Building a Mosgue at Ground Zero Plays Into the Hands of Our Enemies
No one denies that Islam is now part of America's religious culture and that Muslims like all Americans have right to freedom of religion including the right to buildt mosques across our landscape. What the developers and supporters of the proposed mosque near ground zero seems to forget is that despite America's openness to Islam some extreme fundamentalist in the faith have declared war on the US. Now we have to develop strategies to allow law abiding Muslim Americans to practice their right to freedom religion while defending our country from attacks or the undermining or our culture from within from misguided zealots of their faith. This makes the current controversy over building the Cordova center at ground zero crucial to an understanding of how our freedoms are impacted in time of War. What rights does the first amendment give to those who practice a religion where some people are hostile to our way of life? Many of those who advocate building in lower Manhattan argue that the first amendment gives them the right to practice their religion any time, any where, without any restrictions such an attitude belies a knowledge both of what the Constitution says and what it means.
The First Amendment says, " Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It prohibits congress from determining the legality or propriety of religious practices or from restricting some of those practices. But what does that mean? We have to understand that the Bill of Rights were written because some in the Constitutional Convention felt there were no principles in the Constitution protecting the people from the abuses that spurred the Declaration of Independence. So to understand the Bill of Rights you have to Understand the fundamental purpose of American Government.
The British system of government really begins with Magna Charta which were rights a King granted his people because he was benevolent but also because he was off fighting the Crusades and was not present to rule. The King could grant the rights and at least in theory the monarch could, even today, withhold those rights. American democracy is totally unique, because it asserts that human beings have rights because they are Created beings. In that sense they are equal even to the King. Only God is sovereign. The government does not grant rights nor does it take them away; they are ours because we are born human. The King does not even have the right to declare that his subject will practice his religion; therefore, the federal government does not have the right to favor one religion over another, or to prohibit a particular religious practice even in the public square. The government does not give or receive an imprimatur nor does it have to be secular. At the time of the writing of the Constitution 9 states had an official religion. It allowed for the creation of religious colonies who sought to advance or protect a particular religious group. The State of Delaware was a Catholic Colony. The State of Utah was formed for the protection of Mormon, and state like Washington were formed to advocate secularism. Yet even within those state the right of the individual to have their own views were protected. What it did not mean is what the promoters of the mosque are describing as toleration, gives them the express right to build a mosque near ground zero.
Neither The Constitution, The Bill of Rights nor any federal or state laws have never been held to mean that any body can do or say whatever they want to do in the name of religion. Religious groups may believe in polygamy but the practice is illegal. Religious groups may even believe in live animal sacrifice, or even human sacrifice, but the practice would be illegal. There are religious groups that would advocate withholding medical care from children, or disciplining them abusively. The First Amendment does not give them that right. And religious groups building a place of worship are subject to the same building codes and zoning laws as any other public building. The first Amendment does not give me the right to build an edifice for my mega church in a residential neighborhood, because the town has every right to be concerned about traffic and congestion in streets where kids are playing. Also the first Amendment has been held to prohibit some expression of religion in the public square. Imagine what would happen if someone put a crèche at Ground Zero next year. The outcry would be deafening.
If the advocates of the mosques are practitioners of religious tolerance, then why did they not protest when New York Ccity prohibited the lighting of The Empire State Building in honor of Mother Teresa, while turning around the same week and denouncing mosque critics as intolerant. Even name "The Cordova Center" promotes religious fundamentalism and raises legitimate concerns? Lets make it very clear the First Amendment, while clearly separating the issue from federal purview, does not prohibit the City or the State from regulating or prohibiting its being built because it is not in the public interest of the community at a time when the nation is at war.
The Issue must be seen in the perspective of its cultural and community impact as well as the timing of it. It is appropriate for leaders to ask whether this location is going to contribute to civil order and to the health of the community. For the same reason courts have ruled that we cannot give invocations at high school football games. There is no absolute right for the Muslims, or the Baptists, or the Jews to build anything anywhere they want. It is not an issue of religious freedom or tolerance. It is an issue of whether its supporters are going to act in a way that is going to contribute to the healing of a City wounded by War, and the City or the state has the right to deny the location in the public interest.
Now that we have established that the religious freedom of Moslem's does not give them the right to build what they want when they want for the same reason it does not give the Jews or Christians those rights, and the town or the state can regulate their right to build a public building. The question becomes should the town or state prevent this from happening. The question is not whether the Muslims have a right under the First Amendment to build the mosque. They do. Nor is the question whether the City or State is in violation of the First Amendment if they prohibit the building from going forward as a matter of civic interest. They clearly are not.
The issue to me is simple: whether we consider ourselves to be in a religious war, the 9/11 commission report made it clear that some Muslim fundamentalist have declared War on us. They consider us to be their religious opponent. As much as we hate to admit it, whether we see the War on Terror as religious or not, our enemies do. Therefore, any Muslim who is a good citizens must understand that some in her religion have declared War on us, and they must be sensitive to the damage it would do to them if they are perceived in any way to advocate the principles of our enemies or even to be insensitive to the damage they are doing to everyone's religious liberties. Any student of history knows Wars are fought actively on battlefields, and passively by attempting to assuage an enemy culture from is support of the War. It is clear the Imam leading this project believes the US was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. He clearly desires the US to be Sharia compliant. Sharia law is completely contrary to our Bill of Rights. This mosque under his leadership will be used to advance the causes of our enemy, whether this Imam intends that or not. His statement will be used to advocate the success of radical Islam here and abroad, whether he intends that or not. Even its name, the Cordoba House, advocates the extreme Islamic fundamentalism that attacked us. Building this building within the foot print of 9/11 is allowing our enemies the opportunity to advance their causes at a crucial cultural battlefield. This simply can not be allowed. It plays into the hand of our enemies.
I think it is clear that the First Amendment takes this matter out of the hands of the Federal Government. It is not a federal issue. But it is also clear to me that the state should not allow the building of this mosque for the same reason it would allow building of a temple that advocated polygamy or child abuse. It is not in the interest of New York City or the State to build this mosque in this location. It will be used to advocate some of the philosophies of our enemies and the location itself will give credibility to those philosophies and advance the cause of radical Islam at the very time thousand of Americans are dying in opposition to it. The City or the State should prohibit this mosque from being built at this location.
The First Amendment says, " Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It prohibits congress from determining the legality or propriety of religious practices or from restricting some of those practices. But what does that mean? We have to understand that the Bill of Rights were written because some in the Constitutional Convention felt there were no principles in the Constitution protecting the people from the abuses that spurred the Declaration of Independence. So to understand the Bill of Rights you have to Understand the fundamental purpose of American Government.
The British system of government really begins with Magna Charta which were rights a King granted his people because he was benevolent but also because he was off fighting the Crusades and was not present to rule. The King could grant the rights and at least in theory the monarch could, even today, withhold those rights. American democracy is totally unique, because it asserts that human beings have rights because they are Created beings. In that sense they are equal even to the King. Only God is sovereign. The government does not grant rights nor does it take them away; they are ours because we are born human. The King does not even have the right to declare that his subject will practice his religion; therefore, the federal government does not have the right to favor one religion over another, or to prohibit a particular religious practice even in the public square. The government does not give or receive an imprimatur nor does it have to be secular. At the time of the writing of the Constitution 9 states had an official religion. It allowed for the creation of religious colonies who sought to advance or protect a particular religious group. The State of Delaware was a Catholic Colony. The State of Utah was formed for the protection of Mormon, and state like Washington were formed to advocate secularism. Yet even within those state the right of the individual to have their own views were protected. What it did not mean is what the promoters of the mosque are describing as toleration, gives them the express right to build a mosque near ground zero.
Neither The Constitution, The Bill of Rights nor any federal or state laws have never been held to mean that any body can do or say whatever they want to do in the name of religion. Religious groups may believe in polygamy but the practice is illegal. Religious groups may even believe in live animal sacrifice, or even human sacrifice, but the practice would be illegal. There are religious groups that would advocate withholding medical care from children, or disciplining them abusively. The First Amendment does not give them that right. And religious groups building a place of worship are subject to the same building codes and zoning laws as any other public building. The first Amendment does not give me the right to build an edifice for my mega church in a residential neighborhood, because the town has every right to be concerned about traffic and congestion in streets where kids are playing. Also the first Amendment has been held to prohibit some expression of religion in the public square. Imagine what would happen if someone put a crèche at Ground Zero next year. The outcry would be deafening.
If the advocates of the mosques are practitioners of religious tolerance, then why did they not protest when New York Ccity prohibited the lighting of The Empire State Building in honor of Mother Teresa, while turning around the same week and denouncing mosque critics as intolerant. Even name "The Cordova Center" promotes religious fundamentalism and raises legitimate concerns? Lets make it very clear the First Amendment, while clearly separating the issue from federal purview, does not prohibit the City or the State from regulating or prohibiting its being built because it is not in the public interest of the community at a time when the nation is at war.
The Issue must be seen in the perspective of its cultural and community impact as well as the timing of it. It is appropriate for leaders to ask whether this location is going to contribute to civil order and to the health of the community. For the same reason courts have ruled that we cannot give invocations at high school football games. There is no absolute right for the Muslims, or the Baptists, or the Jews to build anything anywhere they want. It is not an issue of religious freedom or tolerance. It is an issue of whether its supporters are going to act in a way that is going to contribute to the healing of a City wounded by War, and the City or the state has the right to deny the location in the public interest.
Now that we have established that the religious freedom of Moslem's does not give them the right to build what they want when they want for the same reason it does not give the Jews or Christians those rights, and the town or the state can regulate their right to build a public building. The question becomes should the town or state prevent this from happening. The question is not whether the Muslims have a right under the First Amendment to build the mosque. They do. Nor is the question whether the City or State is in violation of the First Amendment if they prohibit the building from going forward as a matter of civic interest. They clearly are not.
The issue to me is simple: whether we consider ourselves to be in a religious war, the 9/11 commission report made it clear that some Muslim fundamentalist have declared War on us. They consider us to be their religious opponent. As much as we hate to admit it, whether we see the War on Terror as religious or not, our enemies do. Therefore, any Muslim who is a good citizens must understand that some in her religion have declared War on us, and they must be sensitive to the damage it would do to them if they are perceived in any way to advocate the principles of our enemies or even to be insensitive to the damage they are doing to everyone's religious liberties. Any student of history knows Wars are fought actively on battlefields, and passively by attempting to assuage an enemy culture from is support of the War. It is clear the Imam leading this project believes the US was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. He clearly desires the US to be Sharia compliant. Sharia law is completely contrary to our Bill of Rights. This mosque under his leadership will be used to advance the causes of our enemy, whether this Imam intends that or not. His statement will be used to advocate the success of radical Islam here and abroad, whether he intends that or not. Even its name, the Cordoba House, advocates the extreme Islamic fundamentalism that attacked us. Building this building within the foot print of 9/11 is allowing our enemies the opportunity to advance their causes at a crucial cultural battlefield. This simply can not be allowed. It plays into the hand of our enemies.
I think it is clear that the First Amendment takes this matter out of the hands of the Federal Government. It is not a federal issue. But it is also clear to me that the state should not allow the building of this mosque for the same reason it would allow building of a temple that advocated polygamy or child abuse. It is not in the interest of New York City or the State to build this mosque in this location. It will be used to advocate some of the philosophies of our enemies and the location itself will give credibility to those philosophies and advance the cause of radical Islam at the very time thousand of Americans are dying in opposition to it. The City or the State should prohibit this mosque from being built at this location.
Comments
Post a Comment