Coast and their enslavement of captured American crewmen.  

Jefferson and Adams queried the Tripoli ambassador as to why our ships were
being attacked. His response sufficiently concerned the two Founding Fathers
that they felt compelled to report what was said to the Continental
Congress:

"That it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in
their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their
authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon
them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take
as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure
to go to Paradise."

While the writ of religious freedom is an important mandate established by
our Founding Fathers, so too is the writ mandating separation between church
and state. This concept emanates from a principle espoused by philosopher
John Locke of a "social contract"-the structure by which people form states
to maintain social order. Rational people exercise their individual
conscience to form these states-a consciousness which cannot be ceded to a
government or others to control. Thus, legitimate state authority has to
derive from the consent of the governed-a concept contrary to Islamic
belief.

While freedom of religion is important, Islam represents a religion and a
political movement rolled into a single belief system. Most worrisome is the
fact that it is a belief system in which individual conscience has been
abandoned by adherents who have ceded control to others-to their spiritual
leaders whose words then dictate the adherents' actions. This was clearly
explained by former Egyptian terrorist-in-training Tawfik Hamid who was
warned, after asking questions of his handlers in an exercise of his
individual conscience, "If you start to think for yourself, you will become
an infidel." 

Islam fosters a belief system that views all other religions-deemed by
Prophet Muhammad-as inferior; a belief system that rejects equal rights for
all in favor of only a very small percentage of mankind (Muslim men); a
belief system that makes Islam the betta fish of all religions-looking to
consume them or make them subservient to it. 

No other major religion condones the violence Islam does to attain its goal
as the most dominant religion in the world. Its game plan, eventually, is to
create but one international rule of law standard-that of sharia law. We
have already seen signs of this brutal law creeping into Western culture,
cracking the very foundations of respect and dignity for human life upon
which democracies are built.  

Two years ago in England, where a very large Muslim population resides, the
Archbishop of Canterbury suggested sharia be accepted into the country's
legal system. Any responsible citizen embracing equality for all human life
knows doing this fundamentally affects the integrity of the host country's
law and the values around which its legal system was built.

In a case hitting much closer to home and not too far from where supporters
seek to build the Ground Zero Mosque, a New Jersey judge-trying a rape case
involving an accused Muslim husband and victim wife-opted to apply Islamic
law. The law invoked is one demanding a wife surrender herself to her
husband's desire for sexual intercourse. As the blunt language of one
Islamic religious scholar of old explains the wife's duty to her husband, it
is "to surrender herself . (and) she should not refuse him even if she is on
a camel's saddle."  The New Jersey judge applied sharia finding that, in the
husband's mind, he had not committed rape.  

By adopting such logic, this judge opens the door now for a murderer to be
excused who has performed an honor killing-e.g., of a female family member
who has been raped, thus dishonoring her family and mandating her death in
order for the family's honor to be restored. In effect, the judge's ruling
says the wife must surrender her individual conscience to the will of
another-her husband. (Ironically, had the wife killed her husband in
self-defense, no protections for her exist under sharia, thus leaving her
subject to New Jersey law.)   

A danger exists in grouping Islam, as it exists today with a political
component, together with all other religions to be freely practiced on an
equal footing. The belief system within Islam-packed with a political punch
and believers who have surrendered their individual conscience to their
spiritual puppeteers-makes it a religion "on steroids," challenging the free
practice of all religions equally.  

The President is right: America should open its doors to all religions. But
the assumption is all religions will preach on a level playing field.
However, Islam grows because fertile ground is provided to allow it to do so
at the expense of other religions. Muslim countries impose restrictions upon
other religions, effectively leaving Islam the only religion "in town."
While Obama supports a mosque being built on the hallowed ground created by
9/11, no Muslim country would even consider allowing other religions to
build a house of worship on ground deemed hallowed by Islam.

It is surprising Obama touts religious freedom as a basis for supporting
construction of the Ground Zero mosque at the same time he has even failed
to do what previous presidents have done by declaring religious freedom a
"value" to be promoted as part of our national security strategy. As that
strategy also declined to make reference to any threat by Islamic extremists
or to even use the word "Islam," could it be Obama was similarly intimidated
into avoiding any reference to religious freedom as a strategic national
value?  

A finding by the Pew Research Center that "religious liberty means less
religious persecution and thus less conflict" also suggests we should
include religious freedom as part of our national strategy. The finding
underscores too why more Muslims are killed today by fellow Muslims than by
non-Muslims-for Islam's intolerance and brutality extends even to its own
followers. As the Institute for Global Engagement recommends, there should
be "a more comprehensive integration-intellectually and institutionally-of
religious freedom into the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy"-as part of a
discourse on the equality of all human life. Yet Obama made no mention about
such equality while endorsing the Ground Zero mosque.

There are clearly significant differences among the many religions practiced
in the world today. Where dignity for all human life is a cornerstone of a
religion, we should not hesitate to open our doors to it. However, where
such dignity is lacking-attaching only to its male believers whose spiritual
leaders then harness and direct their individual consciousness as a
political weapon, such a religion endangers the free practice of religion by
all.  

The President's endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque does not represent the
exercise of religious freedom, it represents acceptance of religious
intolerance and human inequality.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to