by On the way in to work this morning, I heard an interview on BBC Newshour that included Jordan Sekulow, Deputy Director of Public Affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice. The ACLJ has been a leading voice of the religious right concerning the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” The presenter asked Sekulow whether the plans for the muslim cultural center near ground zero is a religious liberty issue. Sekulow dodged the question in what seems to me a bizarre fashion: he responded that while we have great religious liberties in the United States, this implies great responsibilities for religious organizations. The implication was that, if you’re Muslim and you want the freedom to build a cultural center, you’d better not build it in an otherwise lawful location that really upsets some people.
The last time I checked, if religious liberty means anything, it means the freedom to do and say otherwise lawful things that some people will find uncomfortable or even infuriating. The “responsibility” implied by religious liberty is not the “responsibility” to dilute a religious message or buckle under the pressure of fear and prejudice.
The presenter then asked Sekulow whether the same reasoning applies to the plans of a Florida church to hold a Qur’an burning on September 11. Sekulow dodged again. This is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by “the media,” he explained. It is one small church of only 50 people and doesn’t represent the feelings of most Christians. What’s good for the goose apparently isn’t good for the gander.
The truth is that the stock “blame the media” response is disingenuous. There is a horrible fear and ignorance about Islam in many corners of evangelicalism in the United States. It extends beyond one small crazy little church. I once witnessed a Sunday morning sermon in a 2000-member church, which was part of a national tour by prominent evangelical leader Norman Geisler, about why Islam is a violent religion that must be opposed, including militarily (a deputy of Geisler preached at the service I attended, but Geisler himself preached at other services). The sermon ended with a Powerpoint slide juxtaposing Osama bin Laden and Mother Theresa. Osama is what you get with Islam, the preacher said, and Mother Theresa is what you get with Christianity. (Nevermind that the Senior Pastor of this particular church thought most Catholics were trying to earn salvation by works and therefore were heading for Hell…). People ate it up. I got in lots of trouble with the church leadership for complaining.
Lest my critics jump all over me, I am not suggesting that all or even most evangelicals hate Muslims. The generally conservative evangelical church I now attend would never, never sponsor such outrageous trash as that Geisler Powerpoint show. There are prominent evangelicals involved with groups like the Institute for Global Engagement, which is doing brilliant work on religious freedom and respect between Christians and Muslims. I am an evangelical, and I don’t hate Muslims. But at the same time, ignorance and fear are certainly not confined to a few radical little fundamentalist churches. It is a cancer that, in my view, is part of a disease of reactionary posturing that has afflicted us since at least the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the early twentieth century.
Hypocrisy is a strong word. Sometimes it needs to be said.
Nice post, David, and I agree for the most part. I’m not sure, though, that the “Ground Zero mosque” is best addressed as a religious liberty issue. To me, some of that rhetoric has the tone of, “Well, we really wish they wouldn’t build here, but we care about religious liberty, so we have to stick up for their right to do things even when we wish they wouldn’t.” I think it’s a much more powerful case that is made when we focus on arguments about engagement with Islam, about the need to sabotage radical Islam’s efforts to portray a categorical culture clash between Islam and the west, and about the need to embrace mainstream Islam in order to further marginalize the most radical and violent strains. It’s hard to get to this level of nuance with a religious liberty analysis, I think.
Good point Rob. Here I was mostly trying to highlight the strange phenomenon of a presumed religious liberty advocate insinuating that Muslims don’t really possess religious liberty.