There have been a lot of debates and protests lately surrounding the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero (known by various names: Park51, Cordoba House, “the mosque”). Many Christians and other conservatives are speaking out against it. One candidate for New York State governor, Republican Carl Paladino, even promised that he would use eminent domain to block it.
That is correct: After years of conservatives fighting for the First Amendment, and fighting against eminent domain, we have a conservative who wants to use eminent domain to fight against the First Amendment. Now you know why I am not impressed with either major political party. The “conservative, God-friendly” party can act just like the demons in the liberal party when it suits them!
Personally, I do not want to see the mosque built so close to the World Trade Center site. However, there is a conflict between personal preferences, public sentiment, and the basic rights that we Americans enjoy.
Since the First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right to practice their religion of choice, there is no Constitutional reason to oppose the building of a mosque. However, that is just too close to the site of 9/11. It is essentially a slap in the face to our nation, and especially to those whose lives were directly affected by the events of that day.
However, there is a real danger when we ask the government to block the mosque. Today, it is an Islamic center just 600 feet away from the most devastating terrorist attack in US history. Tomorrow, the precedents set in this case could be used to block the building of a Christian church somewhere. Maybe residents will not want certain minority or ethnic groups worshipping in their neighborhood.
This is not a minor consideration. Today’s court ruling, executive decision, or other government action becomes tomorrow’s precedent, to be repeated in ever-broadening “similar situations.” We cannot assume that the argument is only about a mosque. It is about the nature of freedom of religion.
Do we want to give the government the precedent and the authority to claim a parcel of land for its own purposes, just to stop a particular church or synagogue from worshiping there? Do we want our rights to religious freedom to be determined by public opinion polls or the popularity of their beliefs? That is not a world I want to live in. It is not fitting for a nation that boasts of itself as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
The organizers of the mosque and community center claim they want to create a “center for multifaith dialogue and engagement.” If they want to foster multifaith dialogue, a good-faith first step would be to seriously reconsider their location. I suspect that even a few blocks would appease many of the project’s opponents.
However, in a free country, this is a decision that Cordoba House’s developers should make. It should not be thrust upon them by the government.
Darkened Glass Reflections 
6 responses to “Ground Zero Mosque: Why I Am Not Protesting”
I appreciate your calm words. Thank you.
Unfortunately, you have fallen prey to the media propaganda.
Are you aware that no one can stop the mosque at this point?
That even though they don’t own the building in question – they have a lease until 2071 – they can do whatever they want to that building? That they can start construction tomorrow and no one can stop them? And that the purchase option is the only possible way it may be able to be blocked and even then it’s just a “may”?
It is not an issue of the First Amendment in any fashion – but it is being made so to advance the propaganda. And it is clear it is working. Even on rational Americans with calm logical viewpoints.
LikeLike
That is funny. Anybody who knows me knows I hate the mainstream media. For the most part, they’re all a bunch of lackeys for the globalist establishment: and that includes BOTH CNN and Fox News. At the core, there’s little difference between them.
How would the right to build a house of worship NOT be a religious freedom right?
By the way, I am totally against sharia as well. If they want to build a mosque, that’s fine. But, as I said in response to a comment above, they need to honor the rights of other Americans.
LikeLike
I discovered your homepage by coincidence.
Very interesting posts and well written.
I will put your site on my blogroll.
🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for posting. This is a difficult situation all around. I believe in freedom – especially freedom to worship. The U.S. is fighting wars today in the name of freedom and painful as it may be, we must respect our First Amendment.
Even more precious than our First Amendment rights are the words of Christ:
“Love your enemies; pray for those who persecute you.”
“Love one another.”
When you get right down to it, those are the words that give us all true freedom.
LikeLike
Do you believe that slander and libel laws contradict the First Amendment?
Do you believe that the Brady Bill undermines Second Amendment rights?
Do you believe that the Bill of Rights is absolute, or are there reasonable limits that can be imposed upon each right, such as on time & location, while still protecting the broader principle?
LikeLike
Slander and libel laws do not contradict the First Amendment. However, that has nothing to do with the guarantee of freedom of religion.
I am not as familiar with the Brady Bill, but I will say that most of our gun-control laws do undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
Can reasonable limits be placed on rights? Yes: Limits that are designed to protect the rights of others. In this case, I do not see where this is a matter of protecting the rights of others. The organizers of the mosque/community center have a right to use their property as they wish, and to make real-estate transactions with any other groups who are willing to do business with them. Once the center is built, they have an obligation to respect the rights of their neighbors, and they should be held accountable if they violate any of those rights.
Violating their rights, just because their religion or intentions are not popular with a significant segment of society, is a dangerous step. It will eventually blow back on all of us who, at some point, choose to follow our religious convictions instead of popular opinion.
LikeLike