As I sat pondering my two previous posts regarding the recent, rather hypocritical actions of the Plymouth City Council, I wondered what kind of response I might get if I flat-out asked them if they would have given the same permission to a Christian Church.
So, here’s the letter:
A blasé, perhaps auto-generated response that will probably make the following case:
1. “We’re looking at this as a ‘cultural center,’ not a house of worship, therefore, it breaks no rules.”
-In that case I’d let them know that they need to contact the Star Tribune for a restatement, because according to that publication, it’s a mosque. Which, last time I checked, is a house of worship.
2. “Even if this were a house of worship, the government is not letting the religious group lease the building from the government. The government sold the building, and the religious group has been kind enough to lease it back to the federal government.”
-Incidentally, I’m not sure I fully understand how going from paying nothing to occupy the building, to now paying rent for the same building, is helping the economic straits of the Postal System. Hmm. Moving on, I might point out that regardless of the specifics of the agreement, the government is STILL continuing operations in a house of worship. That’s just a fact.
I’ll add once last piece to this debate:
I do not suffer from Islamaphobia. I’m not a racist, a bigot, or any other choice word typically chosen to address individuals of my particular leanings. I’m simply pointing out that if certain religions (and almost exclusively Christianity) must be subject to the government’s own (flawed, as we discussed in the last post) view of the “separation of church and state,” why does this mosque get a pass?