Logo

Immigrants and their places of worship

Friday, October 8, 2010
ShareThis
A proposed house of worship in lower Manhattan had sparked controversy, with demonstrations and a flow of righteous condemnation that it would be a sign of contradiction--a temple of a religion that is blasphemous in its doctrine and practice and inimical to democracy and the American way of life. Also it was to be funded by foreigner powers. But it was 1785 and the house of worship to be built was St. Peter's Catholic Church on Barclay Street.

My thoughts have been with St. Peter's, where saints like Mother Seton, Pierre Tousaint, and Dorothy Day worshiped. The church celebrated its 225th anniversary this week. I have said Mass in St. Peter's and knew one of its pastors, Msgr. Joseph Moody.

In the 1820s a hostile crowd gathered outside the church to protest the strange popish goings-on inside. A policeman was killed during rioting. The congregation was celebrating Christmas. (Let's not forget that the public celebration of Christmas in this country is due largely to the Irish and German immigrants who refused to work on the Lord's birthday in Puritan New England and the Mid-Atlantic states.)

The celebration of the founding of the first Catholic Church in New York led the pastor, Father Kevin V. Madigan, to reflect on the similarities between St. Peter's and the proposed  Islamic Cultural Center at 51 Park Place (known as Park51) (see the New York Times). While the historical context is somewhat different, the similarities are also striking.

Many Protestants opposed the location of St. Peter's, and so the church was built outside the city. Time is recognized as a healer and St. Peter's came to make a rich contribution to the life of New York despite the early suspicions. Still at its beginning it symbolized all that Protestant Americans feared and detested in Roman Catholicism--its blasphemous and idolatrous worship (Christmas), its hostility to democracy and  ties to tyrannical and foreign powers (Rome and Spain, whose king gave $1,000 to construction), its dirty and violent congregants (us Irish), its threat to the American way. All these things were said of St. Peter's and are being said of Park51.

St. Peter's was built because of the urgent need to house a quickly growing immigrant population. The same need inspires the proposal for Park51. St. Peter's was also to be a symbol of pride for the immigrants and a sign of assurance of their loyalty and devotion to their new country. The same motivates the organizers of Park51. The original site of St. Peter's was viewed as unsatisfactory because the parishioners were perceived as dangerous. Many look on anything Islamic as dangerous and contradictory to democratic and American values.

Yet the Islamic community is more established and larger than the few who sought to build St. Peter's. And they are protected by a greater appreciation of religious liberty forged by our long history of religious diversity--as well as a long history of religious discrimination and violence. The fanaticism demonstrated outside St. Peter's on one Christmas Eve stretches across the years, as blacks, Mormons, Jews, and now to Muslims can testify.

I believe our contentious religious diversity has led us to appreciate more fully our religious liberty. We have moved from just tolerating one another's choices to recognizing our shared values. Now we can work together to forge peace, justice, solidarity - an American way that seeks what we often sing about, "liberty and justice for all."

As a Catholic, I am as disturbed about the growth of Islamic fanaticism and violence as the next. But as an historian, I recognize the polarizing hostility between Muslims and Christians has fault on both sides. The real tragedies are that ancient Christian communities are being driven from the Middle East, and that suspicion and hostility poisons the public life of North America and Europe.

As an Irish Catholic, I am aware that many who came before me had to deal with similar bigotry that drove some to violence against the newcomers--forgetting, of course, the scriptural injunction that we all once were strangers in the land. As a church historian, I appreciate the invaluable contribution the experience of the American church to the Vatican II documents on religious liberty, ecumenism, and relation with  other historic religious traditions.

We are now, as American Catholic, called to extend the wisdom of our own experience to the hard questions raised by 9/11 and Park51. Those congregants at St. Peter's singing Christmas carols defeated the bigotry of the streets. Now we are called to extend the same freedom of worship to our Islam brothers and sisters in their chosen place of worship. Besides it's their right guaranteed in our constitution.

Posted in: In preview mode

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Let us not forget

Let us not forget that 60 American Muslims were killed on 9/11.

There is already a mosque four blocks from the site of the WTC.

Irish Catholic, Army bronze star soldier, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, but no one wants to ban the Army or Catholics from having a presence at that site.

Mushy terms like "inappropriate" or "insensitive" make people feel easy about being hateful. They mask the real issue: we want to blame something, blame someone, blame a particular group because we cannot eliminate terrorism. Racism, hatred, anger, frustration, weakness - all those feelings and worries rise up when we admit that terrorism is a tactic we will never defeat.

Conflating faith with terrorism puts us in a dangerous moral and impractical position. Terrorists use whatever belief system supports their need for violence as self identity. The IRA, the Ulster Defense League, the Basque Separatist Movement, the Taliban...the list goes on and on. Looking only at Muslims leaves room for genuinely dangerous people to slide by.

I support Fr. Tom's message

The mosque is not AT Ground Zero.

Islam does not equal terrorists, just as not everyone from Oklahoma shares the same views as Timothy McVeigh.

There were Muslims killed in 9/11.

It is not a victory mosque.

I thought America was supposed to be about religious freedom? I would say we have become a country of bigots and finger pointers, but I think Father Tom's article illustrates that we (and most societies) have a long history of needing a scapegoat.

Easy Answers

1) The Mosque is as close as they could get to ground zero.  It was hit with aircraft debris and body parts.

2) At least 10% or 130 Million Muslims support this radical form of Islam.  About 0.000000001% of people from Oklahoma agree with Timothy McVeigh.  Radical Muslims are in position of power in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc and terrorists receiving billions of dollars of funding from radical Islamists. 

3) The Muslims killed at 9/11 were collateral damage.  It is irrelevant.

4) Moderate Muslims oppose the mosque because it is seen as a victory by radical Islamists.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief%20Manhattan/3370303/story.html

America is a place of religious freedom that did not ask that existing mosques near ground zero be torn down.  You would ask the same consideration that if thousands of muslims were murdered by an active catholic terrorist group that the catholic church not build a catherdral near the massacre scene. 

You use the standard hateful rhetoric leftists use against opponents:  they are "bigots."

Do you call yourself Pro-Life?

I can't believe a Catholic would would write this.

"The Muslims killed at 9/11 were collateral damage. It is irrelevant."

I understand you meant that to the attackers they were "collateral damage" but the way you say it is callous. Even if you had said "To the terrorists..." your statement shows no respect or concern to them. It is not Pro-Life. Their deaths seem not to matter to you and their mention seems to annoy you. Calling them irrelevant to this discussion or in any way is un-Catholic and un-Christian. You say they are irrelevant. That's horrible. It's bigotry.

When I hear and read Catholics and other Christians spilling out their prejudice and paranoid delusions of Sharia law being imposed on America I want to throw up. It makes me disgusted with all religion.

I am pro-life. Another Muslim against the Victory Mosque

Wow, you really assume the worst about someone who disagrees with you: he must be evil!.  Here are the words of another Muslim against the victory mosque; she saw her mother being murdered on live television as her airplane  slammed into the WTC:

“I do not want the death of my mother -- my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love -- to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html

I notice you make the typical ad hominem argument of a person on the left, because you can't refute my points logically.  I have no doubt your intentions are pure of heart and you mean well.

"Victory Mosque" ???

Jerry D, I think you are wrong to use that term "Victory Mosque."    I have seen the people interviewed who are the leaders of this community center project.  Their intention is certainly not to celebrate the tragedy of 09/11 as a "victory." 

Here are some logical arguments which I'm sure you've already heard:

1)  It is not a mosque.  It is a community center.

2)  The "sacred ground" around where the attacks took place is a neighborhood which already contains a small place/places where Muslims gather to pray.  (Also, this neighborhood contains strip clubs and other "fine" establishments.)

3)  To forbid the construction of a community center based on religion is a violation of the laws of this land, which include religious liberty.

4)  It is people on the Right who protested, who "started this" if you will---  and who really do tend to demonize those who don't agree with them! 

5)  It could be argued the hype around this center is media hype designed to generate ratings- and to distract us from real problems. 

Eminen Victory mosque?

Forgive me for repeating the points I have already made that answer your logical points:
1) Traditionally, large Mosques are part of projects that provide other community services.
http://library.thinkquest.org/28505/islam/mosqu.htm
2) The fact no one wanted to remove the existing mosque is a sign of our great tolerance. The fact there was existing strip clubs is irrelevant to people not wanting a grand victory mosque.
3) There are all sorts of zoning issues that include restrictions on building places of worship. It can be argued either way constitutionally, but the main point is moral, not what is legal. Moving the convent next to Auschwitz was not a legal issue, it was out of sensitivity to Jewish people even though the Church was not responsible for Auschwitz and hundreds of thousands of Catholics were murdered at Auschwitz.
4) and 5) You are welcome to your opinion.

Imam Rauf could have the purest of intentions, but it does not remove the fact that over 100 million Muslims will view this as a victory mosque. He undoubtedly knows how radical Muslims view this and he has made many controversial comments, so taking his soothing words at face value is questionable. Hitler said all sorts of soothing words to placate those concerned about the build up of Germany in the 1930's. (And for any simpletons, it is a relevant analogy: I'm not saying Rauf is Hitler.)

Tolerance

1)Building a mosque near the ground Zero is immature. People still have the horrific memories of 9/11. At the height of this emotional tension, it is very unwise on the part of Muslims to build a mosque.
2)The religion Islam has to grow up as to show it is a religion of peace. So much violence and hatred is perpetrated by Muslims all over the world in the name Allah (Muslim God). I don’t hear from Islamic authorities or clerics from all over the world condemning such kind of abominable violence committed by Muslims in the name of Allah.
3)Islam, a religion that succeeded to spread out its dominance by bellicose expeditions imposed its faith on the land by confiscating Churches which were turned into mosques later.
4)Islam is a religion a religion of retaliation and intolerance and if you criticize their relgion you may lose your head
5)We talk about tolerance. And we have been tolerant to other religions. For example, Muslims have mosques in Rome under the nose of St Peters. Now let us talk about building a church in Mecca, the Holy Place of Muslims, in Saudi Arabia. Then we can find out if Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. How many Muslims of the world will come out and say, “yes, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and it is just for Christians to have a church in Mecca?
I think the religion Islam has to grow up to show that it’s a religion of peace and tolerance.

re: Tolerance

There is, no doubt, truth to be found in the anonymous commenter's points above.   #3, #4, and #5 especially do in fact ring of at least some degree of truth.

But are the things we've seen happen really based primarily on religion?   (Certainly, Bin Laden was wrong/deceptive to label Americans/Brits as "crusaders."  Does the secular, godless, hedonistic culture of today's West really represent the Church or Christianity?  Of course not.)   Also, recall that it was George W Bush who said:  "Islam is a religion of love."   Even Bush, who invaded the Middle East, did not believe this was a religious conflict.

Anyway, I think it must be considered that there could actually be a *reason* why many people in the Middle East are angry.  Could this reason be bad/corrupt policies of the US gov't toward their region of the world?   We must see past the deception of believing that "we" (Americans) are always necessarily the "good guys", whereas "they" (some people in the Middle East) are always necessarily the "bad guys."  

Robert Spencer & Dinesh D'Souza Debate

Dinesh D'Souza takes the position that if the West did not project so much immorality into the world, there would be fewer recruits to radical Islam. Spencer takes the view that the dominant theology in Islam requires Jihad to spread Islam whether or not other peoples are being especially immoral.

Bush's line was "Islam means Peace." That is why a website chronicalizing atrocities committed in the name of Islam is named:

thereligionofpeace.com

Just as only a small percentage of Catholics are willing to live the hard teaching against artificial birth control, a small percentage of Muslims are willing to wage jihad. Just as America waged war against the Barbary pirates 200 years ago who proclaimed their right to kidnap American sailors unless they were paid "tribute" under the laws of Mohammed as conveyed in the Koran, we just need to kill off the bad people waging war against us and make waging jihad less popular.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.