Religious Freedom, Religious Tolerance...but not for religions that we don't like.

One of the more controversial issues of the last month has been the plans for a group called The Cordoba Initiative to build a Muslim Community Center on the current site of a small mosque, two blocks from the former World Trade Center site known as "Ground Zero". There has been opposition to this construction, from families of 9-11 victims, but also from a broad spectrum of New Yorkers and other Americans, including moderate Muslim groups. Some folks sit on the fence, including President Obama, by saying that this group has freedom of religion, but that they should build it elsewhere.

It is my opinion the opposition is in large part due to an identification of all Muslims with terrorism and blaming all Muslims with the attacks on September 11, 2001. These particular Muslims do not appear to be terrorists, there is no evidence that they support terrorism and there is no indication that this community center will be connected to terrorism. Many of the opponents have brought up specific verses from the Koran and tenets of sharia that they find objectionable to back up their objections to this building. I for one am no fan of Islam and certainly oppose the imposition of sharia anywhere, but utilizing a book of scriptures that has unpleasant parts to it does not mean that all adherents follow a literal interpretation of it, and for those who do, we have that short paragraph in our constitution called the First Amendment. There are sections of the bible where the "believers" literally slaughtered their enemies, men, women, children (and livestock). Of course most Christians today don't believe that we should be doing that anymore, some have biblical justifications like dispensationalism to back that up, and some just choose not to literally interpret their holy book. Christians can do it, but we are to believe that all Muslims are tied to a literal interpretation of their book? And furthermore, do we really want the government deciding where and when houses of worship can be built? Do we want freedom of religion based on a majority vote?

In addition to the wrong identification of all followers of Islam with terrorism, there are some other basic facts that don't get covered by the opponents:

• The Muslim group owns the space and there is already a mosque on site. The proposed construction will be an expansion of the existing mosque
• The dedication will take place on September 11, 2011. Not true, there is no indication that this will happen. 
• The site is not on "Ground Zero", but two blocks away. It will not be visible from the old WTC site, but will be blocked by buildings. (How far away would be acceptable?)
• It is not a "victory" or "conquest" mosque to commemorate the victory of Islam on September 11, 2001

Another thing to consider is that President Bush, correctly in my opinion, declared that our "global war on terror" was not a war on Islam. President Obama has not changed that. If Muslims worldwide and American Muslims in particular perceive that it is a war on Islam, how will that increase and accelerate the radicalization of Muslims?

If we allow freedom of religion by poll or vote, if we allow our own prejudices and fears to guide how we view our fellow Americans (yes, many Muslims are our fellow Americans) than what do have left?