Short and Sweet Blog

It is really interesting to see the media and politicians pontificating about  the issue of “permitting” observant Muslims to build a mosque at Ground Zero.  The positions create crosswinds on the part of the political/media class which cause some of them to contort their thoughts in nearly unrecognizable ways.  Let’s examine some of the issues presented.

The first thing to do is to boil down the legal issue.  Can we “not permit” the building of the mosque at Ground Zero?  The legal question is how can the building of a mosque be prevented in a world where owners generally have the right to use their own property as they see fit.  In this instance, of course, private property will be utilized by a religious sect for non-violent religious purposes.  Do we even have to get to the idea that the bill of rights prohibits legal impediments against the free exercise of religion when somebody is using their own property for any lawful purpose?  Although the religious purposes to which the property will be used are well known, the fact is that the use is religious only adds strength to the legal right of owners to use  their property for their own purposes.  This, according to the Republicans I know, is as clear a right as any right guaranteed to us in this country.  The use of this property as a mosque violates no law which the state or city of New York have enacted.  It poses no direct threat to public health or safety.  Hence, to me, the organizers appear to have the clear legal right to establish a mosque on their land even though others are offended. 

Notwithstanding the obvious legal rights of the owners, a Republican candidate for governor, Rick Lazio, opposes use of the property for the stated religious purpose.  What gives, are Republicans advocates of property rights or not?  Or is this just another issue of electoral politics trumping principle?  By what legal authority does Lazio advocate the state of New York investigate the “funding sources” for purchase of the property and construction of the mosque?  What is he hoping to find?  Is he suggesting that there is probable cause to believe that the mosque will be used as a staging ground for terrorists?  Or, is he suggesting that the so-called “victory” mosque should be stopped solely because it’s location hurts the feelings of New Yorkers because the 9-11 terrorists were unanimously Islamic and they cloaked their terror in a religious veil?  Does the fact of bruised feelings raise issues limiting the rights of property ownership, religious rights or the free speech rights of the mosque site owners?  I think not, the organizers are within their legal rights to build it and worship in it unless American law changes.  Do we really want those changes at a fundamental level?  Regardless of what Lazio says, aren’t we all better off respecting the rights of Muslims to do this even if we think it’s a poke in the eye?  What rights  will we be giving away if we insist that the Muslims have no right to build their mosque?  But, you say, this is a special situation.  Does that change fundamental constitutional rights? I don’t think so.  But if she spoke up, Speaker Pelosi and her ilk may have a different opinion as to the extent of the rights of the Muslims to build their mosque or at least she would if she were being consistent.  Let me explain.

What could be motivating Muslims to spend $100 Million to build a mosque on a site where they know American feelings will be terribly hurt and their anger stoked?  This is the real emotional belly of this matter, isn’t it?  Could locating the “victory” mosque at Ground Zero be seen by some as a tangible sign that Islam has triumphed over the Great Satan?  Do Americans have the right to take such a perceived motivation, whether intended or not, as an affront to themselves, their country and to the victims of 9-11?  Are Americans required to accept at face value the protestations of the organizers that the mosque’s location means no such insult and is in fact an outreach of brotherhood?  Does the fact that this perceived insult hurts American feelings create a potential for anger and hence indirectly increase the possibility for violence?  Is it fair to say that because this insult appears in the eye of the beholder, after all the organizers having eschewed such an intent, that the beholders are bigoted to take it as such?  Can Americans, who don’t even believe in the concept of face, believe that they will lose face by allowing Muslims to build at Ground Zero?  Of course, just because an insult is implied and not stated are you not within your own rights to be offended?  Says Ms. Pelosi, however, about the creation of a previous climate of violence:

What sort of responsibility do you think Ms. Pelosi would have in mind if the “victory” mosque creates an atmosphere of violence notwithstanding the protestations of the builders?  Or, do you think she might be among the first to blame the people acting violently rather than the builders of the mosque?  The climate of violence leading to the murder of Harvey Milk by another gay man causing Ms. Pelosi to briefly tear up on camera would, I believe, pale in comparison to the climate created by the mosque being built at Ground Zero.  I think that the would be builders know this very well but refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of New Yorkers and Americans at the implications of  building a mosque at Ground Zero.  Ms. Pelosi’s silence on this powder keg issue, where she was previously so outspoken against those using villifying language in the health care debate, speaks volumes.     

Another interesting take is the Republican candidate for the governorship of New York, Carl Paladino, who has suggested that the state use it’s power of eminent domain to condemn the land for “public use.”  Of course, former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, author of the majority opinion, might not want the private property rights of these Muslims to be invaded by the state but in Kelo v. City of New London he established the precedent allowing private property to be taken from one owner and given to another if the city will benefit financially.  After all, this lower Manhattan property is highly valuable for commercial and therefore taxable uses which would benefit the city much more than a mosque at the site.  Such commercial use would generate higher sales tax receipts and probably much higher income taxes for the city.  If this is not done the property will essentially be taken off the tax rolls by reason of the establishment of a “church” at the site.  Why not condemn and then sell the property for commercial and therefore taxable purposes?  If the people of New York want to prevent this mosque being built on “hallowed ground” a few bucks ought to do the trick and the US Supreme Court has led the way with its ruling in Kelo v. City of New London.  This is a result which the rather left of center justices who supplied the bulk of the votes in favor of the city of New London most likely would not have desired but, I imagine, would fall within the letter of their law.  It is also interesting that a Republican candidate for governor, a lawyer – real estate developer, would want the government more involved in decisions concerning the uses to which private property may be put. 

And then there is President Obama, chief magistrate of the entire country weighing in on what is no more than a local land use issue.  Reminds me a little bit of the silly Republican intervention in the case of  Terri Schiavo.  You remember that the Congress intervened in this case which was certainly an issue of personal importance to the family and a case providing 24/7 media coverage but not an issue rising to the level of being addressed in the national legislature.  Of course, the intervention of the president in favor of the building of the mosque contradicts the very same arguments made by fellow progressive Congressmen Frank, Waxman and Wexler Congress during the Schiavo affair that the matter does not rise to the level requiring congressional action.   

And then there’s the extremely strange charge of bigotry leveled by the media against Ground Zero mosque opponents.  How can the people who oppose the mosque on offensiveness grounds be legitimately called bigots?  First it must be decided that a reasonable person would never possibly find the mosque’s creation at Ground Zero offensive.  If anyone answers this question in the affirmative I think that they should forfeit their right to call themselves thinking human beings.  A large majority of those Americans polled believe that the mosque should not be located at Ground Zero.  Such a majority of Americans are unreasonable?  I don’t think so.  Hence, the twisting of the idea of bigotry and racism to fit this scenario is just another shopworn effort by media pundits to cast the rest of us as ignorant, unthinking boobs in need of leadership by the anointed.  Flatly arrogant?  I think so.  

In any event, there are two trains headed in opposite directions on the same track.  One train has the clear legal right of way.  The other has the hearts of the people riding on it.  This is a very dangerous situation and I believe it to be a calculated effort by those who seek to build the Mosque in order to provoke us.  In effect they are self selecting themselves as enemies or at least as those who would give aid and comfort to our enemies.  Our politicians are not helping the situation, stirring up passions by suggesting that we can legally avoid this use of the land without fundamentally changing the nature and extent of our own liberty.  Fortunately, in the same Fox News poll finding that 64% think it wrong to build a mosque at Ground Zero, the majority also realize that the Muslims who own the property have a right to build it there.  If we can simply accept the pain of “permitting” a mosque to be located at Ground Zero, this too shall pass.  Ignore the politicians and the media, the rest of us are grown ups.

This entry was posted on August 16, 2010 at 10:34 pm and is filed under Clash of Worldviews, Law. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. Both comments and pings are currently closed.