When I heard about the "split" in the Democratic party between Harry Reid and President Obama regarding the building of the mosque near Ground Zero, and as I listened to Senator Reid voice his objections to the mosque, my first thought was that the Senator should know better.
While tight elections often give rise to such craven political pandering, Harry Reid is a member of a faith that is barely a generation out of religious persecution itself -- a faith that is not one-fifth as old as Islam, and whose adherents have at times embraced both racial segregation (prior to 1978, Mormons did not allow African-Americans to be ordained to the priesthood) and the taking up of arms against the United States government.
Indeed, 144 years before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center - but also, coincidentally, on September 11 - over 100 American settlers (including unarmed men, women and children) were killed by Mormon militiamen who were then engaged in open rebellion against the United States.
I mean neither to disparage Mormons, nor to advance prophetic conspiracy theories about the historical significance of September 11, nor to play the numbers game about how many people have died at the hands of various religious adherents. Nor am I suggesting that we adopt an ostrich in the sand approach regarding the dangers posed by Islamic extremism (including the extremists among our ostensible "allies," the Saudis).
I note only that we walk a very slippery slope when we begin to conflate the lunatics on the fringe with law abiding believers of any faith - and the insult that is being perpetrated upon our American-Muslim countrymen (many of whom have taken up arms for this country in the course of the two wars in which we are now engaged) is something that should give us all pause.
Among this country's foundational principles is the notion that those of minority (and sometimes unpopular) faiths are entitled to the free expression of their faith without being unfairly targeted or singled out for discriminatory treatment by the government. I would hope that we would be as committed to that principle in 2010 as we were at the time of the country's founding.
I recently had a conversation with an opponent of the mosque (whose construction is near Ground Zero and not actually on the site - another interesting confusion of facts in which its detractors have continued to engage) who, after comparing the mosque to a casino and arguing that "religious freedom" was not at issue, sought to reassure viewers that she was not in favor of tearing down Islamic houses of worship.
Well, that is certainly a big relief. Good to know that in the United States of America we've drawn the line at burning down the places where people choose to pray.
I think we would all agree, however, that our standards should be a bit higher.
Editor's Note: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the Mormon Church's history regarding African Americans
Follow Tanya M. Acker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tanyaacker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9SgDoypXcI
How could ANY faith be willing to go back to ANY of that?
This scapegoating Muslims is sickening, and so is the over glorification of the WTC rubble as hallowed ground. It's the site of a horrible cowardly attack on America, and a deep tragedy for thousands, and it was intended, and suceeded in terrorizing All Americans. It's still NOT hallowed ground, and this nostalgia of what it was and what it wasn't, is an ugly pre-election GAME unworthy of any of us.
I recall LGBT survivors as the ONLY people who had to FIGHT for any share of the donations ALL Americans gave. I recall Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson SPITTING on women, gays/lesbians, and the ACLU for the attack....2 days after the attack.
Muslims DECIDE where they build or improve properety.....PERIOD
EVERY denomination and aethiests should unflinchingly STAND with this congregation of Muslims in NYC, as an Ecumenical Council demanding Religious Freedom for ALL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqyeb-5ZfEc&feature=player_embedded
His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
We apparently fooled by the previous Senate leaders who could do the job, into thinking the job could be done. It seems to be the case with an increasing large part of America, the leaders are getting more and more money for telling us they can do less and less.
You said, (prior to 1978, Mormons forbid African-Americans from joining their church"
African Americans before 1978 were able to JOIN the LDS church. The 1978 ban was on male black members receiving the priesthood.
1. The Mormon church after the ban was probably one of the first churches to have an African American bishop leading a white congregation.
2. The church was and is ANTI-SLAVERY. This fact plays into one of the reasons Mormons were killed in Missouri and driven out of a state which was deciding between free and slave state status around the time Mormons showed up there.
There was a Mormon war in Missouri, against state people and the state army. The Utah War that you are referring to had no battles. You had a people that were tired of turning the other check and being pushed around. Mormons turned their back on a federal government that wouldn't protect THEIR LIVES AND RIGHTS all over the US. Even when Mormons met with the US President asking for help and protection. Thus to say all this stuff, you kinda failed to mention the extermination order against Mormons. Missouri made it legal to kill Mormons that didn't leave the state. Mormons were ghastly slaughtered at Hans Mill. Mormons were raped, killed, and property taken when they were forced out of Missouri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_order
With respect to the Utah War, while it is true that it had no official "battles," the massacre that I referred to on 9/11/1857 did in fact occur (the "Mountain Meadows massacre"), and the Mormon militiamen who killed the settlers originally blamed the assault on Native Americans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre.
But equally important are your points about the persecution of Mormons, which are completely well-taken. In fact, it was EXACTLY that to which I was referring when I said that "Harry Reid is a member of a faith that is barely a generation out of religious persecution itself." This country's persecution of Mormons was, indeed, despicable - and it is, in part, because of that history and his presumed familiarity with such religious persecution that I am so disappointed with Senator Reid. Thank you again for responding and for your input. Again, apologies for confusing the Church membership and priesthood issues. Best - Tanya M. Acker