Download In 1620, a group of Englishmen landed in Massachusetts in hopes of

Oppression In the Land of the Free In 1620, a group of Englishmen landed in Massachusetts in hopes of escaping religious
persecution. Roughly a century and a half later, the Continental Congress explicitly stated that
all religions would be free to worship in the United States. Islam in the United States is not a
toxic or extremist religion. The Muslim community should not be blamed for the September 11th
attacks because the vast majority of Muslims were as horrified as non-Muslims during the attack.
Radical Christians have used their Lord’s name to commit heinous acts the ages. Muslim’s
Allah and Muhammad have also had their names used during extremist activity. Any religious
text can be taken out of context or used to further any agenda. There are wide discrepancies in
how one can interpret religion, and a group should not be persecuted for the opinions of some. It
is both against the Constitution and the promise of freedom that Americans strive to uphold to
keep this mosque from being built.
The Muslim congregation purchased the land legally and is attempting to build a
religious center under the ordinances and laws of the local government. The congregation has
done nothing wrong and should not be restricted because of one event that is tied to an extremist
sect of its religion. If this congregation, or any of its active members, had participated in or
publically applauded the September 11th attacks, then the mosque should not be allowed to be
constructed so close to an important government building because it would be a direct threat to
that building. This congregation had no part in attacking Americans and so has the same rights
as any other religious group in the United States. It is generally accepted that a few million
Muslims live in the United States, although estimates vary wildly. Most Muslim citizens were
born in America and have the same sense of patriotism that their Christian or non-religious peers
possess.
Oppression In the Land of the Free Undoubtedly, the senseless loss of life during acts of terrorism is incomprehensible for
citizens who have not experienced such a tragedy. A memorial or remembrance site should be
placed at or near the place of attack so that family and friends of the deceased can pay tribute.
However, a “sensitivity zone” is unconstitutional and absurd. What governing body would
determine how large this zone should be? Wal-Mart recently stopped fighting for the right to
build a store near the site of a Civil War battle field because of pressure from historians. The
land is not set aside for memorial or park use, and the store would not be located where the battle
took place, but rather a mile away from the entrance to the park. There are already commercial
buildings in the area. Because the land is not set aside for a memorial or park, it is open to
buying and selling, just like any land in America. Putting a retail store a mile away from the site
of a Civil War battle field would not take away from the battle’s historical significance, just as
placing a mosque a few miles away from where an act of terrorism took place would not take
away from the gravity of lost lives.
The congregation will obviously have the safety of its members in mind as it designs and
constructs the mosque. Outdoor lighting to increase safety and deter vandals is at the discretion
of those who own the property. The government has the right to regulate outdoor lighting and
other security features at religious institutions so long as the laws apply to all places of worship,
much the same as all schools and day-cares are required to have certain safety measures. Since
the county has only designated that this new mosque have such lighting, it is religious
persecution. All local churches, synagogues, and places of worship for other religions should be
required to set up the same lights if it is a question of security.
Requiring the mosque to pay two police officers to patrol the area is a gross breech of the
First Amendment and right to worship as one pleases. All religious institutions in the area
Oppression In the Land of the Free should be forced to have officers patrol the area if the county is worried about confrontations
between people of different religions or ethnic orientations. Having the police on site constantly
could be perceived as the government keeping a closer watch on Muslims and their religious
practices than those citizens who practice other religions. Some churches are infamous for
having anti-government rhetoric, yet they do not “need” extra security to keep skirmishes in
check. The Muslim community is not a threat to the United States government, and it should not
be treated as such.
The congregation agreed to abide by the rules set forth by the government by trying to
obtain the proper documents to build a religious institution. However, when agreeing to play by
the rules, one assumes that the rules will remain the same for all players and will not be changed
when one joins. Asking any private institution to make a donation in order to obtain
documentation is unconstitutional and could be construed as bribery or blackmail. Money has no
place obtaining proper documentation for anything other than fees that are equal for all people,
such as the fees charged at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Perhaps the local government officials should look to the Quran for the answer to their
mosque woes: “Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one
another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another. You are brothers.” Or
perhaps the Bible holds the answer: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” These phrases
hold truer in America than in any other country of the world, and should be upheld by peoples of
all faiths.