Skip to content

Where *can* we put a mosque?

So, if the critics of the mosque in NY are correct, that we should not put a religious institution near a place where anyone even remotely connected with that religion may have committed an act that leads to a place being thought “sacred”, where can we put one?

I did some extensive research and decided that there is a function: location on planet × degree of sacredness. This determines where some person thinks that a religious institution-free zone must be. After much research (about ten seconds’ worth, which is much more than this debate seems to warrant or get), I came up with the following map:

religion-freezones.png

The unshaded areas are where religious institutions may be built without upsetting someone’s sensibilities as to what counts as sacred ground. I therefore propose that all religious institutions immediately be moved to the following regions:

North America – somewhere in Idaho, or around Baffen Bay

South America – central Amazon, high in the Andes, or Tierra Del Fuego

Mesoamerica – nowhere. You’re screwed. You have to worship in Canada.

Europe – Northern Finland.

Africa – central Sahara, maybe. The information is spotty here, so the entire continent may be Verboten. The Kalahari may also be out.

Australia – either the Nullabor Plain, or southern New Zealand.

New Zealand – southern tip of the south Island.

Asia – northern parts of Siberia, or the center of the Caspian Sea, midway between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

Most of the Pacific is okay.

Antarctica is fine; anywhere there except Mawson Hut, which is sacred to Australians, and the Wilkins Ice Shelf, which is sacred to me.

So, I propose that we immediately move all religious institutions to one of these regions immediately, so as to not offend anybody’s sense of what is sacred.

21 Comments

  1. Jonathan Livengood Jonathan Livengood

    Are the red areas spheres? Maybe we could build mosques on the moon or put them in low orbit? Or maybe just on really, really tall stilts.

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      Distance is distance. Ground Zero should be a minimum of 1000km from any religious site.

  2. Don Cates Don Cates

    Umm… did you mean Hudson’s Bay?

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      All the same, really…

  3. llewelly llewelly

    North America – somewhere in Idaho, or around Baffen Bay

    Your map has Idaho totally red. The area closest to Idaho which is not red is in either south eastern BC or south western Alberta.

  4. Can you imagine the panic that would result in the United States at the prospect ICBMs (Intercontinetal Ballistic Mosques) passing overhead several times a day? Surely the US government will feel it necessary to launch churches, chapels, and even synagogues, in an effort to counter the threat.

  5. Chris' Wills Chris' Wills

    Well you just offended all the tribes in Siberia, all the eskimos in Canada and the Sami in Northern Scandinavia.

    Oh, that bit in the Sahara/Sahel is occupied by, mostly, tribes with their own animist beliefs so probably sacred as well.

    Why 1000km?

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      I thought Jon Stewart said that was the distance required…

      Also I didn’t want to draw lots of small circles, so I assumed that ony those groups that Americans care about should be included.

  6. Ben Breuer Ben Breuer

    Sahara: your white spot there has the great mosques of Djenne, Tombouctou, and other cities there.
    Pacific: Most of the islands already have temples on them, so, no other places of worship there.
    New Zealand: I thought the Maori settled all of the two islands.
    Central Amazon: what about the terra-preta cultures?
    High Andes: Machu Picchu?
    Northern Siberia: shamanism derives its notion of the sacred from the land, no?
    Northern Finland: won’t anyone think of Santa Claus?
    (/whine)

    So, yeah, about the only place left for new religious buildings is Ellesmere Island. … Wait, didn’t they find Tiktaalik there? So, sacred ground of paleontology. Ah well …

    • Chris' Wills Chris' Wills

      Northern Siberia: shamanism derives its notion of the sacred from the land, no?

      You are correct, the answer is no.

      Shamanism is diverse, however it is the spirit of living things and the dead from whom help is sought.
      Physical locations may be held sacred, but this is most often due to their fertility or because they are or where a source of water in an arid land (i.e. Ayers rock) or their role in the tribe’s mythos.

      • Ben Breuer Ben Breuer

        Yeah’rrrrr, I kind of knew this and was loose in my application. I guess locations serve as indices to the tales of the “living things” and as icons of survival (sources, etc.). Part was my remembering kami (sensu Japanese shinto, casually read) that are tied to regions/locations (genius loci and mythological connection seem to go together there, sometimes).

  7. Ian H Spedding FCD Ian H Spedding FCD

    You all seem to be missing the obvious.

    The world’s oceans are unshaded and I understand the Mariana Trench is particularly deep and inaccessible spot, for example.

    Well, there was nothing about it being easy to move or build them there.

  8. So how does this interact with where Duncan MacLeod is allowed to go around chopping heads off?

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      Since there can be only one, he’s a statistical blip.

  9. Matty Smith Matty Smith

    Judging by South Island radio, they would not be happy with a mosque in Invercargill or Bluff.

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      We’re running out of places to put them. I gather there’s a Mariana Trench secularist society.

      • Ian H Spedding FCD Ian H Spedding FCD

        There is? Where do I join?

        • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

          Apply at the front office. You can’t miss it. It’s at the deepest point…

      • Ben Breuer Ben Breuer

        Wasn’t there another religion laying claim to that place? I seem to remember some account … dunno … “Roar of Ctholic” or something?

  10. chris y chris y

    The Chicxulub crater looks as if it might be a goer at a pinch. Or is that too controversial?

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      Well Mexico might object, and unless there is about to be another impact, it won’t do any good (and Mexico might object to that, too).

Comments are closed.

Optimized by Optimole