It's your average suburban area, with schools, houses, and grocery stores and such things. Middle-class America where your neighbours are just a little too concerned that your grass isn't cut the proper way, or at all some days, and everyone is just a little more 'proper' and narcissistic than they have any right to be.
A young man, fresh from Seminary, finds that the neighbourhood has so many things, but no place for the Christian population to worship and hear the Word of God. So he takes it upon himself to find a proper building, get all the necessary permits, look into staff, and start a small church.
And then he tells his neighbour, who is not a Christian. The neighbour is horrified!
A church? The breeding grounds of hypocrisy and disdain and judgmentalism? In their neighbourhood? Where their children could overhear Christian ministers preaching about condemnation, hell, and the shortcomings of other religions?
The neighbour is quick to inform the others in the neighbourhood about the church. He makes sure to point out how Christians were responsible for the Crusades, how they start conflict with those that don't agree with them, share propaganda with impressionable youth, and teach a religion that is full of hypocrisy, judgement, and superiority, putting themselves above the law.
The neighbourhood is in outrage. Members off different faiths unite to keep the church from being formed. They protest, armed with signs, picketing the potential church site. Letters are written to the government and sides are taken at City Hall and in the State Legislature. Some support the church, some oppose it. The congregation of this church could take over the government, destroy the Constitution and bring on the end of the world, its' opponents argue.
Preposterous isn't it? Why would a country that has the freedom of religion in it protest the presence of a church? Any church?
But read this:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Maybe you agree with the protesters, that having a Mosque in a community is dangerous, promotes violence, leads to terrorism, and will ultimately destroy good communities. But, how can you demand freedom of religion if you are not willing to give it to someone else? Maybe you don't believe the same things, don't condone their views, and don't want them in your neighbourhood. But what about you? Your religion or lack thereof, your lifestyles and beliefs, and everything you do. Should they be put up for public debate? If not, why not?
Maybe that's going a little far. Still, if we extend freedom to practice religion to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions, the simple fact of the matter is that we must also extend it to Muslims as well. Even if we don't want to.
In every religion there are radicals. Every community has those who take things a little too far. But, as this article points out on page two, radicals don't usually attend church. It's too traditional for them, too conservative, and doesn't promote the things they want to see happen. I'm pretty sure the Internet promotes more extremism, radicalism, and conflict than a church does.
In protesting freedom of religion, which is essentially what these Tea Partiers are protesting, you show only the darkness of the human condition, and of any religion. It shows only contempt, superiority, judgement, and hypocrisy. Contempt for another's beliefs, superiority in our belief that only we are right, judgement in how things should be done, and hypocrisy in our cry for freedom of religion for us and not for others.
Freedom of religion: The right, as guaranteed under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to practice one's religion or exercise one's beliefs without intervention by the government and to be free of the exercise of authority by a church through the government.
And for the official follow up, check this out.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/real-americans-please-stand-up/
No comments:
Post a Comment