Religious Freedom Is What's At Stake

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Mounting opposition to the proposed Muslim cultural center has thrust the building into the limelight of an already hostile electoral season. Those opposed to the cultural center, more often referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque," have cycled through a cadre of reasoning to be against construction of the center. The arguments have been made that the building will be a "terrorist training center;" others have drawn parallels of the cultural center's maiden name, "Cordoba House," to the takeover of a church in Spain in the 7th Century and its symbolism of hostile Islamic colonialism. And then there is the sensitivity argument, that for Muslims to build a mosque so near the worst terrorist attack on American soil is insincere to those who lost family members, friends, and loved ones. The focus has now shifted towards the funding of the cultural center, in whether the men and women funding it are terrorist sympathizers, or have dubious ties to any extremist group. Many proposing these reasons not to build the cultural center like to shy away from the "religious freedom" argument, the constitutional right provided by the First Amendment. But truly that is what this argument boils down to, as none of these other arguments stand up to any mindful scrutiny.

The argument over the cultural center's initial name has basically already been resolved. (I'll take this moment to say that I will not utter the continuance of "Ground Zero Mosque" from here on out because the term itself is laced with fear-mongering and jingoism. St. Paul's Chapel is not so uncharacteristically named the "Ground Zero Church." The proposed building is a place for all New Yorkers, and indeed for all people to visit. The inclusion of a prayer space on the top two floors should not advocate the use of the aforementioned name.) Initially, the cultural center was to be called "Cordoba House." But after the repetition of the origin of that name, a story meant only to ingrain fear into the minds of the population, the builders of the cultural center changed the name to Park51. I wonder if Adidas is next on Newt Gingrich's hit list?

Once the builders were pressured into altering the name, the arguments continued to mount against the cultural center. Sensitivity became a staunch bulwark against allowing the project to move forward, and is probably the biggest reason that most New Yorkers are against the building of the cultural center. The argument is simply: extremist Muslims attacked us so other Muslims should be sensitive to Americans' grief and not build near ground zero. There are just oh so many things wrong with this argument.

First, it is a fallacy to parallel the extremists, the terrorists, who attacked us on 9/11 with the Islamic religion as a whole. It is well known that all religions have their extremists: Hitler, McVeigh, Cruise; 19 men who hijacked 4 planes. If you want to talk insensitivity, then please do not miss the insensitivity of those Americans who cast blame on all Muslims for 9/11. "We fear what we do not understand." A common phrase uttered in so many ways, yet poignant as always even in this debate. Muslims were killed too that day; peaceful Americans who lived and worked beside the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. who also died in those towers.

Secondly, expounding on the above, do those who take their beliefs to the extremist level, or those who distort their beliefs to fit their own selfish worldview mirror an entire population? Are all Germans, Nazis? Hardly. Would we classify a Catholic man or woman we met on the street a pedophile? A certainly hope not. Have Americans been benevolently sensitive to Native Americans for the land we took from them by force? As our current sitting President pushed for Health Care Reform earlier this year, Rush Limbaugh compared the legislation to black reparations. In accordance with the logic that all Muslims must be "sensitive" to the placement of their cultural center then yes, white Americans must always be overly sensitive to the most inconsequential needs of black Americans, something I'm sure Mr. Limbaugh would wholeheartedly disagree with. Even this year, as the Catholic Church faced new swirling allegations of child molestation, Pope Benedict XVI barely raised a concern over the reports of a priest in Ireland found guilty of molestation and even his own involvement, as then a Cardinal of the church, in protecting a priest who molested over 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin in the 1970s. The Pope, and the Vatican itself, tried to spin the story into an attack on Catholicism, a "victimizer is the victim" rebuttal, instead of apologizing and making a strong push for increased punishments of the guilty. But clearly, since it is a christian institution, especially in this country and more especially from constituents on the political right, the same standards do not apply to a church, or a synagogue, as they would to a mosque.

Third, how far exactly would building a mosque in New York from Ground Zero no longer be "insensitive" to Americans, or Christians, or whoever? There is a Mosque currently in the Pentagon, just 80 feet from where that hijacked plane crashed, as well as an actual mosque just 4 blocks from Ground Zero.

While simultaneously questioning the sensitivity of Muslims to want to build a cultural center, that just so happens to contain a mosque, near ground zero, the opposition slid into the debate the question of who exactly was funding the mosque. If terrorists were found to be supplying the funds for the construction then surely it would seem the cultural center would be a breeding ground for extremists right under our own noses, right on the very soil of liberty for which we all stand. The argument, however, devolved quickly into a "guilt by association" game of finger-pointing and incredulity. But, as Jon Stewart pointed out, this is a dangerous game. (Seriously, watch this whole clip if you haven't seen it.) And now, Fox5 news in New York is running a story about a man, one of the projects funders, and a donation he made to what he thought was a charity, but turned out to be linked to Hamas, a known cell of extremists.

My mother was once duped into donating money to an unknown man or woman claiming to be a missionary stranded and in strife in some war-torn African nation. Turns out, the person was not displaced and through the naivety of my mother (she's new to the Internet), the person was able to get her social security number and ultimately her bank account information, extorting money from her. Luckily no long term damage was done, and my mom secured her accounts without loss. The point being, naivety or out-right trickery and deception by one party, does not apply guilt to the other. Because this person claimed to be a christian, should my mom apply mistrust to all Christians forever more? No. And what of those who make donations, or contributions to the Catholic Church? (Sorry Catholics. I do not mean to pick on you. I'm only drawing similarities to the church in order to shed light on the hypocrisy of opposing the cultural center.) If the man who made a contribution to what he thought was a Muslim charity, but in actuality was linked to terrorists is then labeled a terrorist, any contributor to the Catholic church is then linked to pedophilia, a pedophile themselves, or at least sympathetic to pedophiles. None of which is true, and the same over-reaching should not be applied to the cultural center. And should this man be found guilty of knowingly aiding a terrorist group, I presume the group trying to build this mosque would immediately sever ties with him and those associated with him, what the Catholic Church failed to do with the pedophile priest in Wisconsin.

Without any of these arguments, the controversy over the proposed cultural center near ground zero boils down to one of our most basic rights of freedom and liberty in this country. Even with any of these arguments, our First Amendment right to freedom of religion should be at the base of any argument. This debate is not about sensitivity, nor the name of the building, nor even the matter of who is funding it (I'd love to see an Op-Ed somewhere drawing the parallels of funding political campaigns via the Citizens United v. FEC case to funding this cultural center; alas, I have not the time right now to launch into it.). This debate is about upholding the pinnacle that is this country and maintaining the very values for which people of all faiths, of all ethnicities, of all races and colors have sought to assimilate, stewing in the broth of liberty.

An Open Letter to Marvel Comics

The below is a letter I wrote to Marvel Comics (with some minor revisions and amendments, in hindsight) reacting to their apology to the Tea Party movement of words published in Captain America issue #602. I've been a bit bogged down this week, so sorry this is a little behind the times, although, I think the issue of possible racial discrimination within the Tea Party is still relevant. There has been a growing concern among Tea Party leaders towards the more extremist, incendiary individuals within the group, so it is a relief, somewhat, to see that they are not willingly blind to the possible consequences of some who align themselves with the movement. Ultimately it is the responsibility of these group leaders to admonish and quell any incentives to violence at their local gatherings, and to not allow extremists to bastardize their message once in public. One false move, one angry individual, aligned with the movement that commits an act of violence will forever brand the movement as terrorist. In light of the arrest of the Hutaree Group, in remembrance of the Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shootings, let us not adopt the bellicose, but keep our perspective that violence is not the answer in these trying times... Peace.

Dear Marvel Comics,

I was quite shocked to read today that you issued a formal apology, and are subsequently removing some "lettering" from future printings of Captain America #602 for referring to the national Tea Party movement and possible connections it may have with white supremacists. To be honest, I haven't read the issue, and probably still will not, although, I truly do enjoy, from what I have read, what Mr. Brubaker has done with the story since taking the helm on the book. But the apology comes as a shock to me for many reasons.

First, it is appropriate to put a little perspective into this. The panels in the comic in question, due to some lettering that was added in a rush prior to publication (Really?), seem to associate anti-tax protesters with a group called "The Watchdogs," who are white supremacists. The fictional anti-tax protesters carry signs with slogans seen on similar signs during real Tea Party protests. Hence, the Tea Party is in some way associated, or at least some members of the Tea Party, with white supremacy, or are simply just racist. Last weekend, at the first national Tea Party Convention, Tom Tancredo gave a speech in which he blamed ignorant people who "can't even spell the word 'vote,'" for electing President Obama to the White House, and thus the US should instate Literacy Tests to determine whether someone in this country can vote, harkening back to an idea established during the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's. Most do not need reminding that Literacy Tests were championed by racists, notably white supremacists, to deter or completely deny blacks the ability to vote. Mr. Tancredo aligned the Tea Party this past weekend with sympathies similar to white supremacists, so for a writer or artist in your employ, or even your readers, to draw parallels between the Tea Party and white supremacy does not seem far-reaching, in fact, some would say it's rather pertinent. And not to mention that none in the Tea Party movement demanded an apology from Mr. Tancredo seems telling of their stance with what he said, and more broadly on civil rights in general. Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, in a Yahoo! news article did not seem to accept the apology of Joe Quesada, EIC at Marvel Comics. But why isn't Mr. Phillips demanding an apology from Tom Tancredo for touting racist ideals at the convention and tarnishing the Tea Party? To me this seems like blatant hypocrisy. Just because someone criticizes the movement should not beget an automatic apology. Surely, Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Phillips are not about to apologize for their racism and hypocrisy. Marvel should not be apologizing for making a statement.

Mr. Brubaker, as well as other writers, has done an incredible job of taking super hero stories and grounding them in the real world. This isn't necessarily something new, as the Marvel Universe is set on Earth and many heroes have made our modern-day cities their home and ultimately their protectorate for decades. By referencing real-world issues and occurrences you draw the reader more reverently deeper into this fantastic world, creating a connection between the reader and the hero. And now you apologize for it. Why are you not standing up to this? Do you think some poor press by Fox News is going to really hurt your readership? Judson Phillips called the story part of a "political agenda." The Tea Party has a political agenda. When speakers aligning themselves with this political party make racially charged comments they are propagating a political agenda. And Mr. Phillips says nothing. One writer expresses his views on the group and suddenly there's uproar and you back away from your story. Why? You're trying not to make a political statement? Well, guess what? You've been doing it for nearly 50 years in X-Men. Beneath it all, X-Men is an allegory for racial prejudice and hatred since issue 1. And there are countless instances in almost every other comic you've published that deal with racial, ethical, and social issues. Why did you tuck-tail and run from this? Are we just supposed to buy watered-down stories from now on, lacking in substance and relevance to the changing world around us? The fact that you failed to stick up for the story is simply disheartening. It seems you're more worried about losing a couple readers than about telling a compelling story that means something to us, but more importantly, a story that means something to you.

And lastly, it's called the First Amendment! For starters, this Tea Party movement again shows pure and utter hypocrisy by demonizing free speech when they contend to stand up for the truest, purest American values established by our forefathers. Chastising Marvel for an opinion is beyond a double standard. But what's more outrageous is that you are not invoking your right to free speech. And furthermore, you're not standing up for your artists in lieu you may get some bad press. Based on what I know of Ed Brubaker, what I've read on his blog, or on Twitter, I know that he strongly believes what was intended in this story, so it leads me to assume his statement/apology to Fox News was forced. Mr. Quesada should not demand apologies from his employees, but should defend his writers and artists because without them there would be no Marvel Comics. Without Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, without Ditko, Steranko, and Romita, who put their ideals, their beliefs, to paper regardless of whether it was popular, or good politics, there would be no Marvel Comics. You should be standing firm for what you believe in because, I guarantee you, by not doing so you will offend far more of your readership. You've already offended one. Today, I don't know if I can ever buy a Marvel comic again and it saddens me. You have shown me, and maybe others, that you care more about how many people buy your book than the content beneath the glossy cover.

With great sorrow,

Jason Owen