Today, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement weighing in on the controversial Cordoba House Islamic community center.  The position they took was, in a word, disappointing.  In response to the ADL’s opposition of the center being built at Ground Zero, Interfaith Alliance President and State of Belief Host Rev. Welton Gaddy had this to say:

“It was with a great deal of sorrow that I read the carefully constructed statement from the Anti-Defamation League…those who claim to defend religious freedom can not turn their back on it when faced with controversy…We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.”

For more on the debate and bigotry surrounding the Cordoba House, check out this earlier post on the blog and for more on Rev. Gaddy’s perspective, check out his post on the Washington Post’s On Faith blog from earlier this week.

Share on Facebook

Discussions about plans to build an Islamic Community Center two blocks away from Ground Zero now include the voice of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who had this to say on the matter:

“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.”

I implore Gingrich, and those who share his belief, to remember that the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are two entirely different countries, governed by fundamentally different sets of laws and principles.  A comparison of the two countries in this context is like comparing apples to oranges, making it largely illogical to have equal expectations of both.  Stephen Prothero made a similar point on the CNN Belief Blog, as did Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on the Washington Post’s On Faith blog.  Hirschfield wrote:

“Gingrich’s claim…is [an] inane unless one [and] assumes two things: A, that we should now use Saudi Arabia as our benchmark for what is appropriate as far as freedom of religious expression, and unless they are as good as we are, we need not be as good as we have traditionally been. And B, that this is a Saudi project lead by people who could change the Saudi position on religious freedom but have failed to do so.”

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is just that — a kingdom, based in Shariah Law.  The national flag of Saudi Arabia includes the Shahada, the Muslim creed that states “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.”  Islam is the state-established religion; in fact, according to the CIA World Factbook, Saudi Arabia’s population is 100% Muslim.

In contrast, here in the United States of America, having an established national religion is against our constitution – as a result, we are the most religiously diverse country in the world. One of our founding principles is that the government cannot show preference for one religion over another or unfairly discriminate against one faith over another, or faith over no faith.

As an American citizen, and a citizen of the world, I expect a higher level of religious tolerance and acceptance from the United States than from Saudi Arabia.  The United States of America is responsible for upholding the values and judgments it has enshrined in its crowing jewel—the Constitution.

Our own Interfaith Alliance President, Rev. Welton Gaddy, addressed the Ground Zero community center debate in his own On Faith post:

“For years, public discourse…has called for a great moderate Muslim voice to counter extremism. Now, when such a voice is seeking to be heard in meaningful and helpful ways, it faces severe backlash and strong opposition – indicating a continued fear and ignorance of the Muslim faith, even at its most peaceful.”

Reverend Gaddy also recently interviewed Daisy Khan on his weekly radio show State of Belief.  Along with her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Kahn is one of the visionaries behind the community center. I leave you with her words on the matter:

“We always take comfort is knowing that Islam’s struggle in this country is the same as the struggles of those that came before us,’ she told me last week. ‘’It’s one of acceptance. America remains shining example of religious freedom and acceptance.”

Share on Facebook

In an election season that has already seen Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle proclaim her decision to run for office as a divine “calling” and South Carolina Gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley’s struggle to prove that she is “Christian enough,” it just might be time for America to brush up on its own history.

Just as many candidates have utilized the legacy of the Founding Fathers for varying political agendas, the Founders themselves were wildly diverse in their viewpoints, especially concerning religion; to generalize the “Founding Fathers” as having one unified vision for the country is revisionist and over-simplified.

In a recent interview with Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin supported her declaration of the United States as a “Christian nation.”  Palin repeatedly referenced America’s Founding Fathers and documents as proof that the American political system is rooted in Christianity and the King James Bible.

I wonder, then, if Sarah Palin has ever come across the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1797 and unanimously passed by the United States Senate.  In Article 11, this treaty signed by President John Adams, says:

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

In terms of Nikki Haley, it may also be prudent to remind the American public (and Mrs. Haley herself) that the United States Constitution specifically states in Article VI, Section III that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Lastly, the First Amendment, America’s quintessential protection of religious freedom, was supported by a comically diverse group of men.  James Madison of Virginia and Fisher Ames of Massachusetts were two of the Amendment’s biggest supporters and could not have had more opposite beliefs on faith.  James Madison believed that in order for both government and religion to flourish that they had to be kept strictly separate; Fisher Ames thought that the Christian Bible should be taught in public schools.

This is not an issue that applies solely to Republicans.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once referred to President Obama’s Healthcare plan as “honoring the vows of our fathers” in a speech to the House of Representatives.  The chances are, “our fathers” would be just as divided on universal healthcare had that issue presented itself in the 18th Century.

If the “Founding Fathers” themselves did not agree, how can the politicians of today claim to speak for them as a cohesive group?  Generalizations are dangerous and often incorrect; perhaps more candidates should remember this.

Share on Facebook