Baptist News – by Jeff Brumley
Religious freedom has become synonymous with division in the United States thanks to a rash of controversial state laws creating tension between conservative religious groups and LGBT rights.
Corporations and gay rights groups have squared off against states and cities where such measures have been proposed or passed. At the same time longstanding theological and cultural divisions between faith groups have been widened even further.
Now a legal dispute between a Muslim community and a New Jersey township is showing a different side of inter-Christian relationships. Baptist and other Christian organizations accustomed to cultural and legal sparring have joined the fight for the construction of a new mosque.
Brent Walker
“It’s good when we can join hands with … folks we are sometimes on the other side of,” said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
Those folks include the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and the International Mission Board, both agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. The National Association of Evangelicals is also supporting the mosque-building case.
It all began when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty set out to form a diverse religious coalition to back the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, N.J., in its federal lawsuit against a planning board that denied its building permit application in December.
The denial followed some four years of hearings and numerous modifications to tone down overtly Islamic design elements to reassure neighbors and to conform to local architectural styles.
The New York Times reported in March that the group’s plans met local zoning standards required for houses of worship but that one outspoken opponent cited sharia law as a threat to American liberties.
The Islamic society sued in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
“A Muslim mosque cannot be subjected to a different land-use approval process than a Christian church simply because local protesters oppose the mosque,” the suit declares.
“A Muslim mosque cannot be subjected to a different land-use approval process than a Christian church simply because local protesters oppose the mosque.”
Standing shoulder-to-shoulder
Close to 20 faith-based organizations filed an amicus brief arguing that the mosque project be approved. They including Hare Krishna, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim and Christian groups.
Walker said it is encouraging to see Christian organizations standing up for the religious rights of the New Jersey Muslim community.
The case involves a core aspect of faith, namely religious liberty, Walker said. That liberty includes the right to worship without facing extraordinary impediments to building a house of worship.
The suit falls under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which prohibits zoning discrimination based on religion. BJC pushed hard for the 2000 law and wants to see it enforced, Walker said.
He also said the New Jersey case is one of a religious minority facing the Islamophobia prevalent in American society.
“We really felt it was important to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our Muslim brothers and sisters,” Walker said.
Striving for religious liberty
An official with the National Association of Evangelicals said the religious freedom implications of the New Jersey situation are clear.
Galen Carey
“It’s the protection of religious freedom for all Americans” that prompted NAE’s involvement, said Galen Carey, its vice president of government relations.
It’s also about consistency and fairness.
“In many countries, Christians face a hard time getting permission to build a church and in America, that’s not how we do things,” Carey said.
It is not unusual for the association to support plaintiffs of other faiths. Carey said it has backed a Muslim prisoner’s right to grow a beard and Jewish inmates’ right to kosher food behind bars.
It also supported a Muslim woman’s successful Supreme Court case to wear a hijab while working at Abercrombie & Fitch.
And they have supported efforts to protect Christians uncomfortable to serve gay customers, Carey said.
“Americans should not be forced to do things that their conscience tells them not to do,” he said.
In New Jersey, the president of the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge said the proposed mosque also is a matter of conscience.
“I came to America almost 50 years ago with a firm belief in the values that America represents, including freedom of religion and equality before the law,” Mohammad Ali Chaudry said in a statement published by the Becket Fund.
“We are overwhelmed by this extraordinary support from so many diverse groups all supporting our position and affirming that Muslims too have the right to worship in Bernards Township.”
“That liberty includes the right to worship without facing extraordinary impediments to building a house of worship.”
God doesn’t live in houses.
“Americans should not be forced to do things that their conscience tells them not to do,” he said.”
Which is why their consciences had to be re-‘programmed’… via the idiot box.
Do they think the Muzzies would reciprocate? Stupidity on parade. Somebody tell these people it’s O.K. to win.
Would the “muzzies” reciprocate? Actually, they have. The ones who wouldn’t are the NATO backed terrorist groups that the West has unleashed on countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya and Iran. Ironically, nations that were very fond of protecting their Christian minorities. Also, you can check out Christians in Palestine under israeli occupation. This is not an attempt to make you love Muslims or islam but an attempt at exposing the ignorance of people like you. If you’re gonna criticize an entire people, at least get your facts straight. In the American bill of rights, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is guaranteed, whether you like it or not.
facts straight You mean: “Congress shall make no law respecting an 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.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
>
establishment (ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt)
n
1. the act of establishing or state of being established
2.
a. a business organization or other large institution
b. the place where a business is carried on
3. the staff and equipment of a commercial or other organization
4. (Military) the approved size, composition, and equipment of a military unit, government department, business division, etc, as formally promulgated
5. any large organization, institution, or system
6. a household or place of residence
7. a body of employees or servants
8. (modifier) belonging to or characteristic of the Establishment; orthodox or conservative: the establishment view of history.
That means in my book that Congress is NOT allowed to establish a religion (Belief system) as in making laws defining a reality pending on a created belief via the media in the population that they (The Government/Congress) can’t/won’t prove.
That one has been broken a lot of times by means of secrecy and national security as justification.
Oh yeah, churches and believers benefit from the establishment clause also (Unless you are Rastafarians or Branch Davidians), but I don’t think the founders were having religion in mind when they wrote the 1st Establishment Clause, far from. I think they were more in government and government limiting definitions, and how government use created beliefs to push the uninformed masses into directions and accept policies that are not in their benefit. History repeats without said clause, or a good understanding of the Founders and what they tried to do for their new established country in contrast to the structure of old Europe..
Your mileage based on your preferred belief system and preferences may differ.
btw, as last but connected thought. The Supreme Justices that judged Churches tax free institutions were ALL religious followers, and were thusly in a position of bias/conflict of interest (Even Gods punishment as a threat) where they should (Good Behavior Clause.) have recused themselves from a judgment on said case.
Facts like that?
Yes exactly. So where do you see any laws being made by Congress in favor of islam or mosques in this article? Are citizens not allowed to address grievances in courts of law? Yeah those facts.
Islam has already been established what 800 years ago? Not really needs a law now, or does it?
Anyhow, by having the critters focus on the colorful paints their preferred deity wears and as inspired by their preachers bash each others heads in name of their deity, keeps them from focusing on more Earthly matters of who controls them for their time on Earth with more Earthly belief systems of killing people that think differently and who is robbed/killed for the blasphemy of naming our loved loving god differently or paying tithe to a different group of people.