Freedom of Religion − for Whom?

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 26, 2010

Those who want to build a mosque at Ground Zero could build it anywhere. Why do they insist on building it there? Either they are utterly insensitive to the spirits of the dead and to the feelings of the survivors, or they are intentionally insulting those spirits and those feelings. Why should we try to please such people? Why should we try to placate those who heap vile insults on those who oppose the mosque? Why should we use “freedom of religion” to excuse appeasing those whose aim is to abolish freedom of religion?

Proponents of the mosque claim that it will merely be near Ground Zero. No. Pieces of an airliner fell through the roof. The building was covered with dust composed of pulverized concrete, pulverized steel, pulverized glass − and pulverized human bodies. The building is part of Ground Zero.

It is already a holy place. As Lincoln said about the battlefield at Gettysburg, it is already consecrated far above our power to add or detract. But it is within our power to insult the memory of the dead, and pour salt on the wounds of the survivors. And like all hypocrites, we can camouflage our cowardice and insensitivity, and pretend to do this for noble reasons. We can do it in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity.” We can do it in the name of “freedom of religion.” But freedom for whom?

● A court ordered the State of Utah to remove 13 crosses from the side of highways. But the crosses were not there to encourage drivers to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. They were placed, at private expense, to honor the memory of Highway Patrol officers who had been killed in the line of duty. Like headstones in National Cemeteries, they represented the faith of the fallen, not an attempt to proselytize the public. Only a fool would not know this. Only a fanatic would object. Fanatical fools are not people I want to hold power over me.

● The Supreme Court ordered the removal of a cross from the Mojave Desert. The cross was erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars 75 years ago to honor our war dead. The government ceded the small spot of land where the cross was located to private owners, but the court insisted. Before the cross could be removed, it was stolen. How’s that for “tolerance”?

● Schools and universities remove Christmas trees because of fear that a few students might feel “excluded.” About 78.5% of Americans identify themselves as Christians − why must they be excluded? Besides, Christmas trees are a largely secular symbol with a pagan origin. Only an entitled narcissist would object. Only a lawyer looking to make trouble where there is none would take the case.

● A school board sought to ban singing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” because the song mentions Santa and Christmas, and has “religious overtones.” Ironically, the song was written by a Jew, but the school board found it too Christian. However, “Do not steal” clearly has religious overtones. Must we ban that, too?

● A high-school band was forbidden to play Christmas music, even without the words. Among the songs banned was that deeply religious hymn, “Frosty the Snowman.” Anyone who finds “Frosty the Snowman” too religious should be lying on a therapist’s couch, not sitting in a judge’s chair.

● A children’s hospital stopped handing out a Christmas music CD to the young patients because it mentioned Jesus. Apparently these “sensitive,” “compassionate,” “tolerant” people thought that seriously ill children should not be exposed to such a toxic influence. (The link to this story expired, but similar ones are listed here.)

● Judges banned Christmas programs from schools, but permitted observing the Mexican Day of the Dead. Death sí, nativity no. Go figure.

● An eight-year-old student was told to draw a “picture about the holidays.” When he drew Jesus on the cross, he was sent home, and his parents were told to seek therapy for him. His father, a school custodian, objected. But the school’s response was to cut the father’s hours of work. How “pro-child” and “pro-family” is that?

● An eleven-year-old student had his holiday poem marked down because it used a forbidden word: “Jesus.” Cussing and swearing in the hallways? No problem. But writing “Jesus” in a poem? No way.

● Stores instruct employees to say “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas,” for fear of lawsuits. Judges ban Nativity scenes from public property. Meanwhile, skeletons and ghouls for Halloween are allowed without comment. Apparently “tolerance” for “diversity” has its limits.

● Malls ban Salvation Army Santas. Are bell-ringers collecting for the needy really offensive? Who believes they are? Why should we try to please such colossal ingrates?

Polls reveal that 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas. How is it “inclusive” to exclude this vast majority? And 90% believe it is the birthday of Jesus. How is it “tolerant” not to tolerate expression of this widely held belief? Liberals claim that our Founders were deists or agnostics who wrote the Constitution so as to prevent any influence of religion on our public life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Planned Parenthood, which receives taxpayer funds, issued holiday gift certificates for birth-control services − including abortion. Mark Steyn suggested holiday cards showing an empty manger, which may be the underlying motive. Meanwhile, schoolchildren were taught to sing a hymn to President Obama, while other students were taught to take Muslim names and imagine they were Muslims − and courts approved. Freedom for whom? It’s becoming painfully obvious.

Many people believe that with Christianity overthrown, we will enjoy a peaceful, tolerant, secular paradise. This belief is shared by atheists and by many nominal Christians, including those in charge of our government and in charge of liberal churches. But these people are badly mistaken.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do would-be totalitarians. Waiting impatiently to take power are state socialists on one side and radical Islamists on the other. Which of them will triumph is difficult to predict, though currently the socialists are in the lead. But in the end, it makes little difference whether our freedom will be crushed by a host of regulations from imams in robes, or by a host of regulations from bureaucrats in suits.

Humor is the enemy of totalitarianism. University of Texas students put up an “ACLU Solstice Barn” to replace a banned Nativity scene. Included were Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph; Nancy Pelosi as an angel; Marx, Lenin and Stalin as the Wise Men; and a shepherd with an explosive belt − but of course, no Baby Jesus.

Similarly biting humor is beginning to appear regarding the Ground Zero mosque. Totalitarians cannot stand humor − witness the violence following the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. Would-be totalitarians may react with fury, but it is impossible to fear the ridiculous, or to bow down to the absurd.

A rising tide of protests makes it less likely that construction will begin on the Ground Zero mosque. And even if construction does begin, hostile workers are unlikely to complete it. Superficially, this is a win-win situation for backers of the mosque. If it is built, they will say − correctly − that Americans are too weak to block it. And if it is not built, they will say − incorrectly − that Americans are religious bigots. But on a deeper level, if the mosque is not built it will be a win for those who love freedom.

We cannot stop people from spouting untruths or outright lies. What we can do, and must do, is to point out with crystal clarity that a mosque at Ground Zero would represent not a monument to freedom of religion, but a memorial to suicidal stupidity and naiveté. It would represent not a milestone on the road to universal tolerance, but a tombstone on the road to universal intolerance.

Build it anywhere but there.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com