What about our Constitution and Bill of Rights? What do they say? Well, there is the First Amendment:
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.Up to this point, Congress has not outlawed building a mosque on the site. So, there is no unconstitutional Federal law that can be challenged in the courts. Then, there is the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Thus we can assume that since this situation has not been outlined as a Federal concern - that Congress needs to stay out of it. Then, we have the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So, since this is an issue that is based in New York City - it's not under the Constitutional purview of the Congress. It does not mean they won't fiddle with it anyways, but they have no Constitutionally granted authority for this situation.
Okay, so let's look at what New York State's Constitution says:
§3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)Mmkay - there are several interesting points raised. First, it's clear that the State of New York wants to preserve religious freedom (for all humans), and second - no state court will be allowed to declare a person incompetent because of their religious beliefs.Let's look at the first part of the last portion:
but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness,Heh. If your "church" believes in having public displays of buttsecks to promote your cause - well, the State of New York ain't buying it.
Well, that was off track to the subject, but I couldn't help myself.
The interesting portion (to me) is the last part:
or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)Two things here - the peace or safety of the state, and when this was amended. After 9/11/2001.
As far as I'm concerned, this ends the argument right here and now. Building a mosque on the site of a Muslim sanctioned act of terrorism is right up there with shouting "fire" in a theater - which is not protected speech, either.
But, I sure have my doubts about whether the liberal courts would see it that way - I'm not familiar with which courts or judges who's jurisdiction this falls under, but I'd think a bet against would be a sure thing.
So, I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket. There are other angles to this issue. Greg Gutfeld posted a very provocative piece on Monday that certainly had the innertubes abuzz and still does. Go and read it - it's important that you read the whole thing.
If the Muslim faith is all about tolerance, peace and forgiveness, they would have no problem embracing Greg's proposal. It seems our country is on a mission to embrace the gay and lesbian communities by making same sex marriages legal, so in order to contribute to the community - why shouldn't Muslims forgive gay members of their own religion? Why not allow them a place to be free, as it were?
And for that matter, why shouldn't there be, oh, say an All Pork Barbecue built in the commercial zone? They could help fund a battered women's shelter. And there should be street artists providing cartoon caricatures of Mohamed impregnating one of his "younger" wives - just to show how much they want to prove their moderation.
I'm just left with a ton of questions. Why did demonstrations erupt all over the Muslim world celebrating the fall of the Twin Towers if they're so tolerant? Why wasn't CAIR denouncing the attack from the top of the global rooftops? Why didn't the respective governments come to the aid of the victims - as our country has done for so many others so many times? (They didn't even come to the aid of the Indian Ocean tsunami victims in 2004 - primarily people of their own faith)
Historically, building a mosque in a foreign land has symbolized Muslim domination. Surely that isn't the purpose of this project. On the other hand, were they truly seeking tolerance - why not build an inter-faith monument? That would show an open hand of peace.
So, don't be blowing smoke up my a$$ about the religion of Peace and so on. Don't tell me I'm a bigot because I'm not tolerant of other faiths. If what I'm saying here is bigoted, then you have to admit the continual war against Israel in the Middle East is wrong because the Muslim Arabs are bigoted. Yes, you do have to admit it.
Would you support a memorial to General Custer to be placed in every Native American burial ground? Would you support a monument to the first atom bombs be built at the respective Ground Zeros at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Hey, lets force the NAACP to honor the Klu Klux Klan with a monument at their headquarters! Peace and tolerance towards other beliefs!
I'm hearing about the how the contractors and unions will refuse to build this thing. Perhaps. I suspect we're gonna end up with some sort of Muslim domination at the site.
If the Muslim world had any sense of decency, they would respect the site. I guess we can see how that has gone.
Posts
3 comments:
Great piece, Jeff! You have clearly given this a lot of thought and I like your conclusions. Thanks also for the link to Greg. I like his columns and had lost track of where to read them.
Amen!
A friend of mine -- a New Yorker who lives and works in this area -- wrote an interesting defense of the mosque here:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/fred-chong-rutherford/re-park51-aka-the-ground-zero-mosque-aka-the-3rd-mosque-for-lower-manhattan-aka-/416770560949
His main point was that the mosque in question would be for Sufi worshippers, who are just as persecuted/targeted by Osama's Muslim sect as is any Christian faith. In fact, he points out that the difference between Osama's sect and Sufis is like the difference between Greek Orthodox and German Lutheran.
Fred further points out that there are already two other mosques in lower Manhattan and that most Manhattanites support this mosque as they know it has nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with the local people needing a place in THEIR neighborhood to worship.
I don't really have a strong opinion other than that it's really the business of the people who live and work in lower Manhattan as to what they want to allow zoning for.
Post a Comment