An Outline of Chris Rosebrough's Ground Zero Mosque Argument

EDIT: I didn't get a lot of feedback on my outline, for whatever that's worth. But I've listened to the podcast a couple of times and tweaked what I wrote accordingly. I haven't gotten any confirmation, but it seems the most of the second half of the podcast is different than what was originally broadcast. Its content is largely the same, but the tone was a bit stronger. There was also more discussion of preaching the Gospel, which I've tried to indicate below.

Yesterday, Chris Rosebrough did a show on Fighting For The Faith giving his take on the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) situation. It was a little different than many I've heard so far, and since I really respect his thinking, I wanted to hear him out, even though my initial take on the bits and pieces he'd thrown out on FaceBook wasn't favorable.

1. This issue isn't about building a mosque
• The whole proposal "smells like a scam"
• The chances of the mosque being built at all is low
• Plans are not very far along
• The development group does not own all of the property needed
• In order to buy the remaining building, additional approvals will be needed
• Currently, the developers have no income on the property they have to pay to hold the rights to
• Funding for the mosque is largely nonexistent at this point
• A major component, donations, has raised $200 by Aug 8
• Even a worst-case scenario of successfully building the mosque would not mean Islamic victory
• It would require enormous duplicity on the part of the developers and others, recognizable to all observers, regardless of faith, which would destroy any long-term value as a symbolic victory against the West
• Building the mosque only allows the Muslims there to practice their existing First Amendment freedom of religion, "as long as they're not blowing people up and murdering American citizens," so there isn't any First Amendment victory
• The building could not even be seen from Ground Zero
• If New York City grants permission to build the mosque and the developers have the means to do so, then in America, they must be allowed to build it
• This is a Constitutional freedom to exercise religion, assuming building permits
• The permit decision is a local one, since that is where it would be built
• Since there is already a long-existing mosque four blocks from Ground Zero (still within the debris field), why is there any issue with building this one?
2. This situation is being used to set up a dialect thesis-antithesis between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims, to produce a synthesis that will remove Constitutional protections on freedom of religion
• There is an enormous amount of animus and heat in the discussion about the building of the mosque
• People on both sides of the issue are "tossing grenades"
• Those in favor are being accused of lack of sympathy for victims' families and dupes of radical Islam
• Those opposed are being accused of anti-Muslim bigotry
• As people tire of the rhetoric, there will be a demand to limit religious practices and speech (which will all be lumped in with extremism)
• This mirrors similar historical attempts to do the same sort of thing in the Third Reich and the Soviet Union
• The best way to defeat the dialectic is to short-circuit it by removing the antithesis
3. Given the above two points, we should not oppose the building of the mosque
• We can dislike Islam as a false religion, and we should be preaching the Gospel to Muslims
• We cannot oppose the building of the mosque without setting a precedent that will come back to haunt Christians
• If somehow, First Amendment freedom is restricted by those opposed to the mosque, a precedent will be set that will come back to haunt Christians
• We will be validating the idea that freedom of religion should be limited (either voluntarily or by force) if it makes people uncomfortable
• Preaching the gospel will be hampered
• Persecution of Christianity will be allowed
• By not joining the debate, we defuse the dialectic and remove the chance for the synthesis to take hold and remove Constitutional protections on religion