Here is the obstacle that must be crossed according to our constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
I understand this mosque is actually about 200 meters from the WTC site.
However, what would be said if it were a Christian church building that was being opposed.
Seriously, someone please provide a constitutional reason for forbidding the building of that mosque in that location. Does zoning forbid it?
I have absolutely zero respect for Islam. I’m an ordained Christian minister, and I think it’s an affront to the dead, because of who the terrorists were and what they represented.
But, we must legitimately answer the constitutional question.
I completely agree. I think that there is a tremendous difference between saying that the mosque should not be built (an entirely reasonable position - of course it shouldn’t) and saying that the mosque should not be allowed to be built (a position that is very difficult to square with principles of religious liberty, private property rights, and constitutionally-limited government)
I believe that the first amendment does not prohibit a local government (City of New York) from instituting reasonable zoning restrictions on religious organizations. All they would need to do would be to pass a zoning ordinance prohibiting the erection of any large religious edifice within one mile of the site of the WTC building.
Seriously, someone please provide a constitutional reason for forbidding the building of that mosque in that location. Does zoning forbid it?
I think one could identify a religion that has, as its ultimate goal, the subjugation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists under a political order known as Shariah law, a political organization and the functional equivalent of the KKK or the Aryan Nation. Islam is nothing less than Religion and Politics mixed to the point where there is no separation and the difference between Nazism and Islam is that at least Nazis were more tolerant.
I would tend to think that as an Originalist (rather than a strict constructionist) the founders would not have considered Islam a religion as much as they would consider it a political ideology. Religions traditionally existed to promote charity and respect for life and the movement towards the betterment of mankind. Islam exists soley for the purpose of subjugating men, destroying all other religions and setting up a system of government which would encourage the violent overthrow of the US Government and the destruction by force of the Constitution. In that sense Islam is not a religion.
However, what would be said if it were a Christian church building that was being opposed.
If it were an Aryan Nation church, they would not allow it on the grounds that it would create a "nuisance". I think under the circumstances a giant Mosque built on the site where radical Islamists killed 3000 New Yorkers could be considered a nuisance.
Hell, if they build it WE will tear it down! How's that?
Well said. Unfortunately, the crusaders against the mosque don't seem to care about that pesky amendment (or related property rights arguments). They'll care, of course, when their rights are threatened....but it will be too late by that time.
Congress didn’t make any law. So what’s your problem?