The proposed mosque at the site of New York City’s ground zero requires a heart-centered response, not only a constitutional one. We are not a nation of robots applying a software program (The Constitution) we were downloaded with and have updated regularly since its creation. Heart centered responses utilize a human being’s highest level of consciousness–that of love— to make decisions that matter. Something being right and in integrity require us to use our God-given feedback system, our intuition and conscience to make decisions in difficult times. Otherwise we are akin to children needing guidance on issues that our adult moral compass should be able to handle.
A heart-centered solution:
* would make it virtually impossible for those proposing the mosque to even consider such a location because the interest in healing the emotional wounds would be held as paramount, over and above their “constitutional right” to be there.
* would require an answer in which people feel supported, heard, and respected AND a heart-centered response would put the issue to rest. I guarantee you if the mosque appears there, the unprocessed pain of 9/11 will NOT step toward healing and it will not contribute to putting anything to rest. Conversely it will spread bacteria on a wound like we spread peanut butter on a sandwich.
* would not assert the right to DO something simply because it was written that you could– but rather would encourage all parties involved to make a love-based decision–one of compassion.
There was a time that The Constitution “allowed” slavery and conditions of inequality and discrimination among people of different races and genders. Were those love-based decisions? Was that heart centered? Absolutely not. When we abdicate our responsibility to THINK compassionately in lieu of referring to a document for guidance we have tossed our human-ness aside and shirked our spiritual responsibility.
This is more than just about “church and state” colliding–seriously Rep Joe Sestak–it does not just boil down to respecting constitutional rights–religion just happens to be part of this scenario, but the opportunity to stand for compassion could take many forms. It is about being kind, compassionate and going head-first into decisions that call on us as human being that care about something bigger than us and bigger than our desires to assert our will.
I stood in a New York church after 9/11 to say goodbye to Rob McLaughlin who perished at Ground Zero. We witnessed the heartbreak of his parents, family, friends and his widow in shock clutching their 9 month-old son. This imagine forever etched on my heart could have me formulate no other response to this controversy. I know that those who would worship in that proposed mosque did not plan and carry out the attacks –and yes some Muslims died on that day too– but this religion was twisted to inextricably link it to the outcome of that day–and that fact alone– should have those making this decision find a site around the corner, a few blocks away or anywhere… but there. New York City is pretty darn big. Why THERE? This is what leaves so many incredulous.
There is one word that will hemorrhage our life force both personally or globally. That word is “entitlement”. When we feel we are “entitled” to something, we muddle the pristine waters in which a spiritually responsible solution is derived from. A sense of entitlement breaks apart siblings when it is time to enact a parents last will and testament and to some it justifies violence when they have been wronged. Entitlement mutes the voice of truth, reason and personal responsibility. But if I may, I would like to state this fact–we are entitled to nothing–our ego just tells us we are.
We shouldn’t need The Constitution to babysit our ability to do the kind thing–although more and more it seems that is what the document has been tirelessly called upon to do. Conscience and kindness must be the GPS among the people of any nation or city. It is easy for us to see what is shocking about the Taliban who recently stoned a young couple in love– in a public spectacle– for eloping. The Taliban claimed they were entitled to stone them to death–because it went against the “law”. Of course this example is more about bringing about fear in people and of course was not a heart-centered decision. And neither would be a mosque at ground zero.
Some may say it is not a heart-based decision to oppose the mosque at this location. To you I say this… It is not a heart-based decision to do something knowingly unkind and even offensive– while being hopeful that the other person takes the high road while responding with love and acceptance. THAT is manipulation and self-centeredness. We have long been a nation of thinkers. Can we now invite the heart to join the mind in our decisions too? If we collectively did this, we would find that most of our laws would be completely unnecessary. The Golden-Rule works well regardless of religion, politics, race– or anything else that has us buying into the persistent illusion that we are separate from each other.
(C) Rena M. Reese