Oh noes.
Of course, it's entirely unacceptable that America, like, be the beacon of religious freedom she has been for the past two hundred years. I always thought religious freedom was over-rated, anyway.
The opposition to this mosque/community center arises mainly (surprise, surprise) from the Right. In the American exceptionalist mindset the average Republican pundit possesses, it is inconceivable that America should actually allow alternate views and religions to rise up in her land! After all, those Muslims spread their religion! And...they blew up our towers!
Hint about that last one, by the way- the people who blew up our towers...are dead. Just thought I'd let you know.
But, of course, those aren't the only reasons we don't like the idea of having a mosque in America. This mosque is practically right on Ground Zero! Even though it's...three New York City blocks away. But it would hurt the sovereign, just, righteous cause we have! That Muslims are evil! That they killed our people! It would send a message to our enemies that- Hey! Bring me your tired, your worn, your radicals!
This author has an answer to that:
"But I’d have thought that opinion leaders of all ideological stripes could reach consensus by applying a basic rule of thumb: Just ask, “What would Osama bin Laden want?” and then do the opposite.
Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam."
My take-
It's a mosque and community center. As one of the commenters on the above linked article asked- how would Palin, King, etc. react if it were a church being proposed? Would they care if Muslims objected?
That's a laugh. It would be whimper-and-whine time. "Oh boo-hoo. Help us. Religious persecution!"
But since it's another religious group we're discriminating against...oh well, that's fine.
Furthermore, I don't think this will harm our image in the Muslim world. I think it'll show people that America is mature enough to not compromise on what she claims to believe in- that is, freedom for all, not just the people we like.
Jon Stewart had an excellent segment on this issue:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Wish You Weren't Here | ||||
| ||||
Posts
23 comments:
I think that people should be able to build mosques where they want to in the US; this is the US after all, and religious freedom SHOULD be part of the culture.
Very well reasoned. Thank you.
And thanks for the link to the Robin Wright article. He pretty much destroys the effort to impugn the leader of the mosque.
Am I to interpret your defense of Imam Rauf to be an endorsement of his ideals?
Eagle- I completely agree.
Don- thanks, and I agree. He did an excellent job tearing that article apart, LOL
Tragedy- in what way do you mean? I really don't know a thing about the Imam other than that he is trying to build this mosque/community center. So I don't know if I agree with his other views. However, I don't think, with the information I have, that we can say he can't build any religious building or organization he wants.
People protest their government condemning state historical sites for constuction of a mosque/religious center. And you defend the government. I cannot find another rational conclusion.
Tragedy- I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.
From what I've read, the "historical sites" are damaged. They have structural faults, and would be destroyed anyway, even if the Imam in question hadn't bought the property. Beyond that- the property was for sale, and he bought it. He has that right, and he has the right to keep it. I think America has entirely too many government-mandated "historical sites" already, but that might just be me. ^.^
The facts are these- the government cannot Constitutionally prevent the Imam from building whatever he wants on the property he has bought. Period.
Where in the Constitution does it say what a state or city can or cannot do in as much as zoning? How does the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution read? What is that word? States?
Oh, forget it. There is no way I can express what I mean to you.
Considering you believe New York to be part of the federal government, not a sovereign state.
Sorry, I won't bother you again.
Tragedy- I really don't mind you "bothering" me, LOL. I don't find it a bother, I enjoy talking with you. :))
Let me explain- there are certain rights in the Constitution that are universal, not limited to the jurisdiction of the federal government. Like, for instance, the freedom of religion.
If the area the Imam has bought has been zoned as something differently, then that's an entirely different matter. That's the city's jurisdiction, and should be dealt with there. They might need to change their site. But to my understanding, that is not the case.
Meh, I'm not making much sense. >.>
Miss Liberty,
If it is truly not a bother...
Please, tell me in what clause of the Constitution this "universal right to freedom of religion" is established. I would greatly appreciate it.
It is my understanding that three of the original thirteen states had constitutions as they were accepted into the United States establishing a state church. They soon did away with these, but they did so purely on a state level. It is a power not delegated to the Federal government, nor denied the states. Therefore it is a power reserved the states and the people thereof.
It is further my understanding that those writing the Constitution, except where explicitly stated otherwise, were writing the framework for how the federal government was to operate. It was not intended as a "blueprint" or example of how states should operate. That is why the term "Sovereign State" is used. The people of each state could deal as they saw fit with all matters not explicitly given the Federal government, nor explicitly denied the states by the Constitution.
The short explanation, I suppose, is:
I am for limited federal government, states rights, and people in other states to stay out of that state's business.
The first amendment to the Constitution grants the freedom of religion, association, etc. to all people. It is my understanding that the amendments apply both to the federal and state governments, seeing as they are in the bill of rights...
How can it? As it states "Congress shall make no law..." These amendments are seperated into ten different amendments because, while ratified all at the same time, the wording of one does not affect the meaning of another. They are ten seperate amendments ratified at the same time, for this reason.
So let me get this straight- you are of the opinion that states can make laws infringing upon the rights citizens have under the bill of rights?
Yes, the sovereign states are granted the right to rule their state as they see fit without violating the prohibitions expressly stated in the United States Constitution.
Haven't you read the arguments by our founders against these ten amendments as unnecessary and possibly skewing the understanding of "rights of the people"?
Mrs. Megan, how does a government secure these rights that they are not infringed upon?
Would a government do this by arbitrarily determining whether the individual's right to freedom of speech supercedes the individual's right to freedom of religion?
Because that is the case being made, here: "How dare anyone exercise their rights to freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly to oppose on any grounds they see fit the construction of a religious structure. This is completely unacceptable."
The whole argument is based on certain people saying things and doing things that other people find objectionable.
I think the federal govenment is limited by its constitution. State governments are limited by state constitutions. Counties and municipalities are limited by their charters, constitutions, or other founding documents. It is my thought that only the individual is capable of securing his rights and freedoms from being "infringed" upon.
I could be mistaken. If you could enlighten me as to how, I would appreciate it.
Additionally, you never answered my question on my blog.
WHY is it so vitally necessary to oppose this institution from construction and operation, how is it so objectionable that it must be defeated or silenced? If it were in fact a violent organisation and operated without conducting peaceful assemblies, then it would obviously be easy enough to shut down, it would violate other civil laws and liberties of other people and property. If it is not doing those things, as many Muslims and their organisations do not in this country freely, then it is not our affair what the people who go there do and get out of the experience. It makes absolutely no difference where it is once it is private property acquired fairly and used by a religious organisation.
You supplied a technical reason to oppose this construction, local zoning laws and demolition hearings. Those laws are not cited by the many thousands who oppose this project, nor the many public figures who have rhetorically done so, both of which typically cite resistance, if not intolerance, to Muslims and the objection to the placement of the facility (which is equally absurd to me, a church can go anywhere it pleases, but a mosque cannot?, why?). I thus seriously doubt that NYC's zoning commission laws are whipping up this much frenzy over the issue. If they were, FAR more people would be rather annoyed about Columbia U or the Brooklyn Nets project than seem to be outside of New York. Those are far worse abuses of zoning laws and eminent domain than this even approaches the line to being. If it is possible that the zoning laws are being manipulated, fine, fix them. But don't try to tell us that these laws should determine what religious institutions could be built where. Because that's absurd.
"Am I to interpret your defense of Imam Rauf to be an endorsement of his ideals?"
You could interpret my own defence of churches legally buying private property to be an endorsement of Christianity, or of any particular strain therein by me too. But that would be an equally flawed premise from which to operate.
I defend "you people" even as an evil atheist because the law as written does firstly and largely because the free exercise of conscience within the functions of a large human society demands that people find a way to make themselves "behave" without infringing on others' rights and happiness. I can make no assumptions that they should have to do it only my way. Similarly, it makes no sense for a Christian to argue the same that another may not choose another path, or another faith. You may assume that yours is the wiser and better way, and you may argue your case, but it makes no grounds on me, or a Muslim for that matter, to attempt to compel me to accept it against my will.
(sorry, it kept returning the comment length as too long, had to chop them back out after the fact, on the assumption that they weren't submitted at all).
No worries Sun Tzu- I posted all of them because I wasn't sure which you wanted. :)
I deleted a short, but necessary, 14th amendment point on accident during the delete of duplicates it looks like. If that's still in the hopper somewhere, just copy/paste it and use it as your own. If not people can go look up substantive due process and the text of the 14th themselves.
I think he's trying to raise some philosophical objection to using government to guarantee minimal human rights as accepted and fought and over for by individuals. Which might make sense in a very limited community but doesn't seem to work with very expansive and diverse communities with fewer ties to one another beyond geographic positioning, even on the order of a large city like NY. Much less the entire country. And again, the point of these amendments seems more toward preventing government abuses against individual liberty, even when called down for by the public to repress some unpopular minority.
That the government still sometimes crosses those lines and attempts to usurp authority it was never granted is not surprising.
That the public lets it, is.
Suntzusays:
The first two comments were made prior to the enlightenment you gave me in our discussion concerning condemnation, the third directly following. I really thought I had something there, but no. The evidence wasn't readily available, there are pieces of this issue both sides are not telling, but essentially it is a local issue.
And the tangent was in explanation and defense of my political stance. I really don't have a stance on the issue other than: It's New York, let them deal with it.
And that is my stance for 49 out of 50 states.
Mrs. Megan, that is sufficient. You believe the government most capable of securing these rights.
I am more of Suntzusays' persuasion that the government will usurp anything it can. And it is the individual's duty as part of the "public" to stand forth as protectors of liberty. I do not, however, think that debating the political fights of another state protects our liberties, best.
Suntzusays:
WHY is it so vitally necessary to oppose this institution from construction and operation, how is it so objectionable that it must be defeated or silenced?
I said that, when?
I am deeply offended that you would so misquote me and mistate my position. I must seriously consider your intent with this question, since I left you with my apologies concerning my misunderstandings. It appears an intentional attempt to malign my position with a position I never stated, nor one that could be reasonably surmised from my argument.
Miss Liberty,
My original question was a serious one. It concerns a difference between two similar defenses.
1)Defending in general the construction of houses of worship regardless of religious belief, and
2)Defending construction of houses of worship by a group of believers who support a leader whose stated ideals infringe upon citizens' civil liberties.
In this particular case Imam Rauf has written a book (referenced in your Jon Stewart clip) that insists that Sharia law should supercede both federal and state law. (I know, very brief coverage, but an important point.)
Does your attack on the "Right" concerning this particular construction constitute a defense of this infringement upon the civil liberties of citizens of this nation?
It is plausible, but unlikely, thus I asked.
And you say, you don't know what he teaches, and it has nothing to do with his group's building a mosque. Yet you are willing to attack those who have expressed concern over what he teaches, as uninformed bigots and Islama-phobes.
Despite not having made the point on my page so openly of what you're opposed to and why, you have so stated here by stating the above:
"Am I to interpret your defense of Imam Rauf to be an endorsement of his ideals?" That sounds an awful lot to me like you object to those ideas or feel at least that people should not support or endorse them. It suggests that this is the primary reason that this is of any concern or issue at all, given that I think we are in agreement that any local zoning and governance issue is properly the concern of NYC and NY state residents. I was fairly sure that it was their views that were objectionable and wanted to hear why that was so. Otherwise, as you have stated, an issue relevant to NYers would not be much of your concern and it would make little sense for you to want to argue anyone over its effects.
In the case of building a mosque, what difference does it make is the "why is it so vitally important" question whether it's a mosque or a church or a jewelry store for all I care. What difference should it make to us, to you, or to NYers what is built where by private property owners, even religiously motivated ones, and why should that be prevented or opposed?
You have in fact suggested here, by stating an opposition or a hint of one toward the Cordoba group and Iman Rauf, that you have some significant misgiving about their views. I am in full agreement that any religious organisation that demands its views be made legally binding upon others not within that organisation is a deeply troubling view to hold. But it is hardly limited to Islamic groups to call for in this country, (it is quite common for various Christian sects to do so in my view) or anywhere else in the world. Additionally, the purpose of Sharia law is to govern the behavior of Muslims living under it. It functions much like Christian ideology is overlaid atop the legal structure for a Christian to try to uphold a certain code of conduct specific to people who follow those beliefs. It is a more legalistic code of conduct than Christianity imposes, but it is still roughly open to many interpretations and many methods of enforcement. Such methods need not infringe upon private individual's rights or liberties through force or violence for example. That people who would subscribe to a particular organisation's rules of conduct and behavior and have some of their private liberties curtailed by doing so is a fairly common thing. Our employers can do this. Our private friendships can have this kind of influence as well. We are not islands, untethered to the wants and demands of others. And so we often surrender some of our liberties on the knowledge that we may gain something else or perhaps even gain liberties by doing so. As a ridiculous example: Not running around murdering people at will and whimsy for example gives us a reasonable expectation that (most) other people will not suddenly stab or shoot us in the street and we are free then to conduct our affairs less afraid of this liberty being exercised, this gives us greater liberties to engage in trade and entertainment with others. We use a system of laws to help create such expectations that we might have clean drinking water or have a reasonable expectation that our property will not be violated without our consent, and so on. Those are things which limit freedoms, yes.
But only in exchange for others. When laws limit freedoms unnecessarily or foolishly, they should be opposed. Laws which might oppose the construction of mosques or other places of worship for example seem to me to be a freedom that must be opposed, and it should indeed be the duty of Christians to do so on the knowledge that perhaps one day their own views will not be as dominating over the cultural or social landscape, such that others whose views may come to do so in future will remember this gesture and can come to respect their differences rather than to seek to crush and oppose an unpopular minority.
Post a Comment