Pretty much everyone now seems to understand that the proponents of the New York City mosque and community center have a First Amendment right to locate their facility near the site of the World Trade Center. That is, almost everyone now seems to acknowledge that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit a religious organization from constructing a church, a temple, a mosque, etc. at a particular location, if it would allow other faiths to construct such a facility there. Discrimination among religions is the paradigm violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.
So, if this is not a legal dispute, what is it? It is a dispute between two groups of private citizens who must work it out for themselves. Because the First Amendment precludes the government from forbidding the mosque, the proponents of the mosque have the upper hand. They have a constitutional right to do what they want to do, and it therefore falls to their opponents to try to persuade them not to exercise that right.
There is nothing wrong, in principle, with making such an argument. Having the right to do something does not mean that one should do it. Think of burning the American flag or criticizing the war in Afghanistan, both of which are protected by the First Amendment. People might encourage would-be speakers not to engage in such expression, because it might upset others.
A familiar example arose out of the announced intention of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie, Illinois, in the late 1970s. At the time, Skokie was a predominantly Jewish community whose residents included a high concentration of Holocaust survivors. The very idea that a group of self-styled Nazis would march through Skokie wearing swastika armbands and waving swastika flags was more than some residents of the town could bear, so they attempted to enlist the law to stop the march. The courts held that the First Amendment guaranteed the right of the Nazis to march -- even in Skokie. The objectors, however, still had their own First Amendment right to try to persuade the Nazis to march elsewhere (as long as they did so without resorting to violence or illegal threats).
Here is another example. At the height of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., led marches, demonstrations and protests in cities like Montgomery and Birmingham to protest racial segregation. White residents vehemently objected to such activities in their hometowns, arguing that such actions were insulting and hurtful to those who treasured Southern culture and tradition. Here, too, the courts held that the marchers had a constitutional right to march, although those who objected of course had a First Amendment right to try to persuade the protesters to march elsewhere.
The central question, then, is whether the Nazi marchers, the civil rights protesters, and the proponents of the mosque should voluntarily refrain from exercising their First Amendment rights because their actions offend others. The answer depends on both the reasonableness of the objections and the importance of carrying out the original plan.
In the Skokie situation, I suspect most of us would say that the Nazis' message was extremely hurtful and offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust and that, in the face of such reasonable objections, there was no sufficiently compelling justification for the Nazis to march in Skokie. In such circumstances, I suppose most of us would have signed a petition encouraging the Nazis voluntarily to march elsewhere. (Interestingly, that is more or less what happened. After the courts upheld the Nazis' First Amendment right to march in Skokie, Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago brokered an agreement under which the Nazis marched in downtown Chicago instead of Skokie.)
In the civil rights context, however, I imagine most of us would endorse the opposite position. We probably would conclude that the objections to the demonstrations were rooted in racial prejudice and were therefore not worthy of much respect. Moreover, we would understand why it was important for King to march in Montgomery and Birmingham, rather than in Providence and Seattle, if he were effectively to challenge racial segregation. We would therefore probably have signed a petition urging the residents of Montgomery and Birmingham to exercise tolerance and restraint, and to do their best to put aside their anger at the protesters.
What, if anything, do these examples tell us about the dispute over the mosque? To begin, suppose those proposing to construct a mosque and community center near the site of the World Trade Center proclaim that they are supporters of al Qaeda who want to celebrate the 9/11 attack. In that situation, we probably would see them as analogous to the Nazis in Skokie. We would urge them not to exercise their First Amendment rights in that location and to respect the sensitivities of the families of those who died on 9/11. We would take this position not because they are Muslims, but because of the distinct offensiveness of their message.
On the other hand, suppose the marchers in Skokie had not been self-proclaimed Nazis wearing swastika armbands, but members of a German-American group seeking to celebrate German culture. If the residents of Skokie objected to that march, most of us would probably see a sharp distinction between this situation and the Nazi march. We would understand the emotional response of the residents, but we would nonetheless conclude that it is unreasonable and unfair to treat all German-Americans as if they are Nazis. In such circumstances, we probably would encourage the residents of Skokie to exercise tolerance and restraint, rather than to act out of prejudice against German-Americans.
That, finally, brings me to the mosque. In my view, the dispute over the mosque is a lot like my hypothetical German-American march. Just as it would be wrong to treat all German-Americans as if they are Nazis, so too is it wrong to treat all Muslims as if they support terrorism. To make such a judgment about a group is disrespectful, thoughtless, discriminatory and unwise. In a society founded on principles of liberty, equality, individual dignity, and personal responsibility, citizens should be loathe to insist that other citizens should surrender their constitutional rights because of their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation.
Moreover, in the mosque situation, as in the civil rights example, the proponents of the mosque have very good reasons for wanting to locate the mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero, because their goal is, in part, to demonstrate the unity between Muslim-Americans and other Americans in our shared and common grief over the events of 9/11. It is just as important for this mosque to be located near the site of the World Trade Center as it was for Martin Luther King to march in Montgomery.
Finally, it is worth noting that there are powerful reasons for the proponents of the mosque not to be "good citizens" by voluntarily acquiescing to the demands of the majority. Once a vulnerable minority agrees to surrender its rights because of the objections of the majority, it has set itself on a dangerous path. Prejudice is self-reinforcing, and if the demand that Muslims not build the mosque in this location were to succeed, it would likely invite other, even greater, demands in the future.
It is no doubt painful for those who oppose the mosque to accept its presence at this location. But they should now take a deep breath, reflect on the values that make our nation great and back off.
The proposed cultural center is a permitted use under New York City's zoning ordinance. The question is settled as a simple matter of zoning law. The City of New York has no discretion in this matter. As a permitted use in this zoning district, the proposed Muslim cultural center is allowed as of right. It is legally entitled to locate at the chosen site. You don't have to resort to constitutional law.
Second, have constitutional scholars -- and everybody else -- forgotten the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)?
Sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch and passed unanimously by Congress in July 2000, RLUIPA states
"No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination."
How clear can you make it?
If we are to continue to be the USA, it's time that the politicians lay down their rhetorical swords and stop urging the public to violate a law that every one of them supported.
Now is the time for them to obey their oaths of office in which they vowed to uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States.
Now is the time for them act like responsible adults instead of lawless brats deliberately fanning hate and bigotry for their own political advantage.
Because if they don't change, then the terrorists will have
This is absurd. How can the mosque be about unity when 70% of Americans oppose it?
Interviews with 1,009 adult Americans, including 935 registered
voters, conducted by telephone by Opinion Research Corporation
on August 6-10, 2010. The margin of sampling error for results
based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points
and for registered voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Muslim is a way of life, while the other one (nazis) was a group of political-fanatics.
If you happen to be in New York City and want to learn more about Islam and the differences and similarities between Christians, Muslims and Jews, visit http://questcenter.us/
The interfaith center, Quest, is offering several courses on Islam. One of the courses will focus on the causes of the current anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding the proposal of a new Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's failure to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization is very disconcerting and is inexplicable in the light of the stated aims and actions of the Hamas organization charter. The funding for the Mosque also raises concerns about the true aims of it.
Second consideration, he raises legitimate examples but there is ALSO the example of a planned convent outside the gates of Auschwitz. The intent of the chapel was to have 24 hour prayers for the souls of ALL the victims of that evil place. It was a nice and Noble Goal. The catholics that wanted to do this were SHOCKED that it caused an outcry among Jewish groups. Afterall they were not the killers.
Eventually the pope decided the anguish of the VICTIMS of such an evil act as was done at Auschwitz deserved to not be offended further and moved the convent location.
While the Imam has the right to build the mosque, and certainly the MAJORITY of Muslims are NOT terrorists, the sensitivity of SO MANY Americans to that spot should give them pause in considering whether it is really the right thing to do in building it there. If the intent is to outreach in friendship to the rest of America and build bridges of understanding, sometimes sticking the people you want to build bridges with is a bad idea.
Exactly.
on the one hand you have their rabid Progressive support for the Mosque.. making the argument that the Muslims have the right to build the mosque (no one ever denied that they do) and the complete indifference to the feelings and sensibilities of the majority of Americans who, in this case just doesn't seem to matter.
on the other hand, you have Koran burning nuts who received ZERO support from the Progressives for their First Amendment rightrs.. because,......... hold on now...here it comes... it will "OFFEND" the Muslims and cause them to kill more innocent people. There was also the uniform support from the Liberal community for the defamation of Chrisian icons by Maplethorp and Serrano in the name of "art". All we heard is how artists some of which used taxpayer dollars, have the right under the first amendment to desicrate Christian icons by putting a Crucifix in a vat of pig urine or a statue of Mary in a container of cow manure. This is of course, "protected speech".
If Progressives didn't have double standards they would have none at all!!
Yes, we should try to be adults and not offend people on purpose (especially for simply the sake of offending), but that really doesn't matter since the constitution and our laws allow both the quran burings and the cultural center.
As for the "artists" well, there is a lot of shock art out there. whether they choose to use religious items or not is also their right as long as they stay with in the law.
You are all fired up about these guys desicrating christian symbols, but have no problem with them doing it to the symbols of other religions? Sounds like a you have a double standard as well.
Most of the extreme-liberals continue to confuse Libertinism with freedom. And that is the birth of the extreme conservatism.
When both in their ambitions to show who's best it deepens the country's division.
If we really want to solve global terrorism why dont we for once realize the reasons behind it. If you thinks terrorist emerge because of some jealousy with americans and their freedom that is probably the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. We would love this sort of society in any muslim country like dubai for example where you have the muslims doing their thing but its also very open to other people. Ppl talk about a church being built in Mecca thats like saying lets make a mosque at the vatican not the same as having a mosque in NY. I am from pakistan we have churches, hindu temples, sikh gudwaras all running without issues. So i urge the American people to open their minds and realise we are not the enemies but just neighbors who also want to live freely in this world.