If you listen to the conservative talking heads spout their empty, thoughtless rhetoric, you might actually believe that a mosque is being constructed at Ground Zero.  Queen of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, has tweeted the following:

Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real

Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing

Will Obama express US lingering pain& ask Muslims for tolerance by discouraging 9/11 mosque while he celebrates Islamic holy month tonight?

Mr. President, should they or shouldn’t they build a Muslim mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people?Your position?

Mr. President, why are they so set on marking an area w/ mosque steps from what you described, in agreement with many, as “hallowed ground”?

Were you to take literally these statements, and others like them, you might actually believe that a group of Muslims intend to erect a mosque where the Twin Towers once stood.  This is not the case.  Note the following:

The supposed “mosque” will actually be built two blocks from the site of the World Trade center.  From what I’ve read, the Twin Towers stood more than 100 feet south of the marked northern boundary of the TWC on this map. As you can see, this is clearly not on Ground Zero; neither is it across the street from Ground Zero, nor in sight of Ground Zero.  What most people are not aware of is the fact that Park51 (the proposed building project), is not the first meeting place for Muslims on Park street.  The new facility at 51 Park street is intended to house a larger prayer space for Muslims that have been meeting at 45 Park street for some time.  Nobody had taken issue – to the best of my knowledge –  with the 45 Park Street Muslims, who are one in the same with the 51 Park Street Muslims.

Beliefnet ran an interview with Sharif el-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties and lead developer of the Park 51 project. He explained why they are pursuing a building program in south Manhatan:

Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place [note: this property was purchased AFTER 9-11], there were two mosques in lower Manhattan – although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.

The second mosque, at Warren St., accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers – people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place, accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.

It seems completely fair that a thriving religious community without a proper meeting place would want to build a place of worship in their neighborhood and community.  Personally, I hate commuting to church, and, if what I’ve been told about New York is true, traffic is a total bitch.  The purpose of being part of a religious gathering is to foster community and fellowship, regardless of your faith. I can identify with Manhattan Muslims wanting a place to gather and engage with one another. They shouldn’t have to leave their neighborhood to meet. As the “mosque” will not be built on or adjacent to Ground Zero, I see no fault with its location.

Moreover, the proposed building project is not solely a mosque. Park51 is to be a community center, which will provide the community with the following:

• outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
• a 500-seat auditorium
• a restaurant and culinary school
• cultural amenities including exhibitions
• education programs
• a library, reading room and art studios
• childcare services
• a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
• a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all

According to the Park51 website, the mosque, although housed within the same building, will have an entirely different governing body.   Interestingly enough, the developers of Park 51 do not intend the community center to be exclusively Islamic.  Developers said:

We will include a September 11th memorial and quiet reflection space where people of different faith traditions and beliefs, sacred and secular, can find quiet time and solace. Park51 will also include general spaces and world-class facilities for all New Yorkers to benefit from, whether that’s a Hebrew [Jews!] class meeting weekly or a yoga [Hindu in origin!] studio looking for space on a regular basis. We’ll have an auditorium to engage large audiences, and sophisticated classroom space as well.

Thus, it seems to me that the the entire project has been blown grossly out of proportion by Sarah & Co. I believe this construction project is being emotionalized and used as leverage to further a right-wing political agenda.  Still, I find the entirely affair thoroughly concerning…

What concerns me most is the fact that so many are willing to take away the rights of these peaceful, law-abiding, United States citizens.  The  First Amendment states: “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.”

This right - the right to practice any religion freely – is a cornerstone to our society. Like it or not, the United States is not a Christian country; the aforementioned amendment clearly states that the US will have no established state religion. Most of the religions sound bites – …one nation under God/In God We Trust/etc – evolved parallel to the evolution of the moral majority and the Christianization of the Republican party. For instance, the words “under God” were not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954.  Further more, “In God We Trust” was first added to select coins during the Civil War era (not surprisingly, religious fanatics were spiritualizing the war); this was not made the official motto of the United States until 1956. The 1950′s were, of course, when the “Bible Belt” earned its name. These ambiguous references to God sprung up over time; they were not the doing of the founding fathers. In fact, I’m sure the founding fathers would be horrified if thet could see us now.

These Muslims are being unfairly persecuted for their faith – a faith they have a right to observe wherever they like.  The Islamic extremists are not representative of their values, faith, or their unique religious subculture.  To think this would be akin to thinking all Christians are like Westboro Baptist Church.   If this was a group of yuppy, balding, fat, white men attempting to build a palace for Joel Osteen, they would receive no criticism. And I dare say that would be more dangerous than a mosque.

But when the chips are down, I support this mosque because it is a matter of equality, justice, and observing the constitution. To disallow the mosque would be to act against a group of people based solely on their religions affiliation. Any strides we’ve made for equality and freedom would be lost. When we start telling people where they can and can’t practice their religion, we get on dicey ground.  Not only do we discount the Constitution – the lifeblood and backbone of the United States – we turn our backs on moral conscience.   Were we to tell these Manhattan Muslims to build elsewhere, we become as intolerant as the men that toppled the Twin Towers.  And they hate us for our freedom. Right?

I just read a very disturbing article from our local news paper, The Surrey Now, about a child pornography case going through the Surrey Provincial Court.  The Now tells us that:

A Surrey dad who sexually molested seven girls under the age 10 – three of them his own daughters among them – and made videos to swap with other men in South Africa, Australia, Toronto and Iowa is facing up to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty to 11 charges involving incest, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and making and distributing child pornography…

… Outside court, [Crown Prosecutor] Sandhu said he was particularly disturbed by the way the molester had groomed his victims and counts the case as “certainly” one of the toughest he’s had to deal with.He’s calling for a sentence of 14 to 15 years.“We’re seeking a high sentence,” he said.

You can read more of the story here.

I’m still reeling with the realization that this monster will be back on the streets when I have children one day. He has stolen both innocence and childhood from seven little girls, and the prosecutor is hopeful that he will serve the “high sentence” of 14 or 15 years?  What sort of justice is that?  In 15 years, those little girls will be in their midtwenties; they’ll still have a lot of life to live, carting this baggage along with them.

Apparently, the courts don’t take sexual offenses seriously. In March, the courts allowed a convicted sex offender to move back into his Langley neighborhood, in which one of his victims lives; they also made provision for him to continue his work as landscaper in proximity of children, as long as he is outdoors in daylight. This man exposed himself to two young girls, performed lewd acts in front of them while watching pornography, and invited them to touch him.  He served just four months of his six month sentence. You can read about it on The Province.

These are just two examples of very lenient sentences for very dangerous, sick men.   What I find more concerning is that, after a very thorough google search, I anything useful about a sex offender registry.  In Washington, I believe one could check the registry and knew if an offender was living in one’s backyard. Not so in Surrey!  What I learned tonight is that the sex offender registry is sealed, even to local detachments of the police. Unless the police file an official request pertaining to an active investigation, they don’t have access to the national registry!

Compare the situation in my area to the case of a Gobsonton, Florida offender. This man did not make child pornography, he simply possessed copious amounts of it. He was also found guilty of intent to have sex with a mentally challenged girl. Tampa Bay Online says the following about the case:

He was charged with using a computer to solicit child pornography, two counts of attempted lewd and lascivious battery, and 45 counts of possessing more than 10 images of child pornography.

Cocking faced 1,300 years under state law, but prosecutors said 55 years was the maximum sentence under state sentencing guidelines.

For lesser crimes, the Floridian man faces 55 years in prison.

I’m gravely concerned by the light sentences the offenders in my area receive.  Two messages emerge. First, sexual offenses are not serious in nature. Second, sexual offenders need not fear repercussions of their actions because they will simply get a slap on the wrist.  Both are dangerous messages for our society to proliferate.

I think the following quote from the Florida circuit judge sums up the situation succinctly:

Every time these images are made, a child has been raped, a child has been victimized and a child has lost its innocence. It has to be stopped.

I’m not sure how we put an end to child pornography, but I’m sure it starts with acknowledging the serious nature of the crime and responding accordingly in the court system.