The True Meaning of the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy → Washingtons Blog
The True Meaning of the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy - Washingtons Blog

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The True Meaning of the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy

The Founding Fathers believed in freedom of religion, and tolerance of all religions. The Constitution enshrines freedom of religion.

As such, anyone who tries to ban Islam as evil is anti-American.

As Greg Palast argues, if we ban mosques because some Muslims are murderers, we should also ban churches because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Indeed, we should also ban synagogues because some Jews commit terrorism (see second bulleted paragraph).

Of course, anyone who sees their religion as the "good guys" and the other guy's religion as "evil" is living in a cartoon.

As Christian writer and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck explained, there are different stages of spiritual maturity. Fundamentalism - whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu fundamentalism - is an immature stage of development. Indeed, a a Christian fundamentalist who kills others in the name of religion is much more similar to a Muslim fundamentalist who kills other in the name of his religion than to a Christian who peacefully fights for justice and truth, helps the poor, or serves to bring hope to the downtrodden.

But there is another meaning to the Ground Zero controversy.

Nice Gesture ... Now Can We End the Crusades?

The war on terror is largely a religious war.

As I pointed out in January:

ABC News is reporting that U.S. military weapons are inscribed with secret 'Jesus' Bible codes [the military subsequently endorsed this practice]

Conservative Christians were the biggest backers of the Iraq war ...

One of the top Pentagon officials involved in the Iraq war - General William Boykin - literally:

Sees the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role.

Jeremy Scahill describes Boykin as:

A Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence under Bush. Boykin was part of Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle at the Pentagon where he was placed in charge of hunting "high-value targets." Boykin was one of the key U.S. officials in establishing what critics alleged was death-squad-type activity in Iraq.

Boykin's crusade is also important because one of his assigned jobs was:

Speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to combat teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking terrorist leaders. It can easily be speculated that it is this urgency to obtain intelligence, and an uncompromising religious outlook backed by a [crusader] mentality, that has led to the lower echelons in the US military to adopt Saddam Hussein-like brutalities.
Moreover, the U.S. military has just been busted trying to convert Afghanis to Christianity (the same thing happened in Iraq).

As Scahill notes:
What's more, the center of this evangelical operation is at the huge US base at Bagram, one of the main sites used by the US military to torture and indefinitely detain prisoners.
The bottom line is that - while torture was ordered by the highest level Bush administration officials in order to create a false link between 9/11 and Iraq - it seems like many of those who enthusiastically rallied around torture looked at it, literally, as a religious crusade.

As I wrote on May 25th:

According to French President Chirac, Bush told him that the Iraq war was needed to bring on the apocalypse:

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins"...

There can be little doubt now that President Bush's reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam's Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.

And British Prime Minister Tony Blair long-time mentor, advisor and confidante said:

"Tony's Christian faith is part of him, down to his cotton socks. He believed strongly at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil, making lives better."

Mr Burton, who was often described as Mr Blair's mentor, says that his religion gave him a "total belief in what's right and what's wrong", leading him to see the so-called War on Terror as "a moral cause"...

Anti-war campaigners criticised remarks Mr Blair made in 2006, suggesting that the decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.

Given that the Iraq war really was a crusade, the fact that the Pentagon is now saying that it may have to leave troops in Iraq for another decade shows that the crusade is still ongoing under Obama.
Indeed, churchgoers are more likely to back torture of suspected terrorists than atheists (and see this), and torture is apparently still continuing under the Obama administration.

So if Obama wants to create better relations with the Islamic world, he might want to start by ending the Crusades.

Pulling combat troops out of Iraq was a good first step. And high-level intelligence and military leaders have suggested some constructive ideas for Afghanistan. See this and this.

And if Americans want to practice a little Christian charity, how about providing medical care to the heroes who pulled survivors out of the rubble on 9/11, and are now dying due to our neglect?


  1. No. No, no, no, no!

    I will not let this hubris stand. I can agree with -or- disagree with -the sentiments of this article. I have however, read the Founding Fathers, The Federalist Papers, and much-much more.

    There is no truth -there- upon which any author can point to -a grounding- that permits them to state in the title of their own exposition anything about "The True Meaning..."

    It is done no better here, than it has been done elsewhere. Here is a link to an article that is excellent propaganda, and a spin on reality that has even good intellects collapsing under the weight of the incessant obfuscation.

    How to Win the Clash of Civilizations By AYAAN HIRSI ALI

    Authors can cite whoever they may want, but without a cogent argument grounded in some reality that cannot be doubted, we have nothing. -And citing the Founding Fathers here, we clearly have nothing, and no more than AYAAN HIRSI ALI has -in citing all she cites.

    Grasp "The True Meaning" of this following notion from the infinite complexity of our shared delusions about the even more infinitely complex reality that exists out-of-sight behind the screen where none of us gets to look, -who are not gods.

    This GW article cites and popularly denigrates many religions, and then wants us to accept the words written here -as if they come from on high. No.

    Humanity, as it were, literally evolved in feudal societies. Feudalism worked fine for many ten of thousand of years. -And- probably for hundreds-of-thousands of years -to some degree- feudalism existed.

    And then the Enlightenment arose. Thank you Louis XIV, the Sun King.

    Notions of freedoms, liberties, equalities, humanitarianisms, universal suffrages, abolitionist movements, gender equalities, freedom of religions, academic freedoms, utilitarianisms, species liberations, and on and on and on...

    And a few hundred years later, humanity has not evolved one iota.

    We are on the brink of extinction from myriad possible Enlightenment-enabled cataclysms.

    We are still feudal beings -wholly willing to put our heads into the yoke for life.

    Few speak or write of freedom -or- liberty.

    And fewer still will invest themselves in this -more than casually -vicariously -bloggers!

    And less than one in a-hundred-thousand will even go so far as -to blog.

    End the Crusades?

    Anyone who speaks of ending the crusades, is but a crusader himself.

    Know thyself, first -and foremost-.

    The much more massive TRUTH is, a guillotine is the only thing that should be constructed at Ground Zero.

  2. Bravo to GW2. It is religion that has created death and destruction in the past and to this day. Not just religious fundamentalism living and breathing in tribal territories, but deep within "civilized" nations, such as the US.

    Dangerous fundies are all around us. They vote in the congress, and they sit as presidents. They drink the Kool-aid of death and destruction. They believe that God will save them, and rescue and send them to heaven even though they have supported in, engaged in, and lied to create more death and destruction of innocent lives. Not only that, they destroy economies for greedy intent. They destroy lives purposefully for further wealth engorgement, yet go to church and proclaim being saved. What a bunch of delusional crap.

    If there is a benevolent God, this God knows the bullshit games being played by fakers, liars and thieves. Take the stick out of your own eye before removing the stick from someone else's eye.

    We all must condemn religious fundamentalism, since its only motivation is to destroy.

  3. Y'hear that, GW? From now on your posts have to be infallible *and* transcend your enlightenment cultural background. :-)

    Mere mortals like me are happy with you continuing with your best efforts though.

  4. I agree that "We all must condemn religious fundamentalism" whenever its "motivation is to destroy." But the article condemns Christian fundamentalism which sometimes has such motivation, while remaining completely silent regarding another fundamental religion's celebration of the deaths of 3000 in the name of that religion by effectively running a victory lap around downtown NYC.

  5. Religious fundamentalists did not knock down the towers. The discussion is moot toward any truth and only more, seemingly endless -obfuscation.

    Your own government knocked down the towers.

    The current liars-in-office are intent on continuing the lies perpetrated on 9-11.

    Empirically, -these and other idiotic and counter-productive dirty-deeds- are seen as necessary, just as it was seen as empirically necessary -to blame it all on religious fundamentalists (the oil-bearing kind).

    Read your Machiavelli.

    None of this -is anything new. In some ways -this sort of empirical genius- represents the highest achievement of a "free" society.

    It all -empirically- justifies our side having more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else.


  6. Great posts and terrific links! Well done!


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.