Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

end of discussion

If you have evidence that the would-be mosque builders are breaking a law, tell the authorities. Building a house of worship anywhere in the U.S., however, does not, per se, break any law.

Other who share the above view have been accused of calling those opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque bigots.

In fact, opposition to the mosque on grounds that those who want to build it are the same religion as those who crashed into the World Trade Center in the name of that religion IS invalid. The logic is that since Muslims hit the world trade center all Muslims are World Trade Center suicide bombers or their supporters. Not so. Furthermore, verbally supporting the World Trade center attackers violates no U.S. law nor should it.

All the talk about the imam in charge being a bad guy who is insufficiently anti terrorist is fine, but we also have freedom of speech. He can say whatever he wants in this country. And he can say it wherever he wants. And you can denounce him wherever you want.

Democracy requires not just majority rule but also minority rights. Otherwise, the majority could vote to legally murder all non-majorities. The Bill of Rights is our list of minority rights.

Should the FBI keep an eye on the people trying to build the mosque near Ground Zero? If they have probable cause to do so, yes.

Should the U.S. government be sending this imam around as a representative of the U.S.? It doesn’t sound like he is sufficiently anti-terror to play that role.

What about the admonition that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact? Actually it is. To say that it is not a suicide pact means we can ignore it whenever someone claims a threat to the nation’s existence. We can do no such thing. Bush and Obama ignoring it in the last two years are a threat to the existence of the U.S.

When I entered West Point and again when I graduated from there, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Bush and Obama took almost the identical oath. The Constitution IS the nation. The country is not a separate, higher entity whose protection trumps protecting and defending the Constitution.

So-called “hate speech” is, under the U.S. Constitution, just speech. And it is legal. We have lots of other laws. If the Ground Zero mosque guys violate any of them, prosecute them. But all these allegations that they should not be allowed to build the mosque within three blocks of Ground Zero are bullshit. This is America. If you can build a Christian church or a synagogue there, you can build a mosque there.

Sean Hannity seem to be the main rabble rouser stoking opposition to the mosque. He is wrong. He should start a movement to repeal the First Amendment if he thinks he’s right. The fact that he is not going to do that proves he’s wrong. Hannity is one of many people who claim to be staunch Constitutional conservatives but who are not bright enough to understand the concept of minority rights embedded in the Constitution—except when he is the minority in question—like Obama trying to shut down conservative talk radio using the “Fairness doctrine” or local ownership laws.

Recent public opinion polls have indicated that the majority of Americans more or less agree with the above article. I am surprised and proud of my fellow Americans for reacting like that. I thought I was going to catch hell for this article. Bravo America!

As to the rest of you, I have been watching this debate and wondering what exactly the problem is. It reminds me of Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Derangement Syndrome, Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome, and Tea Party Derangement Syndrome where the response of the opposition seems way out of proportion to the underlying event.

I think I figured it out. Those who oppose the mosque seem especially enraged that it may be camouflaged as a mere community center and mosque when in fact it is a middle finger or spit in the face etc. of America. The main issue seems not to be the mosque itself but the fear that Muslims are trying to put something over on us—that Muslims around the world are elbowing each other, winking at each other, smirking and laughing that they tricked us into letting them build a monument to the 9/11 victory near the World Trade Center site.

Perhaps this will clarify it for the opponents.

If they wish, American Muslims can erect a billboard across the street from Ground Zero, not three blocks away, that has a huge photo of an extended middle finger with the caption “Hooray for the 9/11 hijackers! We’re glad they did it.” If they own property there and want to build a monument to the Muslim victory on 9/11 they can do so within zoning laws.

This is America. That would all be free speech.

Some would protest, “That’s exactly what they’re doing!”

That’s not disproving what I’m saying. It makes my point. Let me repeat, They are ALLOWED to put up that billboard or monument, disguised or otherwise. This is America.

There is also an element of mind reading in all this. I do not read minds, especially Muslim minds which seem quite different from other Americans’. The mosque opponents seem absolutely convinced that they fully understand the hidden agenda of the would-be mosque bulders. This smacks of black helicopter/Tri-Lateral Commission/birther conspiracy fantasies. It reminds me of the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover nonsense. The album was issued by the Beatles in 1967. The cover photo is a busy, cluttered collage. Some peope saw in it symbols that signaled that Paul McCartney was dead. Initially, Paul and the other Beatels laughed at that reaction. But it became so persistent that Paul had to appear in person before the media to inform them of the obvious—he was not dead. The conspiracy theory people immediately dismissed the Paul who appeared as a heretofore unknown double. Over time, the stupid theory faded away. Paul still has not.

The current Ground Zero Mosque “evidence” that it is a dastardly plot to mock the 9/11 victims and celebrate the Islamic 9/11 victory sound like the Lonely Hearts Club Band “evidence.” The Mosque builders hiding from the media only feeds the conspiracy theorists.

A Peanuts cartoon once had Lucy ("The doctor is in") looking at Charlie Brown’s drawings and noting the people in them all had their hands behind their backs. Psychoanalyzing, she further opined the lack of visible hands revealed that Charlie Brown lacked self-confidence and self-esteem or some such. Charlie’s explanation was he simply did not know how to draw hands.

Maybe the would-be mosque builders just want to build a community center and mosque that has nothing to do with Ground Zero.

In 1977, American Neo Nazis wanted to march in a parade through Skokie, IL, a predominantly Jewish city with many Holocaust survivors.The town tried to stop them by requiring them to post a huge bond to pay for damage that might result. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Skokie lost. This is America.

In the event, the Nazis held three marches but not actually in Skokie. Attendance was minimal. Nothing happened. Jewish residents responded to the U.S. Supreme Court decision by building a Holocaust museum in Skokie. I think that was a great way for them to respond. This is America.

The Westboro Baptist Church, mainly family members of its head Fred Phelps, is famous for protesting at funerals of U.S. servicemen killed in action saying that the deceased deserved to die because gays are allowed to serve in the U.S. military. They also like to burn U.S. flags. They get a lot of publicity for this, but they have not been stopped. Getting publicity is probably their purpose. The best way to stop them is probably to stop giving them publicity. That was done with TV sports streakers. This is America.

Fundamentally, those who oppose the mosque, the Nazi march in Skokie, and the Westboro nuts want a First-Amendment-Free zone created around the locations in question. If we ever started down that slippery slope, I can guarantee you that a zillion bills to make more such zones and to expand their radiuses would instantly be introduced into legislatures and Congress. I recently saw a cartoon mock headline of a politician wanting to prohibit the opening of a sushi restaurant because it was within such and such blocks of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Ann Coulter was threatened with criminal prosecution in Canada, which is too dumb of a country to have freedom of speech. They prosecute “hate speech.” We do not prohibit sushi restaurants or Ann Coulter speeches. This is America.

We all learned the best course of action with the mosque in elementary school. When someone acts up to draw attention to themselves or to try to get your goat, ignore them. “Sticks and stones…”

Zoning?

Here is an email exchange I had with a reader:

On Aug 26, 2010, at 7:24 AM, [redacted] wrote:

I may be changing my opinion, and I would be curious to know what you think about this.

No question the mosque is in bad taste and offensive to a lot of people, and I still believe that no matter how offensive, we cannot deny them the rights all religions are entitled to. I personally don’t like the idea of it, but would never oppose a mosque.

However, in this instance, I may change my mind. Here’s why.

I only have partial info, and my info may be wrong. If it is correct, then I oppose the mosque.

In Manhattan, any development needs to get zoning or approval. What I feel are legitimate uses no different than what’s already there have been denied approval because people feel they don’t want it there. I’ve heard about office buildings denied because a nearby building doesn’t want it. I’ve heard about retail stores (Walmart?) denied because neighbors don’t want it, etc. Same with certain fast food places.

Are religious organizations exempt from this? I don’t think they are. I also don’t think they should be if neighbors can kill commercial concerns just because they want to.

Therefore, a mosque can be denied for the same reason.

I do agree with you that it is wrong for a government to deny a legitimate use, however, as it’s already done to others, and will continue to be done, then I see no reason it can’t be done to this mosque.

Do you have any thoughts here or facts that I’m mistaken about?

Reed reply:

There are many people who will try to offend others for the fun of it. They have to be ignored. Offending is permissible behavior albeit annoying. It violates the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is not a law nor should it be.
Kids tease the kid who is bothered most by the teasing. The mosque builders should be ignored. We are becoming a nation of professional victims. We have better things to do than get upset about the Westboro Baptist Church, Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction”, Code Pink,streakers, etc. In San Francisco, we often have noisy demonstrations on the streets. The police say it’s always the same hell raisers regardless of the cause. They just want an excuse to act up and attract attention to themselves.
Zoning is unconstitutional. It violates the last 12 words of the 5th Amendment “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. Zoning is equivalent to the confiscation of an easement or insertion of a deed restriction into someone else’s deed without any compensation. Before zoning was allowed by a 1926 Supreme Court case (Euclid v Ambler) it’s purposes were achieved by owning the property whose use you wanted to control, buying then selling it with new deed restrictions against the use you wanted prohibited, or purchasing an easement from the property owner by which he and his successor owners agreed not to engage in that use. In each of these cases, the costs of the restrictions fall on he who would restrict.
Best wishes,
Jack Reed

Ishrad Manji column

The 8/26/10 Wall Street Journal had an excellent column on the Ground Zero mosque by Irshad Manji. She is a Muslim lesbian and a professor of leadership at NYU. She calls herself a reformist Muslim. One of her main points is that feelings are not arguments. The main complain about the Ground Zero mosque is that it hurts the feelings of those who were relatives or friends of those killed on 9/11 or it’s “insensitive” to their feelings. I saw a burly construction worker complete with sleeveless shirt and hard hat on TV complaining about the “insensitivity” of the mosque proponents. I thought it was a Saturday Night Live parody. Setting aside whether that is even accurate, feelings are not argument. Honest debate consists only of facts and logic.She hates the “culture of [taking] offense.”

I agree. If the claim of taking offense at this or that gives anyone standing to oppose policy decisions, we will never make another policy decision.