A town votes down a group of Muslims wanting to set up a store-front mosque. But, y'know, it's all about the hours of operation and the traffic (despite the group agreeing to congregation size requirements by the town). I'm sure the anti-Muslim protesters outside had nothing to do with it.
'“You know, if Christianity were killing people, I’m pretty sure I would have a problem with it," said Pastor C.S. Clarke of the Redeemed Christian Fellowship Church. "Then I would be concerned with that moving into my neighborhood."'
First off, a religion doesn't "kill people" — its practitioners do. And you really don't have to go far to see Christians killing in the world today, in the name of their Christianity (let alone the recent past as in Northern Ireland or in the Jim Crow South, or, for that matter, throughout the history of Christianity). Or are the folk who framed our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as unabashed "crusades" (complete with weapons and sites with Biblical passages on them) not to be counted? What about the violence and atrocities that have occurred, on both sides, in Christian/Muslim fighting in some African countries? What about every Christian who's attacked (or worse) a gay person because of the sin and "abomination" involved, let alone the laws seriously debated (and passed) in good Christian countries subjecting gays to imprisonment or execution?
These are not common acts on the part of the vast majority of Christians, but I could see where if Pastor Clarke wanted to move his church into a largely Muslim neighborhood, there might be some cause for "concern".
Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:
So much for religious freedom.
More people care about the future than the past?
AKA, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
Also, I think it's as much a matter of more people wanting their tribe to stay on top, not realizing the precedent they set if their tribe ever stops being on top. That's not a very good investment in the future, either.
Not that I'm really condoning what they're doing, but when all they're likely seeing in the press are stories on the more militant faction of the religion, maybe they're going for a more "better safe than sorry" route?
You are likely right — though there seem to be plenty of press outlets and pundits who seem to revel in those kind of stories, esp. the parts about how Islam isn't actually a religion and so isn't covered by the 1st Amendment, or how Islam out to take over the world (in a much more sinister way, of course, than Christianity wanting to spread to every nation), or how mosques in the US are all hot-beds of
Jihadistal QaedaISIL recruitment and active terror cells."Better Safe than Sorry" is poor public policy. It's why we don't let Their Kind move into the neighborhood, or vote, or work at the plant, or be around our kids, or hold public office. Because humans are pretty crappy at risk analysis, and "Better Safe than Sorry" is too often an excuse for letting our fear and mistrust of the Other run our lives (and, not incidentally, make the lives of the Other a lot more miserable).
@Mark Means – This would be like basing our public policy in regards to how we treat Christians by what the Westboro Baptist Church does. It’s not only short sighted, but it’s obviously discriminatory in nature; being built out of nothing but fear.
As a side note: when you start a sentence with “Not that I’m really condoning what they’re doing…” and then go on to condone what they’re doing, it negates what you first said. It’s rather like the Southern tradition of ending a sentence with “Bless his heart” when you mean the opposite.