Minaret at Ground Zero
The pressures of America’s far right have made President Obama clarify his initial comments supporting the construction of an Islamic center, which would include a mosque situated two blocks from where the Twin Towers stood. It is as much a triumph for the far right as it is a defeat for the rule of law. American Muslims, as in any democratic country, do not have a special relationship with the law: they have the same right to be protected and respected by the same laws which citizens enjoy.
The arguments used to reject the construction of the Islamic center in New York are similar to those employed in other democratic countries, including Spain, as was seen in recent controversies over the constructions of new mosques in some areas of Catalonia. These arguments lead to the establishment of arbitrary limitations on religion. This is what happens when it is argued that the authorization for mosques should be based on the reciprocity of Islamic countries with respect to churches.
It cannot be demanded that secular and democratic states act as defenders of Christian beliefs, but are instead expected to defend religious liberty. It is in the name of religious freedom, and not Christian beliefs, that they should condemn the obstacles that some Islamic countries implement to discourage the construction of new churches or the free exercise of different religions.
Those responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11 were assassins under orders from al-Qaida. The fact that the terrorist organization invokes Islam to legitimize their crimes does not make them spokespeople for the religion’s followers. For that reason, the argument that the Muslim-American community supposedly lacked sensitivity by promoting the construction of a mosque at ground zero is unacceptable.
Retrospectively, it offers al-Qaida a representation of America it has never achieved to transmit through its criminal methods and, in addition, it casts a shadow on citizens with identical rights as those who practice any other religion. Obama defended these fundamental principles at first, and then clarified his statements. He didn’t do so because of a sudden attack of realism but instead due to the pressure of populist demagoguery, an increasingly worrisome trend in the United States and Europe.
The arguments used to reject the construction of the Islamic center in New York are similar to those employed in other democratic countries, including Spain, as was seen in recent controversies over the constructions of new mosques in some areas of Catalonia. These arguments lead to the establishment of arbitrary limitations on religion. This is what happens when it is argued that the authorization for mosques should be based on the reciprocity of Islamic countries with respect to churches.
It cannot be demanded that secular and democratic states act as defenders of Christian beliefs, but are instead expected to defend religious liberty. It is in the name of religious freedom, and not Christian beliefs, that they should condemn the obstacles that some Islamic countries implement to discourage the construction of new churches or the free exercise of different religions.
Those responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11 were assassins under orders from al-Qaida. The fact that the terrorist organization invokes Islam to legitimize their crimes does not make them spokespeople for the religion’s followers. For that reason, the argument that the Muslim-American community supposedly lacked sensitivity by promoting the construction of a mosque at ground zero is unacceptable.
Retrospectively, it offers al-Qaida a representation of America it has never achieved to transmit through its criminal methods and, in addition, it casts a shadow on citizens with identical rights as those who practice any other religion. Obama defended these fundamental principles at first, and then clarified his statements. He didn’t do so because of a sudden attack of realism but instead due to the pressure of populist demagoguery, an increasingly worrisome trend in the United States and Europe.