WIll you Vote for the Unwinnable, the Pagan or the Serial Adulterer?

Note: I am making a couple assumptions in this post about my readers:

1. You're a protestant Christian
2. You're a Republican 

So who are you going to vote for in the Republican primary? Using the most recent primary, we start with the least number voted for to the highest. Let's talk about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul
I categorize Ron Paul as unwinnable. Sorry to all of you Tea Partiers and Ron Paul rebels. Paul is not winnable. The Democrats will slam him as a racist, mock him for his fiscal policy and ignore his foreign policy. Very few people interpret the constitution as Paul does.

Rick Santorum
I like Rick, except for the fact that my spell check wants me to spell his name as "sanitarium." He seems like a nice guy, he's got "fire in the belly," but who is he again? So what he won Iowa. He doesn't have the ability to slither through politics like a snake, and he'll get eaten alive by the press. Hence, he's also unwinnable.

Mitt Romney
The big question, do you vote for a pagan?

Some people will say that Mormonism is a sect of Christianity though by definition it is not a part of Christianity. In one sense it is like saying Islam is a sect of Christianity. (Which, by the way, some people did see Islam as being a part of Christianity in it's early days. Read this book to see.) The key qualification for a religious group to be a part of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the core. I know this is a vague and broad definition but even on this broad definition Mormonism is excluded. Mormons do not hold Jesus Christ to be a central figure. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

That said, can you vote for a pagan? Your philosophy of voting determines your answer. Do you vote for someone based on his policies and track record or do you include other stuff in your decision. This includes one's cultural background and religion. Where you land on this spectrum will help determine whether you can vote for Romney or not.

Even if you do consider one's religious background in your decision, there is another question that must be answer. Ought you not vote for someone who comes from a differing religious background? Your answer depends on how strictly do you hold to the principle of voting for someone who is like you. If you hold to it strictly, you are going to vote only for someone of your own denomination. If you are loose then you can vote for someone who is of a differing background, like Romney. Voters are somewhere along this sub-spectrum. On one end you have people who vote strictly for those who are like them. On the other end you have people who vote loosely for people who could or could not be like them.

Newt Gingrich
Last and least in terms of his public moral record, Newt Gingrich. Okay, so isn't this the guy who took a vacation to the Greek Islands WHILE running and his campaign staff quit on him? How is he still running? More importantly, Gingrich divorced two women and is on his third marriage. Also, he committed adultery while leading the impeachment against Bill Clinton for Clinton's adulterous affair.

Gingrich's actions are immoral on multiple levels. First, divorcing and marrying, twice. Second, committing adultery. Third, being a hypocrite by going after another adulterer while not himself resigning. So, do you vote for Gingrich? Your answer will depend on how important you think one's personal life is. I personally don't think one can be ethically sound and vote for Gingrich if you believed Clinton ought to have stepped down after his adulterous affair, and/or you hold marriage to be sacred.

My Concluding Thoughts 
I must say, it is a tough call. I personally can't vote for Gingrich. It is possible that I could vote for Romney, and I could vote for Santorum. Though, I need to be convinced he can handle the press. Sorry Paul, maybe another year.

I believe a Christian does have room to vote for a non-Christian in an American election. I don't think there is a Biblical requirement to vote for a Christian. I say that with hesitancy. I would love to hear people's thoughts on this one. It would be interesting to hear an argument for why Christians ought to vote only for Christians.

This is a tough spot for Christians to be in. With that said, think carefully for you will have to give an account for your vote on judgment day. May God have mercy on us all!

The Church and College Students - Part II

Yesterday I wrote on how college students can be involved in church. In this post I want to discuss how churches can help college students.

I touched on the dilemma churches face in my previous post.  I noted that it is hard for churches to help those who are constantly moving around. I said,

It takes time to get to know people, meet their needs and invest in their lives. When after a couple months of hard work, all that work seems to go to waste when you move." 

This is often the case with college students. It becomes worse when students don't consistently attend church and/or are just not involved in the life of the church.

How can the church help college students? 
Part of the answer to this question is that it is the student's responsibility to show up to church and be involved.  The church is not obligated to call students, make sure they're awake and tie their shoes on Sunday morning. Students ought not expect that from the church. The church ought to be focused on the spiritual life of the college student, not tying their shoes.

There are many things that the church can do to help college students. The practical advice I give below is oriented toward individuals helping out, but there are ways a church can reach out systematically. I will say that it is vital that individual members intentionally reach out to college students. No program is as good as a member walking up to a sleepy-eyed college student, with two cups of coffee in hand, and asking him how he is doing.

1. Say Hello 
There have been so many times when I've come to church and felt very awkward. I hardly knew anyone. There weren't many guys my age, but a couple people came up to me and just said hello. This meant the world to me.

As the semester went on, these people began to know my name, what classes I was taking and how my life was doing. They intentionally got to know me. That completely changed church for me. It motivated me to get out of bed in the morning and keep coming to church.

2. Invite them over to Lunch 
Even if they say no, it means a lot. There have been so many times that families have asked me over for lunch after church, and I've had to say no because of school. I walked away from church knowing that people cared about me and wanted to keep my belly full of good food. It meant the world to me even though I had to say no.

As a side note, it might be good to ask a week in advance, perhaps email them, text them, call them, facebook them or tweet them.

3. Include them in the "circle" 
Churches can be deadly places. They are full of circles of people talking about life. Please let that sleep deprived college student in, even if he/she smells awful. It'll make them feel much better.

4. Don't glare at them for having Coffee in the Sanctuary 
This has never really happened to me. I think Pastor York looked at me strangely once when I had my coffee thermos with me. He didn't glare though.

Different people have different standards for worship. Some people thinks it's okay to bring a picnic and munch on a sandwich during the sermon. Other people think it's dishonoring to God. Whichever side you're on, please understand that the college student has his thermos there so he won't fall asleep.

5. Advice to Pastors: Take them out to Coffee Once 
I don't give this last piece of advice lightly. I know Pastors are extremely busy and must give themselves to their congregations. But boy I have benefited so much from having a meal/coffee with Pastor Johnston, Pastor York, Pastor Faris and Pastor Hart over the years. These times of fellowship meant so much to me. It might not be possible for all pastors to do. Time is limited, but I benefited from the times I had with those men. Their are conversations that I still think about today. This might not be possible for all pastors, but it's definitely worth a try.

And it's not just pastors who can do this. College students love coffee and food. It'll open them up, and perhaps encourage them to come back to church.

In conclusion, I want to thank all the congregations I have worshipped at these past couple years. Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church, 2nd Reformed Presbyterian Church, and  McKinnon Reformed Presbyterian Church have bene extremely helpful to my spiritual life these past five years. I hope that churches can do the same these churches have done for me. 

College Students and the Church, Practical Advice

This past year I attended three different churches. From about January to May, I attended Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church in Kokomo while in school at Taylor University. From about May to September I was at my home church, 2nd Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis. Finally, I was at McKinnon Reformed Presbyterian Church in Melbourne, Australia, from about October to December.

In the last couple years, I have heard from various RP pastors the idea that church members ought to move close to church so they can be involved in the life of the church. (A legitimate and important exhortation.) Being a young person, I move around a lot and so it's hard to follow this advice. In the last five/six years, I haven't stayed in the same living situations for more then about 9 months. This is characteristic of most young adults.

Where Does that Put us Young People in the Church?
Churches normally don't do well with people who move around a lot. It takes time to get to know people, meet their needs and invest in their lives. When after a couple months of hard work, all that work seems to go to waste when you move.

To answer the question, young people, like myself, have a major role to play in the church, even if we aren't there for more then a couple months. We are called to be an example to the rest of the congregation in speech, life, love, faith and purity. (1 Timothy 4:12) The role of the young person is to be an example to the congregation, even if he/she is only there for a couple weeks or months.

Below, I outline some practical suggestions I have discovered over the last five years that have helped me. (And no I don't think I've done a good job of following my own suggestions.)

1. Be at church on Time and EVERY Week 
This one can be very hard when you live about 40 minutes away from school, and you were up late studying in the library. (interpretation: on facebook in the library) Regardless, do what it takes to get there on time. If you can't show, make sure someone in the congregation knows you're not. Believe it or not, people notice.

2. Talk to People 
It's really awkward at first, especially if you're the only person there your own age, but it's vital that you go up to people and talk to them. Ask them questions and act like they're a human being even though they may be a half century older then you or are the equivalent of creepy little aliens since they're an endangered species on college campuses. I.E. Little kids.

One a side note, It was really hard for me to remember people's names at church because I saw normally saw them once a week. In between that time, I saw and talked to hundreds of people. Members easily get squeezed out of the young person's memory. Hence, write people's names down. (I never did that...)

3. Pay Attention to the Church Schedule and ATTEMPT to Attend 
I know time is valuable, but even if you don't plan on attending all church events, the least you can do is go to the pot luck dinner. You'll get free food, good food, and people will begin to realize that you're not there to feel holy, but want to be involved in the church. (I failed miserably at this one.)

Even if you don't go to any events, it'll give you feeling for where the church is at and how you can pray for them.

4. Smile and Praise God 
You're at church in the body of Christ. Rejoice and be glad even if you haven't slept for a couple days. (I frowned a lot... I get an excuse since I was a serious philosophy student.)

Note: it may be beneficial to write out our theology of church on Sunday. Basically answer the question, why do you go to church?

5. Don't fall Asleep during the Sermon! 
Guilty as charged. Even if the sermon is the most boring lecture you've heard in your entire life, don't you dare fall asleep. Do whatever it takes: pinch yourself, bring a drink or take notes. I personally took notes, even when I didn't care or disagreed with the pastor. (Sorry Pastor York, Pastor Johnston, Pastor Faris, Pastor Hart. It hasn't happened to often.)

6. Be An Encouragement 
Churches go through hard times. Having a young person who regularly attends can be huge. Just attending can be a great encouragement. It could also mean taking on a more formal role or simply talking to people.

Conclusion
In conclusion, remember that you are an example to the church so it's vital you play a part, even if for a little while.

In the next couple days I'll write something on how the church can help young people. Many of these thoughts are just starting to come up. So thoughts and suggestions will be great.

note: Part II is now up! 

First Impressions

Today is my third day in Australia. It has been a very interesting learning experience. I am still working on adapting to a different culture and school environment. The students began their last term yesterday, and I begin teaching tomorrow. So far, I am teaching two different classes on the Vietnam. My teacher wants me to take on one more prep. We'll be deciding what I add by Friday.

I have found the Aussies to be a very humorous group of people. They are very dry and a bit harsh in their jokes. It's rather funny. Last night at the dinner table with my host family I laughed quite a bit. It's very true that you can judge how much an Aussie likes you by how much they make fun of you. They are also a very chill group of people. They're not work alcoholics like Americans. They do their work, but it doesn't seem to consume all their lives.

Very surprisingly, Australia is a very diverse country. I went to the mall, or shopping center, and I heard about three languages. Because the Australian government recently changed their immigration policies, there are many more immigrants from places like Asia, Chile, Africa and the Middle East. Yet I haven't noticed an animosity or outrage against immigrants like the U.S. is struggling with on the Hispanic immigration issue though some illegal immigration occurs, especially out of Indonesia. Lots more to tell, but I'm stil dealing with jet lag so I've been going to be early. Tonight is no exception.

Does having a Racial Identity lead to Racial Conflict?

When dealing with the issue of racial identity, sometimes people decide to deny or reject identifying with their race because of the conflict race has caused. One does not have to look far in order to see that having a strong racial identity can lead to racial conflict. For instance, the civil rights conflict of the 1960s in the United States. One should note that when I say "racial identity" I do mean just the color of your skin, but also the culture, ideals, philosophy behind your specific ethnic group(s).

Does racial conflict justify rejecting the idea that it is important to develop a racial identity? I don't believe that the above argument works. There are many things that bring about conflict. For instance, the existence of the nation-state brings about conflicts between groups of people. Obviously, this isn't justification for ridding the world of nation-states. Just because something can bring about conflict, it does not mean we should reject it.

It is important to see that having a racial identity does not necessarily bring about conflict. In fact, I would argue that the more we think and discuss this issue the less likely conflict will come abou. The reason being, people will have a better understanding of what other people are thinking. (Though this is not always true, and we should be careful to avoid making our racial identity the core of our identity.)

Also, there are sad consequences for rejecting our racial identity. People forget their history when they don't have a racial identity. The past helps us discover who we are and what is best for the future, and it is tragic when this is lost. Lastly, we can't rid ourselves of our racial identity. Our race is a part of who we are and denying that it exists, denies a part of who we are as human beings.

American History X, a Thought on Race

I just finished watching the movie, "American History X." In some ways I thought the movie was shallow in that it did not deal deep enough with the issue of reconciliation between races in the United States. Also it looked at an extreme in racial tensions. I would appreciate a more nuanced view. Though, in the ways that it did, I thought were very good. Overall, a phenomenal movie. In this post I want to talk about one particular scene that I believe represents what white Americans are struggling through.

The main character, "respected" white supremacist Derek, tells his younger brother, Danny, that he has given up on the "race war." He has quit hating people. After their conversation, Derek and Danny arrive home and in their bedroom. On the walls are posters of Hitler, white supremacy and a large Nazis flag. The scene is shot showing them calmly taking down all the posters and flag. A bare wall is what remains. This scene struck me.

It struck me because this is what has happened to many white Americans. In an attempt to avoid or get rid of racism and hate, we have torn down the things that have caused so much pain. In result, we have lost our identity as white Americans. Like the brother's bare wall, many Americans lack a strong racial identity because their race has represented so much hate. They shed much of this identity because they don't want to do anything with what it has represented. The result is a gap in their identity. Derek and Danny are no longer racist so who are they? I think many white Americans are struggling with this very question.

My Thought

I believe that it is possible for a white American to being content with his/her race, to say that he/she would not want to be any other race but the one he/she has been given. Furthermore, I think that it is important that as a white American I develop this identity in a healthy way mainly through history.

For instance, I am reading David McCullough's book "John Adams," a great biography of our second president. As a white American I can look at figures in history like John Adams and build my racial identity. Of course Adams had flaws, but he is a part of the white American past (NOT to the exclusion of other races!) and can help us begin to discover more of what it means to be a white American to the benefit of ourselves and those of other races.

So Much to Talk About

This has been a very full week so I thought that I would take a shotgun approach to this blog post. Below is a wide survey of the topics I have been a part of lately.

1. Illegal immigration - Arizona Law 1070

At Ethics Bowl we had to prepare a case regarding the infamous illegal immigration law in Arizona. After my research I found this law to be unethical because it invites discrimination. Hence it is an unjust law. Discrimination is inherently unjust, the reason being, it is basing judgment of another off of something they can't change. (Note, I am talking about racial discrimination. I am uncomfortable saying that all forms of discrimination are wrong since we discriminate against federal offenders.) I don't think that the amendment changes the law given the social context of Arizona and the U.S. We have a terrible history when it comes to racial relations with Hispanics. For example, the Reparation Act during the Great Depression.

2. Gender Issues - Men

Why is it that men are passive? They hold a slight majority in the world population in comparison to women. Also, men in the United States hold more powerful positions then women. Why is it that men hold more power then women yet the majority of men are passive? Furthermore, why is it that men are often "attacked" for being passive? There seems to be more proactive dialogue regarding the empowerment of women yet the discussion of men is more often ignored or mis-understood. My thought is that whenever we talk about the empowerment of women, we must talk about the empowerment of men. Who causes all the world's problems? Who fights all the time, who doesn't support their wives, is addicted to pornography, rapes others, encourages women to get abortions and is in prison a lot? Men. The origin of many of the problems with women today are in men. We need to empower men in order to help women.

3. Alvin Plantinga - fear of ideas

Professor Plantinga spoke at Taylor this past week. He is a humble, kind and sharp philosopher. I could talk a lot about some of the things he spoke on. (For instance, he spoke on how naturalism can't explain how our cognitive faculties produce truth-oriented beliefs, why religious pluralism fails to be internally coherent and how miracles are compatible with science.) Something that fascinates me about Plantinga is that he is not scared of any idea. This was an observation by one of my professors. Many Christians do not share this trait. I hope that as I grow I can develop the ability to rationally consider an idea respectfully no matter how odd or strange it is. Why should we be afraid of ideas that are false or could be false? If all truth is God's truth, what do we have to fear?

4. Government Control and Information

At the conference for the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, I heard a discussion on a new book called, "Mass Surveillance and State Control: The Total Information Awareness Project." It was a very insightful and fun discussion regarding the overwhelming ability of the government to watch our lives through the internet. The author, Elliot Cohen, argues that we must push back before its too late. He was critiqued by three others. I am looking forward to cracking open this book in my spare time. I got it through interlibrary loan. I may dedicate a blog post to this subject once I finish the book.

5. Intellectual Open-mindedness - Dr. Jim Spiegel

My professor, Dr. Jim Spiegel, gave a paper at the same conference regarding intellectual open-mindedness. He attempted to show the connection between humility and open-mindedness, that open-mindedness and humility are closely connected. One thought I had is that because of the issue of "moral luck" we have more of a obligation to have humility and hence open mindedness since our situation in life is not wholly the result of our actions and choices, but other people and our environment.

6. We Lost - Ethics Bowl - Nationals

It was frustrating but we did not get beyond the first round. We beat Dartmouth which was a good feeling since we tied with them two years ago. This time we soundly defeated them. The two cases argued were whether "cybrids" (human embryos that are 99% human and 1% animal.) bring about more benefits then harms and whether it is ethical to debark. Debarking is cutting a dogs vocal cords so their ability to bark is greatly inhibited. On the former, we argued for the negative, that cybrids are unethical and man did sparks fly. All the judges disagreed with us, as well as Dartmouth, but in the end, they were fair judges. (I don't say they were fair because they gave us the win, but because everyone else in the room thought we had won.) On the issue of debarking, I believe we argued for the practice being unethical unless the alternative is killing the dog.

Something that took the bite off the loss was that Montana State, who we lost to, went on to go to the finals where they were controversially (they lost by three points0 beaten by the University of Central Florida.

In spite of losing and no longer being an ethics bowler, I am thankful for these past three years. I have learned so much through ethics bowl. By far, it has been one of the most important activities I have participated in at Taylor.

Wikileaks and Anonymity

I just finished watching a four part series on youtube.com about wikileaks. I find the topic fascinating on multiple levels. Most definitely one cannot look at the issue in terms of black and white. Wikileaks is not pure evil or pure goodness. My post will be in two parts: an insight into the nature of wikileaks and a short ethical analysis of the ethics.

The Nature of Wikileaks
Wikileaks' foundation has two columns. First, free access to information. This is obvious if anyone who reads about them in the news. Second, it is based on guaranteed anonymity. It is interesting that they want freedom of information but not all information. They want the names of those who leak information to remain unknown. This is to protect those who leak information since what they're doing is breaking the law, and releasing their names would discourage future leaks.

So, Wikileaks is not in favor of releasing ALL information freely to the public. They have to agree that some information must remain secret.

Lastly, information is power because it is knowledge. They believe that knowledge is power. This is a philosophically very important point since this means that information is not neutral. It has value.

The Ethics
As I said before, this is not a black and white issue. I don't think that the activities of wikileaks are ethically coherent. As stated in the documentary, they believe that it is okay to risk the lives of people by exposing information to the world for the sake of keeping public officials accountable. Yet, they believe that the lives of those who leak information should be protected, not exposed to the world, for the sake that they continue to do so.

Why is it that those who break the law and act in secrecy are kept safe while others suffer? For the greater good? What greater good? There are two possible answers:
1. That information be freely given to the world.
2. That public officials are held accountable for their actions.
I find these two answers to be poor.

First, on what authority does wikileaks give that they can keep the identity of those who leak information confidential while exposing the work of public officials? If they are in favor of freedom of information, shouldn't these individuals identities revealed?

Second, in the documentary wikileaks has expressed moral outrage at the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq in the way civilians were treated. Yet, where is the moral outrage of wikileaks jeopardizing people's lives by leaking classified documents? Sure, public officials are embarrassed and its causing diplomatic strain, but who's going to keep wikileaks accountable for their actions? If someone dies because of wikileaks that puts blood on wikileaks hands for their actions.

Conclusion
I do not believe that wikileaks has the moral high ground. They are just as responsible as public officials for their actions. Yet, what they are doing is revealing who people really are? They are giving us the truth. I find that to be good even though its hard to accept the truth many times.

Jesus Doesn't Solve Everything

When I got back on campus this fall, I was catching up with some of my former floor-mates. One of them had spent some time in a country that was full of ethnic/religious conflict. I asked him if he thought there was solution to the problem. His response was. "I don't know, they just need Jesus, you know." I was taken back by the naivety of his comment, but surprised myself in thinking that his statement is not true. Having Jesus does not solve ethnic or religious conflict.

At the time this thought hadn't grown. It wasn't until yesterday in a discussion regarding Islamic tensions in the UK that my thought formed. One of the students in the class discussion argued that if people became Christians, many of the tensions in the UK would be lessened. I then began to realize that I believe this is contrary to the teaching of Jesus.

Some of what Jesus Said
Jesus never states that if you follow him, everything will be okay here on earth. Nor does he say that he has come to solve political and religious turmoil. Instead, he goes to even say the opposite. Matthew 10:34, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus was not intending that we bring a sword and cause conflict. He calls us to be peacemakers, but we should not be looking to Christ to solve all our problems.

We are to solve our problems. (To clarify, I don't mean that we need to save ourselves. This is the work of Christ and His Spirit in our lives.) Why else did the Christ leave us with the command, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Health and Wealth Gospel Critique
Another concern I have with saying that having Jesus will solve problems in society is that it is a version of the "health and wealth gospel." The argument goes, if you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior then things will go well. You will be healthy and wealthy. When something goes wrong it's because you've sinned and need to repent. This same argument is being applied when people say that "they just need Jesus to resolve this conflict." No, that is not true.

Jesus did not say that if you follow him everything will go well. Look at what he tells Peter in John 21. Jesus tells Peter that he is going to go where he doesn't want to go. Jesus is predicting the kind of death Peter will suffer.

Critique from History
Lastly, this argument is historically problematic. There have been many Christians, "Bible believing Christians" who have helped stir up conflict or started conflict. (Look at the Great Awakening and trace the history of all the different protestant denominations.) In some cases, the conflict has been between Christians. (Ireland, 30 years war, the Crusades just to name a few.) It's clear from history that having Jesus in your heart does not mean political problems or solved.

I have found myself attempting to sweep aside the "dark-side" of Christian history. I want my history to be a good history, full of exciting successes and great examples of how to be a good Christian. Sadly, this is not true. Christianity has a tough and rough history. the visible church has committed genocide (both Protest and Roman Catholic. I don't know about the Orthodox church.), been racist and has not expressed the love of Jesus. And this is a part of my history as a Christian.

Conclusion
This is not to say that being a Christian doesn't help resolve conflict. One can point out many examples of individuals and groups who have protested genocide and actively reached out to oppressed people. (Civil Rights movement was started by Christians and Martin Luther King jr. was a pastor.) It's vital to remember both the good and bad in our history.

Lastly, being a Christian provides a point of reference which people can agree upon, but it's not the whole answer to resolving political, ethnic or religious conflicts. For instance, the teachings of Jesus Christ have been helpful (I would argue vital.) in the process of reconciliation in Rwanda. Certainly being a Christian can help, but simply saying "all they need is Jesus" is not sufficient and contrary to what Jesus commanded us. Christ looks to us as servants of his kingdom to resolve conflicts. We can't just say, let Jesus do it because he empowered us to do His work.

A 2nd Look at NYC Mosque

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog post on the building of a mosque in NYC, a couple of blocks near ground zero. I argued that the government has no constitutional standing to prohibiting such a building. I also argued that the argument for prohibiting the construction of the mosque because it presents a security risk fails. In this post I will argue that it is unethical for the Muslims to choose to build their mosque in NYC.

Principle of Non-maleficence
This principle states that we ought to act in ways that do not bring needless harm to individuals and society. There is an argument that building a mosque in downtown NYC brings unnecessary harm.

First, it is not necessary that they build a mosque in that location. Out of kindness towards others, they could instead build just the student center. Furthermore, they bought the building post-9/11. This revokes the claim that they need to build there since it would be very expensive to buy somewhere else.

Second, people don't just dis-like having a mosque being built in NYC, it really bothers them. Thousands have taken to the street in protest and many claim offense since it is near ground zero, sacred ground. The harm occurs in building a religious building near a sacred site that was tragically created by people of that same religion. It is the same as the Japanese attempting to build a museum for WWII soldiers next to the Pearl Harbor Memorial or building a German cultural center next to a Holocaust site. Hence, people are upset.

Argument from Virtue
By moving the mosque to a different location the builders would be acting virtuously. Specifically they would be respectful. Exemplifying these virtues would do much to help the relationship between Islam and the United States.
-This is not to say the U.S. exemplifies these virtues.

The builders would be respectful by not building the mosque. It would express an understanding of people's views, a consideration of how they feel and in an attempt to express their concern for what has happened in this country. (I think that this last point is very important. If the Islam does not reach out to the United States in love and forgiveness then there will never be reconciliation.)

Conclusion
I believe that it is unethical for the Muslims to build a mosque in downtown NYC. They would be exemplifying the virtue of respect by not building and the principle of non-maleficence is my argument.

What is the Issue of Building a Mosque in NYC

Plenty many say. Now, it is important to realize that if Muslims wanted to build a mosque in Indianapolis, San Francisco or Kansas City there wouldn't be a problem. They have the right to build a religious institution on private property. No one with any sense of the constitution would argue against that.

The Issue
So the issue with NYC is different. It's not the fact that they want to build a religious institution rather it is where they want to build it and what religion this building will represent. It will represent the religion that several well-educated men died for when they murdered thousands of people on 9/11. People don't want a mosque to be build near the site of the Twin Towers because they believe that it will be defamation to that site. So they want the government to prohibit it.

Now, if the government prohibits building this mosque, they will be breaking the constitution so they can't prohibit the building of a mosque based on its religion. Anyone who argues that the government should prohibit a mosque being built in NYC needs to rethink their argument. The government simply cannot do that. Mayor Michael Bloomberg sums it up nicely:

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution."

Another Argument
A better argument I have heard for denying the right to build a mosque in NYC is that it creates a national security issue. Yet, I don't know what the basis for this is. The closest piece of evidence I can find in the 10 minutes of research I have committed to this project is that the leader of the project to build the mosque is Feisal Abdul Rauf. He is a moderate Muslim who is attempting to bridge peace between the West and Islam. Yet, he doesn't thing HAMAS is a terrorist group. He condemned 9/11. Yet, he said that the United States had this "crime" coming to her since we have done a poor job in our relation with the Islamic world.

This doesn't make Feisal Abdul Rauf a terrorist. Rather, he views HAMAS differently then the U.S. government and sees that the crime of 9/11 is a consequence of our behavior with Islam. This does not mean he is a terrorist or has connections with terrorists.

Besides lacking evidence, this argument also lacks coherency. How will building a mosque be a threat in NYC? That doesn't make very much sense to me. Why would a terrorist organization use a mosque as a base of operation when any building will do? Furthermore, using a mosque only puts them in a more prominent position, the opposite of what you want to do when you're attempting to avoid detection.

Lastly, the United States has had poor relationships with Islam. Will allowing the building of the mosque improve relationships? Possibly, but not allowing it to be built will certainly hurt it.

Summary
The United State government cannot prohibit the building of a mosque in downtown Manhatten because it would be breaching the constitution. Arguing that building a mosque would present a national security risk lacks evidence to support its claim and lacks coherency.

Irrational Protest

In Oakland, Cal. riots occurred because of a jury's decision to not convict an officer of murder for killing an unarmed African American. The officer claimed that he accidentally pulled his gun instead of his taser, shooting the man. The jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter. (Basically saying that his "mistake" was so bad that it counts as a crime.)

In response, many rioted in Oakland, breaking the law themselves, as a protest to the jury's decision. I find this irrational on a couple of levels.

First, a jury, a group of citizens and the rioters equals, gave the sentence. There were groups who peacefully protested this decision yet I'm not sure why they would want to protest what a jury decided because that jury, I assume, was made up of people of them.

Second, those who rioted acted in the name of the victim. They broke the law as a way of protesting against one who they believe broke the law. If they are in favor of the law being handed out, why go break what you're trying to uphold?

Lastly, what good is going to come of this? I don't know many riots that have resulted in better governments, better societies or a happy people. I know approximately 50 people were arrested. They're probably not very happy.

Though it may appear from our view that the officer should be convicted of murder, we need to be careful to weigh our opinions carefully. A carefully weighed opinion means you spend careful time looking at the matter (perhaps six hours like the jury did), and when you come to a conclusion, don't act in a way that warrants arrest. (Like that officer.)