Cross-posted from Wonk Room.
In 1790, President George Washington wrote a letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, affirming the values of tolerance and religious freedom that he saw as the bedrock of the country that he had had helped found, and done so much to secure. "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy," Washington wrote, "a policy worthy of imitation."
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. [...]
May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.
Americans would do well to re-read Washington's letter, as an increasing number of them clearly seem intent on rejecting the principles of freedom and tolerance that it celebrates. I'm referring, of course, to the conservative hysteria over the Cordoba House Islamic Center -- known in the media as the "Ground Zero Mosque" -- in lower Manhattan.
What started as just another wingnut obsession has now bubbled up from the right-wing sewer into mainstream conservative discourse.
On July 20, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page that "To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks" -- ignoring the fact that some of those innocent victims happen to be Muslim-Americans.
Last week, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich published a piece in Human Events and delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute that trafficked in the worst sort of stereotypes of Muslims and Islam, using discredited anecdotes to cynically cultivate Americans' fear of their Muslim countrymen and where they choose to site their houses of worship.
On Fox News yesterday, pundits Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney piled on, asserting that the man behind the project -- Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf -- has "has ties to radical Islamist terror." I contacted Keep America Safe today for some evidence for Kristol and Cheney's charge -- one that most people would regard as pretty serious -- but the organization's press representative refused to provide any sources on the record.
This is deeply offensive stuff. Here we have a faction of conservatives targeting their fellow Americans simply on the basis of their religion, purely for political profit. If Gingrich, Palin, Kristol and Cheney think that George Washington was wrong about American tolerance and religious freedom, let them say so. But let the rest of us understand this: The debate over the Ground Zero Mosque is, in fact, a debate over American values. Those who oppose it don't have them.
Follow Matthew Duss on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mattduss
Yes, they are.
"Are we correct to believe that the tenets of Shariah law, as thousands both adhere to and suffer from today, really are representative of the framework of belief that usually satisfies the definition of a religion?"
It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Call it a political movement (like communists or anarchists if you want), they are still proected by the First Amendment in one way or another.
"As Americans we must carefully make this decision because there are such severe consequences to so many once Shariah law is sanctioned as a religion even though, in practice, it appears to be in the nature of a political movement and one with the fiercest and most cruel means of attaining its goals."
If it's a political movement as opposed to a religious movement, it's protected by the right to free speech and freedom of association covered by the First Amendment.
So since membership and the (perfectly legal) activities of the proponents of this building are clearly protected by the First Amendment in one way or another, the building should go forward without government interference.
At the site of 911 I want a monument with the words and music to this song.
"Heal the World":
In this place you'll feel
There's no hurt or sorrow.
There are ways to get there
If you care enough for the living
Make a little space, make a better place.
Chorus:
Heal the world
Make it a better place
For you and for me and the entire human race
There are people dying
If you care enough for the living
Make a better place for
You and for me.
Michael Jackson sings it better than I can write it.
Please click on the video link below (or copy and paste in into your address bar)
and read, listen, and be at Peace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WJrtms8EoQ&f eature=related
Thank you, Michael Jackson.
"[Some] Whites hate blacks, [some blacks hate whites,] everybody [who feels a need to hate somebody for some reason] seems to be down on the illegal immigrants who pick the food we eat , [some] Jews are down on Christians and [some Christians] vice versa and now Islam is the big hate [of a group of small-minded bigots]."
With respect, I think your point gets lost in the first few sentences you wrote.
Absolutely, I revel in hating corrupt politicians, as well as the ungrateful rich that have stolen this country from the working people and turned democracy into corporate fascism.
They are the direct enemy of freedom and the republic.
Besides, my government and citizens tell me who I should hate.
First it was the Native Americans, then Black people, then when the Chinese and Italian immigrants came in we hated them. Then the hispanics, then the Russians, then the Muslims, the Vietnamese, etc, etc. This country as a whole is defined by who we hate. It is a useful tool that politicians employ to keep people unaware about their real problems.
The only thing that I regret about that post was that "In the past it used to be reversed." That was an incorrect statement. I was wrong, nothing could be further from the truth.