It's not about rights

All talk of rights to the contrary notwithstanding, I think that building a Hamas-sympathetic mosque near Ground Zero is a bad idea. That does not mean I favor religious discrimination, nor does it mean that I don't think mosques should be allowed in America. But I think there is a time place and manner issue here which is being clouded by sanctimonious talk about rights, and the American tradition of freedom.

Bill Whittle really has a good point about cowardice in this video that Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday. The issue is not the "right" of anyone to build a mosque in America. The issue is why these cowards are so desperately asserting that right on behalf of people who not only don't respect that right, but who are politically and philosophically opposed to the very concept embedded in the First Amendment.

S.E. Cupp puts it this way:

President Obama is just the latest public figure to voice his support using this declaration of constitutional might, joining Mayor Bloomberg and others in trumpeting the country's freedom of religion clause as the only real argument that matters on the issue.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan, Brooklyn) had this to say: "I commend President Obama's statement on the Cordoba House and his support of our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and separation of church and state."

Case closed, conversation over. Well, no offense to the Constitution, but so what? They're right, of course - the group behind the mosque has every legal right to build their house of worship wherever they like.

But what about common sense and decency? If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had either, he and his group would reconsider the location out of respect for the hordes of Americans, many of them 9/11 family members themselves, who think that this idea just plain stinks. And if it weren't for political correctness and our decidedly 21st century paranoia over offending Islam, our national leaders would proudly echo those sentiments.

Enough is enough. The speechifying and pontificating on the mosque's constitutionality are a distraction and a straw man. No one in serious circles who opposes the mosque at Ground Zero is suggesting it should be made illegal to build a Muslim house of worship near the site of the 9/11 attacks.

What they're trying to say, and largely to plugged ears on the left, is that having the right doesn't make it right.

Which was pretty much what I said in a comment to Dave's earlier post:
"Under our Constitution one could hold a Japanese Pride Parade down the streets of Nanking," just as under our Constitution the Nazis had the right to march in Skokie, IL.

There is a big difference between something being legal (or legally protected) and the same thing being good.

If the Nazis wanted to march again in an Illinois town populated by elderly Holocaust survivors, would Obama, Bloomberg, Nadler and company be singing the praises of their right to do it?

I don't think so. They are not only cowards, but they hide their cowardice in the Bill of Rights. Rights for which their enemies have nothing but contempt and wish to destroy.

I'm sure there are some who would complain that it is unfair of me to compare Muslims to Nazis, which I am not doing. I'm just using Skokie as a famous example of a right that I would defend as a right even though it is not right.

But for those who think it is wrong to invoke a Nazi example, then how about let's try Pat Robertson? Shortly after 9/11, he joined the chorus of loons who blamed the gays and the abortionists for the attack. He was of course well within his First Amendment right to do that, just as the 9/11 Truthers were well within their First Amendment rights in saying the attack was an "inside job." So let's suppose that Pat Robertson wanted to build a Ground Zero evangelical center. Or suppose some wealthy crank decided that he wanted to build a "Worldwide Center for 9/11 Truth." Would the sanctimonious left be carrying on about their rights? Hell no; they would scream quite loudly that these things would be inappropriate at Ground Zero. (And you can be sure that Robertson and/or the Truthers would be so tied up in bureaucratic red tape that they wouldn't get zoning or building permits for the next ten years....)

And why is that? Why would they loudly denounce Pat Robertson and the Truthers and yet shamelessly carry on about the rights of a Hamas-loving cleric?

I think the answer is simple.

They don't fear Pat Robertson or the 9/11 Truthers.

MORE: Don't miss "A Patriotic Muslim's Warning on Ground Zero Mosque" -- Aaron Elias's PJM interview with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. A genuine moderate Muslim, Jasser explains why "the project threatens to send a message of weakness to Islamists the world over."

It strikes me that those who champion the rights of Imam Rauf would just as soon avoid his moderate Muslim critics like Dr. Jasser.

You'd almost think they wanted to send a message of weakness.

MORE: In contrast to Sarah Palin (who properly IMO, questioned the rightness of the Ground Zero mosque while acknowledging the right to build it), Newt Gingrich displays open contempt for the First Amendment itself:

Sarah Palin, the first national figure to make an issue of the Park 51, says "we all know that they have the right to do it." But Gingrich knows no such thing.

"The Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest," he says, "and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate." In response to those who note that interfering with the project because of its Muslim character would violate the First Amendment, he says, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington."

Actually, they do have that right, distasteful though it may be. Surely Gingrich is old enough to remember the Skokie case.

And Newt has every right to say what he says, but that does not make him right.

By his logic (that there is no right to engage in offensive speech), then he should have no "right" to open Gingrich campaign office next door to the headquarters of American Atheists, or Planned Parenthood.

MORE: What I just said reminds me of a practical issue. Suppose Fred Phelps opened a branch of his "GODHATESFAGS!" church on Castro Street in San Francisco, or Operation Rescue actually opened a branch next to Planned Parenthood.

The cops, the neighbors, and the municipalities involved would absolutely hate such things, would they not? How much would it cost in terms of city services and overtime to attempt to keep the peace between groups of people who hate each other?

When free speech gets expensive, who should bear the cost?

posted by Eric on 08.18.10 at 08:26 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9963






Comments

If the war with Islam gets serious in America the Mosque - if built - will be destroyed.

I believe the Islamics have no idea what they are up against. America is slow to move. But when it decides to move it will be quick and hard.

What they could have over time they will forfeit in haste.

M. Simon   ·  August 18, 2010 10:05 AM

Great points Eric.

I wonder where these people were on "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day?"

There's a special kind of cowardice in letting people who hate the First Amendement hide behind it.

TallDave   ·  August 18, 2010 10:08 AM

I think you miss one point. The Left share significant common traits with Islam. A sense of superiority and a sense of entitlement to lead. These are both totalitarian philosophies. One baked in religion/politics and the other pure totalitarian politics.

An old saw: The enemies of my enemies are my friends.

RiverRat   ·  August 18, 2010 10:48 AM

Please consider the right of rebuilding. The church that was destroyed in the collapse of the WTC has been unable to get the necessary permits. Somehow a mosque gets thru quickly. This seems like strange, rather like Orwell's some are more equal.

Old curmudgeon   ·  August 18, 2010 03:02 PM

While I oppose the building of the mosque on grounds that it is stupidly insensitive, I wonder if Gingrich (and to a lesser extent, Whittle) are correct that calling it Cordoba house is an insult in itself.

Is the interpretation here correct:
http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

Donna B.   ·  August 18, 2010 04:19 PM

Since this site is Classical Values I'll quote Plutarch and say it's time to call a spade a spade.

Despite Pamela Geller's crusade against the building of a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero, this issue didn't reach the nuclear stage until Obama gave his speech supporting it's construction while hosting a Muslim holiday dinner at the fucking White House!
What was he thinking? Was his intention to purposely stir up this country, or was it just arrogance. Does he have a clue how this looks to people who've given him a pass on his Muslim childhood in Indonesia, and have just grumbled when he bowed to Saudi royalty, and overlooked his support of Muslims in Kenya, and ignored his Pastor of 20 years friendship with Louis Farrakhan, and paid little attention to his Cairo speech, and finally thought it was OK he's now a "C & E Christian".

I'll tell you how it looks: he's showing his true allegiance. The building of this mosque, at this site, to open on the 10th Anniversary of September 11, 2011, is a political dagger being thrust into the heart of America. That this President would support it can mean only one thing. He has complete and total contempt for this country, for it's values, it's people, it's traditions, and yes, it's Christian heritage.

Frank   ·  August 18, 2010 11:24 PM

Eric,

You use the example of Nazis parading down the streets in Skokie, Illinois. What about the example of the KKK marching down the streets of Harlem or Selma? Think President Shirt Sleeves would remind us of the contents of the First Amendment if that happened? Think the word "tolerance" would be one of the first ones out of his mouth?

A better example might be the building of a KKK "information center" across the street from the apartment building where Martin Luther King was shot. The supporters could argue that "they're misunderstood" or "want to present the other side of the history of the organization to increase tolerance of their beliefs." Think President SL would get on board with that?

No one who understands our Constitution (or our values) would argue that people do not have the right to express themselves (religious or political speech). What we, the people, have a right to restrict is zoning and commerce, and public safety concerns. The police in Selma and Harlem would have input into the debate on the wisdom of allowing a building permit to an organization that would create a permanent "hostile environment" in their communities. Heck, even traffic control can chime in during these debates.

Communities have managed to prevent chain stores (such as Wal-Mart or McDonald's) from building in their communities and that's a 'good thing' to the Left, but talk of restricting a Muslim propaganda center, 500 feet from Ground Zero, is 'bad'... and Pelosi suggests its supporters' funding "investigated"?

If the permit to build at the site was somehow restricted to the group that wishes to build the Muslim Propaganda Community center, Muslims would still be able to practice their religion and build community centers in other locations. Just as shouting "fire" in a public theater is a public safety concern and limits one type of speech at a specific location, the individual who wishes to shout fire is still free to do so in the privacy of their own home, or in a location where there is no risk that someone would hear them. They're also allowed to shout "Bravo!" in a crowded theater, so it isn't shouting that is restricted. Restricting from a specific location, but allowing in another, is not an outright ban--and it is the latter that the Constitution clearly prohibits. As our friend Fran often reminds us: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Good Lord, anyone who has ever tried to build or do business in NYC knows that zoning is the biggest hurdle to getting anything done in that city.

Isn't it the Left, of which President SL is a charter member, constantly reminding us that "reasonable restriction" is applicable to gun ownership (which is equal in verbiage in the Constitution to religious and political speech, except that it is second in mention, not first), yet "reasonable restriction" when it comes to zoning regulations that may "incite violence" or "hate speech" with a community center next door where to an act of war by Islamic terrorists was committed, is not applicable? Applicable to Muslim organizations 'yes,' gun ownership and the Boy Scouts, 'no'?

Why isn't President SL reminding us that gun ownership is written in the Constitution? Why was he recently so upset with the Supreme Court when they upheld the right of corporations to express political speech (by recognizing their right to make political contributions), but not-for-profit corporations and religious organizations get a free pass and can do business anywhere and at anytime? The Bill of Rights expresses either individual rights or group rights, except when there is a Tuesday in the month? Geesh. Lefties make my head spin.

Since President SL seems to think we're all clueless to the Bill of Right's contents and we need him to educate all of us about it, why the inconsistent treatment of the right of political and religious speech?

For the record, I do not believe we should continue to treat real estate, where bad things have occurred, as "sacred sites." Eventually, we're going to run out of land or walking through our cities and towns would become something akin to sacred zone hopscotch.

That's what religious centers, cemeteries, and living rooms are for, and why we set aside land for this purpose, and have Holidays for. Similarly, I have issue with our highway system allowing people to erect crosses, Mogan Dovids or permanent wreaths where traffic fatalities have occurred. "Where" someone was killed is not significant to me, and public property should not be allowed to be "littered" in this way (and "where" someone died isn't significant to people unless they have religious beliefs that the person's soul is somehow still lingering at their death site).

Societies long ago recognized that people do need places to go where they can respect the dead, remember their elders, or have a place to pray. Since we're all prone to a bit of the blues about our lost loved ones, we have special days set aside where we can fully immerse ourselves in group, annual grieving (or on anniversaries of the events), and allow the rest of the year to be "grieve free."

"Ground Zero" should return to being a commercial zone, if for no other reason than it would allow the grieving families to get on with their lives, and allow the rest of us some healing about the tragedies, too. 9/11 was an Act of War to Americans... it happened to all to us. So while some deference should be given to the families, deference should also be given to what all of us want.

"Life goes on (good and bad)" is a realization that helps the grieving complete the process. I believe that our continuing to treat "Ground Zero" as sacred, hallowed ground is a big mistake. One man's "hallowed ground" is another man's "victory site."

Even without a Muslim center located 500 feet from the location, our continued impotence in allowing commercial construction in the area allows the terrorists to claim victory over what happened there. We should continue on in that area as before, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the terrorists (and future terrorists) that we will not allow their actions to deter us from engaging in world commerce, or to have ANY victory over us. Allowing a Muslim community center to be built there would be a permanent reminder of what happened on that spot, just as plaques and monuments memorializing the victims would also be. We should Never Forget what happened, but we can do so without making the entire area a memorial. Allowing a Muslim Center in that location would be a permanent stick in the eye to all of us (allowing Muslims to somehow brand the location as a site of "victory"). A memorial in Washington, DC, near the other war memorials, would allow distance, and a way to remember what happened on 9/11 in NYC, the Pentagon, and in a little field in Pennsylvania, without giving the terrorists any victory over us.

And don't think for a moment that the terrorists haven't thought about a "Muslim pilgrimage" to that "victory site" and, having a place to pray to remember the souls of their "brothers" who committed suicide on that site. The Muslim center would be something the terrorists would be thrilled with... and that is what the center would become, EVEN if the builders have their hearts in the right place (and that's debatable).

What about a few busy office buildings, eh?

Connie   ·  August 19, 2010 09:56 AM

Apparently, there was an Orthodox church, St.Nicholas(?), destroyed on 9/11, and the city has not approved the plan for its reconstruction.

Kent Gatewood   ·  August 19, 2010 11:22 AM

Old curmudgeon has already posted on the church, I need to work on my reading skills.

Kent Gatewood   ·  August 19, 2010 11:26 AM

Connie, ditto to everything you said.

Frank   ·  August 20, 2010 12:24 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


August 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits