My response to Chris Rosebrough

[EDIT: Now that I have a little sleep and got some valuable proofreading feedback from others, I went through and cleaned up a couple awkward phrasings and grammar errors. Everything else is the same, and I sent Chris a copy of the original post, in case he has any interest in reading it.]

A couple days ago I posted an outline of the argument Chris Rosebrough made regarding the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM). I've listened to the podcast a couple of times since and edited what I wrote, seeking to make it accurate and complete. I'm comfortable claiming I've made every effort I could to hear Chris out (as he requested) and understand what he was trying to say, even to the point of comparing what was in the original broadcast and the longer, modified podcast.

Now I want to respond to what I heard.

(Aside: I know that the GZM label is somewhat contentious, so for this response I'll refer to the GZM by its current name, the Park51 Islamic Cultural Center or more specifically Cordoba House, which seems to be the portion of the project that is most closely tied to Islamic religious practices. In this article I'll end up dealing with the "Ground Zero" portion of the common label a bit. I will assume Park51 includes a mosque, per its own web site (linked to from the Cordoba Initiative website: "[P]lans for Park51 include a world-class facility which will house a mosque.")

Chris's argument (refer to my outline for more details)

The debate over Park51 isn't really about giving Islam a victory by building a mosque, because the building isn't even likely to be built. Even if it were built, there isn't any good reason to see it as an Islamic victory, because they have the First Amendment right to practice their religion.

So, practically speaking, there isn't any reason to get worked up about the mosque project, because either way it doesn't mean anything.

However, the debate is really about how the hyperbolic arguments being made can lead to a loss of First Amendment freedom of religion rights. This manifests in two ways. First, people opposing the mosque are arguing that Park51 not be allowed to be built, which takes away the Muslims' freedom of worship. Second and more insidious is the use of the Hegelian dialectic to produce a demand to limit religious expression, framing religious extremism as thesis and antithesis. In Chris's words, "We're being played." If this is successful, the preaching of the Gospel will be impeded (or at least made much more painful for Christians).

So, strategically speaking, we need to be consistent with our Constitutional principles and not contest the Park51 project, because otherwise we are creating the precedent that will later be used to undermine our own freedom of speech and religion.

What Chris got right

For most of his podcast, Chris framed his argument as an issue of the Left Hand Kingdom, an issue of rights, statutes, and regulations where the civil/secular government has authority. I agree completely.

I think Chris's challenge to explain why building Cordoba House is an affront to Ground Zero when there is already a mosque only two blocks further away (about which no one is talking) needs to be answered by opponents.

I'm not sure I agree with Chris's conclusion that it would take a near miracle for Park51 to be built. However, I think it's quite feasible that the developers are running a scam here, deliberately inflaming public opinion against the project hoping to catalyze Islamic support for and investment in it. The proposed opening date (9/11 plus ten years) in particular seems designed to offend.

I'd agree with his assertion that public figures on the right and left are feeding the flames with their rhetoric, seeking to score political points and/or increase their popularity. I might take issue with a couple of the specific examples he provided, but the phenomenon is real.

I would echo his caution against doing anything that would establish a precedent allowing restriction of First Amendment rights in the interest of sensitivity to others (or for any reason, frankly). We have great freedom to preach the Gospel in the US; I don't want to lose that. I'm also enough of a wimp not to welcome the persecution that would come next...

Finally, I believe he's identified a legitimate concern in how any opposition we raise could be used by those seeking to restrict our religious freedom either through force of law or a "voluntary" chilling effect. I do not doubt that such an effort to basically produce in the US the rabid secularism of tolerance that is prevalent in much of Western Europe (there are others). Chris is thinking strategically here, trying to evaluate and respond to a real threat rather than a diversion, and that's a good thing.

What Chris got wrong

At times, Chris's supporting arguments confused the Two Kingdoms. For example, he made a big point of saying that he had no fear of mosques or Islam (starting 1:20:23 into the 8/18 podcast):

Muslims and their rhetoric of "we hate you and we're going to overthrow you and take you over and we're going to subject you to sharia law" doesn't intimidate me. I serve a crucified and risen Savior who is the one true God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And there's no way in Hades that the gates of Islam are going to prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ if the Church of Jesus Christ would get off of its kiester, stop watching these political pundits and go and preach the gospel.

I agree with Chris that the Kingdom of God has nothing to fear from Islam, but that has no relevance to a discussion about defending, ignoring, or abrogating civil rights in the United States! Absolutely, we can take comfort from the certainty of our hope, but that carries no weight in a Left Hand Kingdom issue. To say otherwise clouds the issue.

My best construction of Chris's argument is that the end of the quote gives a deeper reason he brought up the idea: He is trying to stress that Christians be preaching the Gospel rather than obsessing about other issues. Again, he's making an important, irrefutable statement but an irrelevant argument. Yes, Christians are called to preach the Gospel, and we should do so. Amen. But we should do so regardless of whether we've been given the right to preach by civil authorities (Acts 5:29). In this argument, the relevant issue is that right and only that right, not the actual preaching. (To be fair, he did address the right to preach; as I mentioned above, he spoke to his concern that people are being manipulated into giving it up.)

Chris also spent time refuting the notion that anyone in favor of allowing Park51 to be built has an agenda to promote Islam. In such a heated topic, I'm sure some people have made that claim; some may even believe it. But it implies an incredible simplicity to the reasoning of all those who oppose Park51; I don't believe that honestly deals with the real arguments being made.

Where Chris missed the boat completely

The crux of Chris's argument, until the very end of his podcast, is the idea that either one must either support allowing Cordoba House to be built or somehow favor restricting the developers' freedom of religion. This is the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, and frankly, I'm stunned that Chris spent over an hour defending such a ludicrous assertion. It is definitely the most disappointing aspect of his argument.

Based on my reading and conversation, most people opposed to Park51 will immediately grant that the developers have the right to build what they want on property they own, so long as they have satisfied whatever local permits and ordinances are required. Even some of the clips Chris played made that plain, and I've heard other soundbites from the same people that are even more explicit.

I'll say it again:

If the developers get a green light on the project, then they can build it, whether or not anybody likes it and whether or not anybody is offended by a "Ground Zero Mosque," whatever that phrase means to them.

It isn't that the overwhelming majority of opponents to Park51 would reject a Pyrrhic victory that preserved the republic by destroying the Constitution. They already have! They've seen the incremental degradation of Constitutionally-protected freedoms for years--for decades--and they aren't interested in adding to the damage. Chris expended a tremendous amount of passion defending a hill that isn't even on the battlefield.

Scratch that; it's not even a hill.

It doesn't even have internal consistency. Basically, Chris is saying that to preserve the Muslims' freedom of religion, we need to not say anything against the Cordoba House project. Think about that for a second. In other words, if we didn't want to set a precedent of taking away the Constitutional rights of another, we had to give away our own. What precedent is being set there?

(And if you think that "turn the other cheek" (Mt 5:38-42) applies here, feel free to make an argument. In context. I'll wait.)

There is one other large miss in Chris's position. I already mentioned that he dealt with this topic as a Left Hand Kingdom issue for most of the podcast, which I agree with. However, in the last few minutes, Chris abandoned that ground to speak forcefully about our focus being on the preaching of the Gospel rather than fighting Islam legally or politically:

We have taken our eye off the ball. The ball is the Gospel not politics. You want to fight Islam? Then preach the gospel.

I don't care if you oppose the mosque or not. I don't care if they are lying to us and they're really going to put a mosque in place, and it's going to be a hate-filled center of terrorism. I could care less. So what. Tell me about the people who are preaching Christ and Him crucified for our sins in lower Manhattan. Who are they?

This sounds wonderful. It is pointing to the only true hope any Muslim has, and the only way that a heart dedicated to Islamic terrorism can be changed. We should keep our eye on that ball and share the love of Christ with all.

But that doesn't mean we get to punt on the question of civil rights or the protection of our citizenry.

I pray that God grants all Muslims everywhere, militant or otherwise, repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 2:25), but I also see a healthy self-interest in doing what I can to prevent "a hate-filled center of terrorism" (if they are lying to us) from taking root in my country.

What Chris missed

The truth is that opponents of Park51 don't have to sacrifice their freedoms or the freedoms of any Muslim to do so. There are many other available actions that Chris excluded in his argument.

First, the developers have several hoops to jump through before they'd be able to build Park51; Chris made much of this in the podcast. At least one of them will include opportunity for public comment. That's the chance to exercise another First Amendment right: free speech. There may very well be a chance to refuse sale of the other property the developers are seeking.

After all, the freedom to practice religion does not include the right to buy any property on which you want to practice it!

Second, let's assume for the sake of argument that the developers get everything they want and they break ground on the project. Another aspect of freedom of expression is the right to assembly and association. People can gather peacefully to protest the site in many different ways.

I've even heard that some construction unions are working on plans to blackball the project, refusing to build it. Again, that would be their right, and it wouldn't infringe on any freedom of religion.

BTW, it may be news to many that Muslims are already worshipping in the building that the developers do own. It might be news to Chris that as an opponent to the project, I don't have any problem with that from a Left Hand Kingdom perspective.

My answer to Chris's question

I said that Chris's question about why Cordoba House would be any different from the existing mosque within the Ground Zero debris field deserved an answer, so I want to give mine.

It goes to strategic considerations of what a "Ground Zero Mosque" would mean to Muslims. For whatever reason, Chris didn't explore this; I believe it's extremely relevant.

I'm going to use Chris's worst-case scenario of Park51 being built, though my point holds for any construction of the building. (Also, I'm not as certain as Chris that the funding won't come through; a lot of oil money is in not-so-nice hands. But all I have is a hunch. Chris has more business experience than I do, so I'll let it go.)

So, we have a building that's been built practically next door to where the WTC was, and built after the towers where destroyed by terrorism, and built in a way that's very attention-getting. It's a building advocating Islam, containing a mosque led by an imam with Mideast connections (at minimum). How will such a building be seen by Muslim extremists (the sorts who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks), especially those in Islamic countries?

• They won't care about any duplicity that might have been needed to build it, which was a major part of Chris's worst-case argument. Al-taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims) is actually a good work in Islam. In fact, the symbolic victory of the place wouldn't be reduced, as Chris asserted; if anything it would be enhanced, because getting Cordoba House built by lying would be another victory.
• They will see it as an sign that they are winning and that their tactics have value. At a minimum, it will be a point of pride.

Park51 is different than the existing mosque. It's bigger, it's built post-attack, and it is seen as offensive to the memory of the fallen. Like it or not, valid or not, for whatever reason, the thought of this place being built hurts many Americans. That gives the structure a symbolic value to those who champion the 9/11 attackers, a value the other mosque does not have.

It doesn't matter if I don't see it that way. When considering strategic value, I need to look at how the other guy sees things, which I've tried to do above. It is prudent to consider whether handing such people a symbolic victory is a good idea. If not, then we should do everything we can, legally, in good faith, to prevent it.

I repeat that I'm speaking here of the extremist Muslim perspective. There will be many Muslims, especially in the West, that would not see things this way, I know that. But I'd argue that the vast majority of those in the Mideast and more fundamentalist sects worldwide would have this perspective, and therefore, it needs to be considered.

One final thought

I took a few shots at Chris's argument in this response, but I want to thank him for the impact he's made in my life, in helping shape my instincts to better recognize Law and Gospel. I can't overstate the impact his work with Pirate Christian Radio has had on me. In part, that's why I felt I had to say something; the work wasn't up to the standard I'd expect from the guy! I've tried to speak the truth in love, and if I've gone too far or made a poor argument, I'm sure someone will let me know. I hope I'm humble enough to make good on it.

As Chris stressed for most of his show, this is a question regarding rights described in the US constitution. I've tried to stay within those bounds in my response. For example, I haven't brought up how this whole topic would be a non-starter if the tables were turned. I haven't mentioned the myriad examples where Muslims don't worry about preserving the rights of those they oppose. Those things aren't unimportant, but they are largely outside the scope of this discussion.

However, now that I've finished my response, I need to remind myself that while we live in this world and are subject to the laws of the society under which God has placed us (whether dictatorial or freedom-loving), as Peter tells us:

[You] are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; (1 Pet 1:5-7)

Whatever struggles or trials may come in this world, we can rejoice in knowing of Christ's certain return. May we always keep that perspective, so that while we pay careful attention to topics like the GZM, regardless of what position we take on such issues, we seek first His kingdom, and proclaim the Gospel to others so they can rejoice at Christ's coming as well.

Maranatha!