Replies

As a strong defender of our Constitutionally-limited government and religious freedom, I believe that it is abhorrent and antithetical to the Constitutional principles upon which this country was founded to suggest that the government (federal, state, or local) has the authority to decide what is, and is not, a religion.

The founders had no problems with state and local governments deciding which religions they would favor and which they would not. The 14th Amendment was not an originalist concept. Indeed, it was in many ways antithetical to the founders principles.

I don't think the founders would have had any objection to the prohibition of the building of a giant mosque next to a place where members of that religion killed 4000 residents of that city.

The fact of the matter is that this mosque will create a nuisance. Loyal Americans and New Yorkers may have the uncontrollable urge to burn the damned building to the ground. And that could damage adjoining properties. And that would be bad. We wouldn't want to damage adjoining properties.

The founders had no problems with state and local governments deciding which religions they would favor and which they would not. The 14th Amendment was not an originalist concept. Indeed, it was in many ways antithetical to the founders principles.

It makes no sense to say that the "14th Amendment was not an originalist concept." Originalism does not mean that we interpret the entire constitution through the eyes of the founders, it means that we interpret the document through the eyes of the drafters. So, in the context of the 14th amendment, we would interpret it as it was originally understood when it was adopted. To say that an amendment to the constitution is not "originalist" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the term "originalist."

Regardless of whether or not the 14th amendment is consistent with how the founders envisioned the nation, it is a part of the Constitution. To the extent that state and local governments could favor/disfavor religion prior to the 14th amendment, they cannot do so now.

The fact of the matter is that this mosque will create a nuisance

In every city today, the vague excuse of "nuisance" is being used to deprive countless Non-Moslem people of property rights. By extending this concept, you are only underming their rights. Sometimes, you have to protect the rights of people you despise to protect your own. BTW, another pre-9-11 mosque is now just as close to ground zero as this proposed one. Are you suggesting that it also be torn down on this basis?