The Memorial Mile?

US presidents can make all the commitments and declarations they want until they are blue in the face, in the Muslim world they will always be perceived as partisan.
Daniel Barenboim

I have remained in a conundrum about the ground zero mosque: believing in its legality under the first amendment while decrying its intent. The only solution I could think of was making that area of Manhattan some kind of a national park, but that would not prevent the building of a mosque without interfering with other buildings in the area. Today, while checking the blogs I follow, I found two answers to my dilemma. E. M. Smith, who I find to be guilty of extremely clear thinking (a crime under the Obama administration) in his wonderful blog, Musings from the Chiefo, (Click for link) posted an excellent suggestion on how to handle the ground-zero mosque. It is a relatively long post, and I cannot do it justice by paraphrasing or using small excerpts, so I strongly recommend everyone take the time to read it. It can be found under the heading of “Memorial Mile.

The entire comments section of this posting is a education unto its self, and the time spent reading it is time well spent. E. M. Smith is an intelligent person, and those who comment are cut from the same cloth. While reading the comments to Smith’s posting, I found relief for my Constitutional conscience. A person called boballob commented at 1:15 pm. While this comment is longer than many, it is still much shorter than Smith’s posting, so I have included it below in its entirety. I am sorry I do not have more information of boballob.

• on August 27, 2010 at 1:15 pm boballab
The position that they are allowed to build the mosque based on the first amendment is a false one. The Supreme Court has even ruled on this: The Government cannot interfere in your opinion on a specific religion but they can interfere in the way you practice that religion.
This was established as the way to stop Mormons from practicing Polygamy:
This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?″
So how many Mormons were allowed to practice there belief after this ruling? NONE. They were still allowed to hold the opinion that their religion calls for Polygamy but not allowed to practice it.
The city, state or the federal government can pass laws that prevent the building of the “ground zero” mosque because they are constitutionally allowed to prevent an action not an opinion based in religion and building that mosque is an action not an opinion.
An example of such a law would be that the mosque if built would not be allowed to exclude non-Muslims, even though the religion of Islam says that non believers are not allowed into a mosque. Now do you think they would really keep up with the mosque effort if they had to let the non-believers in and defile the place?
Of course that how the liberals back in the day interpreted the 1st amendment in context of the establishment clause of the 14th amendment. So if you object to that interpretation lets go back to the original one which shows the fallacy of “separation of church and state”. As originally interpreted the 1st amendment only applied to the US Congress, the states were allowed to establish a state religion. Connecticut had one until 1818 and Mass. had one until 1833. So if you go by the original interpretation of the first amendment the State of New York would be allowed to not recognize Islam at all.
So the whole “they are allowed to build the mosque because of religious freedom under the 1st amendment” is false. The 1st amendment only allows them to hold the opinion (belief) they are allowed to worship there, not actually take action and practice their religion there.

What do you think?

Published in: on August 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: