I was recently contacted by the blogging authorities, demanding to know why I have yet to post about the Mosque/Cultural Center to be built/not built in a location somewhere near/not near ground zero in New York. I have no excuse. I cannot plead ignorance, as I have been cognizant for some time that this was a Mandatory Blogging Topic - yet I failed to act.
I have avoided my blogging obligations because, on this issue, I feel a lot like this guy - or this guy - or perhaps like William Shakespeare "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I see this as little more than a excuse by partisans and bloggers on both the right and left to flog their favorite bogeymen in the hope of securing a minor political advantage. The significance of this story is not worth the ink and electrons spilled on it.
But, I don't want to risk my blogging privileges, so let me make my position on this question perfectly clear - This blogger stands firmly with Michael Bloomberg, Grover Norquist, Chris Christie, Joe Scarborough, Michael Gerson and Barack Obama (Friday, 8/13/10 version) in support or indifference to the location of the Cordoba project mosque - and stand in opposition to Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Barack Obama (Saturday 8/14/10 version) who do not support the location of the Cordoba project mosque.
In America, in matters of religious tolerance there are no close calls, there is no qualification of first principles, and the first amendment is not location dependent. I hold no quarter with the distinction of "rights" vs. right which seems to be the Clintonian parsing of choice among those looking to rationalize making the Cordoba Project move the mosque.
I''m going to make this easy on myself and crib extensively from a previous post invoking the views of a founding father whose quote is the source of the name of this blog and speaks directly to this issue.
Thomas Jefferson writing in the third person, in a letter to Dr. Jacob De La Motta on the occasion of the 1820 dedication of a synagogue in Savannah, Georgia:
."Th. Jefferson returns his thanks to Dr. De La Motta for the eloquent discourse on the Consecration of the Synagogue of Savannah, which he has been so kind as to send him. It excites in him the gratifying reflection that his country has been the first to prove to the world two truths, the most salutary to human society, that man can govern himself, and that religious freedom is the most effectual anodyne against religious dissension: the maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where its true form is "divided we stand, united, we fall." He is happy in the restoration of the Jews, particularly, to their social rights, and hopes they will be seen taking their seats on the benches of science as preparatory to their doing the same at the board of government. He salutes Dr. De La Motta with sentiments of great respect."
Andrew Sullivan reminds us that Islam was explicitly included in Jefferson's message of tolerance. He quotes from Jefferson's autobiography where Jefferson expands on the intent of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom - "Jefferson On The Toleration Of Islam":
Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
"Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights, by putting all on an equal footing. But more remains to be done, for although we are free by the law, we are not so in practice. Public opinion erects itself into an inquisition, and exercises its office with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto-da-fé. The prejudice still scowling on your section of our religion altho' the elder one, cannot be unfelt by ourselves. It is to be hoped that individual dispositions will at length mould themselves to the model of the law, and consider the moral basis, on which all our religions rest..."
To wrap this up I will invoke a poet/philosopher of our own time - Mojo Nixon. While these lyrics were written in response to another civil libertarian challenge, I don't think Mojo would mind my applying them here...
"You know - Thomas Jefferson
Is gonna be mighty pissed
When he finds out about this,
I say - Come back from the dead Tom,
Sock ‘em in the head."- Mojo
13 comments:
As I said over at CC's, I have to disagree to this extent: IT is not AT ALL de facto a matter of violating "first principles" OR being religiously intolerant to be opposed to the mosque proposal. I'm sure with some folks such intolerance plays a part, but claiming that such is THE defining factor in opposition to the proposal is as mindless as claiming it's all about bigotry, that there are no other motives at play on the part of those opposed. And there most certainly are -- even many Muslims find the proposal insensitive and provocative, even deliberately so.
What I do see (aside from the reflexive playing of the bigot card, and indeed, as part of it) is an intentional conflation on the part of some, that of conflating public opposition with opposition to legal principles.
CC rightly points out by example that simply having the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do, and that objecting to the exercise of rights in such manner as being undesirable does not automatically make one anti-First Amendment.
There is little doubt in my mind that the mosque proposers have the legal right to build such a facility in that location.* That does not mean that it is the right thing to do, or that their intentions are not in any way malicious, and it most certainly does NOT mean that those who object are automatically anti-First Amendment bigots for exercising their own First Amendment rights to speak out against the project. Just as one need not be a temperance crusader to object to the siting of a nightclub up the block, or an anti=Christian to object to the funeral picketing of the WBC.
[*--there are conceivable land-usage/zoning issues, but from what I know of that part of Manhattan I sincerely doubt they could apply even remotely in this case. Looks like a clear "by right" usage to me.]
Tully,
I don't think I say in this post that it is 'ALL de facto a matter of violating "first principles" OR being religiously intolerant to be opposed to the mosque proposal.' I cheerfully acknowledge that there are many in opposition - probably most in opposition - who are well meaning, of good will, are simply and sincerely uncomfortable with this specific location, and not at all intolerant of Islam.
I did say (and I think you agree) that there are many on both the right and left who see this as little more than a excuse "to flog their favorite bogeymen in the hope of securing a minor political advantage." So we get the Islamic "clash of cultures" fear card played from the right, and the overplayed bigotry card from the left.
I guess what I am really saying is that I just don't care about the motivations for opposing the Cordoba Center.
It just boils down to this - I don't have the patience or interest to try and tease apart the Gordian knot of convoluted arguments and intertwined sincere and craven motivations exhibited by both sides. We have a nice sharp sword in the first amendment that can cleave this knot and leave an unambiguous result. I'm good with that.
Yet you go on and on about religious tolerance and the First Amendment as though they are principles actually at stake here. THEY'RE NOT. The simple cleaving is that the owners (lessors, actually) have a legal right to build whatever they want on the property as long as it doesn't violate zoning and code. One need not go one micron farther on the legal aspects. No one can legally STOP the developers from building the project as long as it's a "by right" usage, which it certainly appears to be. No matter how noisy or obnoxious they get in exercising their own First Amendment right of free speech, no matter what the polls say, no matter if the Imam was openly and vocally planning to build it as an FU-America "victory monument" or whatever. As you said, "sound and fury."
No one's rights are being violated here in the least. There are no pending legal actions either way that I am aware of. "Religious tolerance" in this case is a complete bogeyman -- if the developers were proposing to build this project two miles away from Gorund Zero rather than two blocks almost no one would give a rat's ass, and it certainly wouldn't be national rant-fodder.
In short, it's not the religious angle that has people up in arms. It's the FU-America angle, which has not exactly gone unnoticed by Muslims who also think it's a bad idea.
Yet you go on and on about religious tolerance and the First Amendment as though they are principles actually at stake here. - Tully
Now that is a little unfair. I go on and on about everything. This was actually one of my more succinct and concise posts.
"No matter how noisy or obnoxious they get in exercising their own First Amendment right of free speech, no matter what the polls say, no matter if the Imam was openly and vocally planning to build it as an FU-America "victory monument" or whatever." - Tully
That's correct. That is pretty much the definition of free speech and freedom of religion. None of that stuff matters. None of it. Especially not the polls.
"Religious tolerance in this case is a complete bogeyman" - Tully
I disagree. You don't need to pursue legal action to show religious intolerance. This is exactly the point made by Jefferson in the post. You can have equal protection under the law and still have religious intolerance imposed on a minority with unpopular beliefs.
Perhaps Ron Paul explains this better I did:
"The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”... Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction...
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty...
We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.
Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored." - RP
Now that is a little unfair. I go on and on about everything
LMAO. I'll give you that one! (Likewise, mea culpa.) But nothing on the rest. And really, I've met Ron Paul, and his opinion doesn't sway me an inch.
It's fine to preach against religious intolerance in general, but you are assigning it to a specific case, and the garment fails to fit. What you are doing is ascribing the singular motive of religious intolerance to ALL opposition to the project, in essence labeling ALL opposition as religious bigotry, or at least as THE defining motivation of majority-public opposition, essentially (and openly) labeling opponents as a tyrannical mob of the majority for exercising their own First Amendment rights, and I'm not buying it for a second. That's as shopworn as playing the race card against anyone opposed to an Obama policy. Are the Muslims who think this is a really bad idea themselves bigoted against Islam? Yes? No?
Of course not -- they see the proposal as an unnecessary provocation, whether meaning or no, and fear that even if well-intended it would nonetheless become a "trophy mosque" for radical Islam. Such fears and objections are hardly baseless. There is a history in radical Islam of such "trophies."
As I said, opposition to the project is no more automatically religious bigotry than is opposition to having the Phelps Krewe show up at the funeral gates. Or being opposed to a "by right" nightclub (or parole office ... ) going in next door. There may be a perfect legal right to do such, but that does not make the objections to such either unreasonable or bigoted. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that only a minority really has rights, that any exercise of rights by the majority in opposing a minority (even if doomed to failure on legal grounds) is somehow automatically reprehensible oppression of the minority no matter how effing dumb, reprehensible, and/or intentionally FU the minority is being. That a minority is pretty much always in the right when a majority opposes them, regardless of specifics.
But hey, I'll tell you what a neat solution could look like, one that would stifle (not cure, nothing can do that) any actual religious bigotry involved while reassuring the majority of opponents that the purpose of the Cordoba project is as stated, and not actually semi-stealth FU-America, while safegaurding against a co-opting of the finished product as a "trophy" for radical Islamists. Let the Cordoba Imam do some REAL outreach, and offer up space in the proposed new building as a new home to the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Win-win, assuming that motivations of the Cordoba project people are as stated. :-)
I'm not holding my breath on that, but it would certainly address much of the double standard that some New Yorkers have been feeling of late, and immmunize the Cordoba people against the bulk of the criticism.
Sorry for the multiples -- my computer appears to be stuttering on pop-up windows. Eliminate at will.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says - I am pointing to his argument not the individual. That argument stands on its own merit, regardless of who is making it.
You are invoking motivations that you cannot know about this Imam and this Islamic congregation. In fact you are attributing generalized assertions about Islam and radical Islam to this specific sect as a rationalization to argue against the propriety of them exercising their first amendment religious and property rights at this location. Given that this is the Sufi sect which is the most liberal sect in Islam, and that this sect has been targeted by Al Queda suicide bombers because of their moderate views, I find these assertions dubious.
Does this mean that all opposition to the Cordoba Center is intolerant or bigoted? Absolutely not. I am willing to acknowledge that most of the opposition is from people of good will with sincere concerns. I will also assert that most of the support for building this center at this location is from people of good will with sincere motivations. Now you have to choose who is right, and the 1st Amendment is the best guide for that decision.
I also have to comment on this bit:
To suggest otherwise is to suggest that only a minority really has rights, that any exercise of rights by the majority in opposing a minority (even if doomed to failure on legal grounds) is somehow automatically reprehensible oppression of the minority no matter how effing dumb, reprehensible, and/or intentionally FU the minority is being. That a minority is pretty much always in the right when a majority opposes them, regardless of specifics. - Tully
No the minority is not always right and at no point do I ever say that. However, the bill of rights was included in the Constitution specifically to protect these enumerated INDIVIDUAL rights (the smallest minority) against EVERYONE if need be - including the government and majorities. So - in the specific circumstances when we are talking about agreed 1st Amendment rights, then yes - the minority protecting their free exercise of those rights hold sway over the majority.
In looks to me like the garment is a tailor made perfect fit in this circumstance.
Perhaps some kind of amendment to the constitution should be proposed. This simply not right and the mosque being built there would make the death of at least 7000 americans in vain. That includes the victims of 911 and the American Soldiers fighting in the middle east.
Anon,
You've got this completely backward.
We are not fighting a war against Islam. In fact, we are fighting side by side with Muslim allies in Iraq, Afghanistan,and around the world against violent religious extremists who are also Muslim.
Americans who practice the Muslim faith died in the terrorist attack on 9/11. American soldiers who practice the Muslim religion are fighting for the Constitutional protections of our freedoms in the Middle East.
The Americans that want to build and worship in the Islamic Cultural Center are Sufi, a peaceful and moderate sect. The Sufi's have been targeted by Al Queda and have been victims of suicide bombing attacks by Al Queda. They are our natural allies in the WOT fight around the world against Muslim extremism. This public display of intolerance undermines our values, damages to our security and undercuts the WOT effort.
If we were to change our Constitution to permit the restriction of religious freedom and property rights at the whim of inflamed majority mob rule - then everyone who died in this struggle will have died in vain.
You are invoking motivations that you cannot know about this Imam and this Islamic congregation.
Nope. I'm saying that their motivations are somewhat relevant to the political discussion, that their claimed motivations are somewhat at odds with their responses to criticism, and (pay attention now) that they are ignoring/avoiding better ways to address the issue and instead choosing to fan the flames. Which may be helpful to political grandstanding and polarization politics, but does nothing to foster resolution of the specific issue.
So - in the specific circumstances when we are talking about agreed 1st Amendment rights, then yes - the minority protecting their free exercise of those rights hold sway over the majority.
As stated elsewhere and in detail, once again, that is NOT the case here, as the specific circumstances on which the claim is based are simply not present here. You can not name one government body holding up the project (or threatening to) so the First is not even in play here. This is not a case of "free exercise of religion" no matter how hysterically the phrase is bandied about. Nor is it a case of the majority oppressing the minority. It's a damn land usage squabble, one where the owners of the land hold all the legal cards and cannot be legally stopped from building what they propose to build. Not because of the First, mind you, but simply because it's a by-right usage. This leaves those opposed only one legitimate avenue of opposition -- protest and criticism aimed at swaying the developers into dropping or modifying their proposal. Which they are using. They have no other legitimate way to express their displeasure. As you yourself said, "full of sound and fury." And signifying nothing.
To continue:
Waving the religious-victimhood flag here is a strawman. Just because someone with a claim to minority-group status is being opposed does not make it an issue of minority rights. Not every (or even most) such issues are even remotely about the Bill of Rights, but about the specifics of the case. And the concerns of the majority are not always baseless, however noisy, hateful and stupid their noisiest ranters and inciters are. (You can apply that one to both sides of this debate.)
The critics cannot stop the developers from proceeding with the project. The most they can do is attempt to persuade the developers to halt or modify it through noisy protest, which they are doing -- and their attempt to do so through public noise, however obnoxious, is completely within THEIR rights. It's the only real tool they have. I've seen hundreds of land-use cases from up close, and it's a familiar pattern. Usually the side with the winning legal hand is a lot better at addressing concerns -- when the concerns are baseless. The Imam and Co. are displaying remarkable ineptitude at that. (Why, you'd almost think they were taking direction from others with supra-political agendas ... but that's a different topic, and also applies both ways.)
But no matter how much you wave the First around, it still doesn't apply here other than as it shapes the debate by defining the playing field and the rules of the game. And both sides to date are playing well within the rules and boundaries. Go re-read the First. When and if any government body or court tries to prevent the GZM developers from actually proceeding with construction, I will be solidly on the GZM side even if I think their proposal as currently drawn up to be a daft, insensitive, and obnoxious idea. I am 100% certain they have the legal right to build their project as they wish within the bounds of NYC zoning and building codes. Likewise, should opponents attempt any illegal means to stop the project, I will condemn them for it. You insist on conflating "religious tolerance" with the First Amendment, and implicitly defining "religious tolerance" in a way that pre-empts and demonizes any criticism of anything wrapped in some aspect of religion. "Religious tolerance" does not mean that anything related to religion is out of bounds for public criticism and opposition. Many of the criticisms of the project appear to me to be legitimate concerns, they just don't amount to any substantive legal grounds for stopping the project.
What we're seeing is a constitutional democracy functioning as designed. That includes people noisily and obnoxiously objecting to things they cannot legally stop, and people noisily and obnoxiously proceeding with things they have a legal right to do that will understandably offend other people. This applies regardless of which side one may think is correct -- when it's entirely possible for both sides to be somewhat correct, or at least be well within their own rights and not impinging the rights of others.
I come back to CC's short and simple take. That you have the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. And those who say it's NOT the right thing to do are not being evil in saying so. But until one side or the other steps over the legal line, no one's rights are being violated, and all the sound and fury cannot prevent the developers exercise of their property rights.
Damn that button-stutter!
(I brought the beer. More popcorn please?)
My comments are dated, but being new to your blog, I wish to comment anyway. I think you are fair in putting the President in both the support-camp and the do-not-support-camp concerning the site of the project. Of the non-supporters you have listed three Democrats. Why did you not see fit to include one or two Republicans, especially since the decibel level of their opposition was even louder than Reid, et al.?
Post a Comment