Ever since habiba posted this I have been trying to look at the other side. I could tell you what I would think as a Muslim, but since I have never been a Muslim (that I know of) I could be criticized for not understanding. Then I imagined that it was Mormon extremists who hijacked the planes and flew them into American icons. At the risk of being criticized for not using a perfect parallel or analogy I will explain how I would feel, turning it around and looking at it from the other side.habiba wrote:If we're going with the "insensitive" argument you have to look at the other side. What about the non-terrorist Muslims that died as well? There were Muslims on the planes, in the buildings, and among emergency responders. It's a disgrace to their memory and sacrifice that celebration of their culture is viewed unacceptable within a certain radius of where they died.
I would be shocked and devastated to learn that a group of well-funded, well-prepared, well-supported Mormons had killed themselves and thousands of innocent civilians in the name of Mormonism and the prophet Joseph Smith. I would want everyone in the whole world to know that these extremists did not represent my views. That I did not support them, that I would never accept any benefits from what they did, and that I would work vigorously to support anyone who wished to condemn these terrorists and work to see that it didn't happen again. So far I'm sure there are some Muslims who feel the same way about the 9/11 attacks as what I have described.
Next, suppose that a group of businessmen decided to build some sort of facility to spread Mormonism through proselyting, a prayer room, and other forms of “outreach,” buying a piece of property that was close enough to the twin towers that debris from one of the hijacked planes had landed on a building on the property. Two of the most prominent and important members of this group are Mormons that I had never heard anything good about, and for some unknown reason they were keeping the identity of the other businessmen a secret. Then this group of businessmen find a well-known moderate businessman and Mormon church leader to be the principle fund-raiser, letting people think that it is his peaceful, evangelical Mormon organization which is in charge of building a huge Mormon church meetinghouse The businessmen, however, will apparently control the use of the building.
Now, I know that many people will know enough about Mormonism to know that the particular sect from which this Mormon church leader is a part, is considered to be quite peaceful. This will help in the publicity. But I also know that it doesn't make that much difference, because a Mormon building by one sect will be used freely by Mormons of every other sect. Not that it makes any difference, but it still isn't clear which sect will own the building and be in charge. Also, moderate Mormons fear to offend the Mormon extremists, and with good reason.
I would expect opposition, because frankly you can't tell the difference when you look at a Mormon what sect he belongs to. Nor can you tell from the type of building he builds. Nor would that building be for the exclusive use of only peaceful, moderate Mormons. I would understand that the offending principle would be the reminder that it was Mormons who did the killing, and they did it in the name of Mormonism. My support would be for those who wished to uphold the idea that Mormon extremism should not be tolerated. I would support keeping Mormon buildings out of the Ground Zero area as a statement that I am vehemently opposed to Mormon terrorism.
Would I feel that my religious rights have been violated? No. Why would I, knowing that there are many other Mormon church buildings in New York City (there are over 200 mosques in New York City)? There is no problem with Mormons owning church buildings in those locations. No restrictions on religious worship, just building a certain kind of building in one particular small part of Manhattan. Besides, this strikes me as more of a business deal than a religious cause.
Would I feel that my freedom of assembly was being taken away? No. There are plenty of places where I am free to assemble. Besides, I know that Mormons are already assembling in prayer rooms at the newly purchased Burlington Coat Factory where the Mormon cultural building is to be built. They don't need to turn the building into a “Mega-Mormon Monument” in order to assemble even there. And no one is protesting this assembly of Mormons at Ground Zero.
Would I feel that my civil rights were being violated, or my First Amendment rights? Maybe, a little bit. But to blindly insist on every possible right, regardless of how much harm it does, seems fanatical to me. A wiser course of action, and ultimately leading to greater freedoms and rights, would be to back off and respect those of other faiths that I agree with, that we do not want to give even the slightest impression that we sympathize or support Mormon extremists.
Yes, there were Mormons who died on the planes, in the buildings, and among emergency responders. And it would disgrace their memory and sacrifice if anything within Ground Zero could be construed as a celebration of the extremist culture of the radical Mormons.
So, do we give others more rights and privileges than we would give ourselves?
