Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
There. Isn't that clear enough? Even for the Tea Party? That's what it says in the Constitution you claim to love so much. Well, except for the Fourteenth Amendment. Or the First Amendment as it applies to almost anyone else. And parts of the Preamble. And Article 1, Section 8. And the Sixteenth Amendment. And some of you don't seem to think the Thirteenth Amendment was a good idea either.
Yet you seem convinced that the government, which you claim to hate so much, is wrong to refuse to do something unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Yep. That's what it says. Don't forget now, this clause also enables the tax-exempt status of the First Church Of Christ, Republican, where so many of you "worship." Are you still sure you don't like it?
Glenn Beck recently compared prohibiting the building of Cordoba House to Pope John Paul II ordering the closing of the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz. Of course, he omitted one key fact: the Pope can do that. Under the United States Constitution, our government can't. Period.
But don't worry. Here are some things our government could do:
Condemn the property in question.
Seize the property by eminent domain.
Purchase the property with taxpayer dollars.
How do those options work for you?
And speaking of purchasing the property, since you also seem to love the free market so much, perhaps you might take up a collection and purchase it yourselves. Wouldn't this be most in keeping with your "principles?" You could use the site for Tea Party Headquarters.
Or perhaps you could create Constitution House: a place where people could go to study the Constitution which, remember, you love so much. Well, except for the Fourteenth Amendment. Or the First Amendment as it applies to almost anyone else. And parts of the Preamble. And Article 1, Section 8. And the Sixteenth Amendment. And maybe the Thirteenth Amendment. Or anything else in there that you don't like.
Let us know which of these options you prefer, won't you?
Very Truly Yours,
Porcupine
p.s. Two more links, just for fun. You do the math.
4 comments:
I'm not debating the right of the Park51 project to build a mosque near Ground Zero, I'm questioning the good sense or lack of same in so doing. I'm one of those who consider the Islamic Cultural Center/mosque in that location an affront to our sensibilities. The gub'mint has NO right to prohibit the building of the mosque, but our "leaders" SHOULD be clear that this is a BAD idea and encourage (in the strongest possible terms) Imam Rauf to build elsewhere.
My $0.02.
Hi Buck -
Thanks for stopping by. In the main, I agree with you. And yet, I keep seeing statements like this one:
"The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a written statement. "That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding. This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect of a tragic moment in our history."
Boehner is right, except on one point; it is an issue of law. Our "leaders" really have few options: to firmly uphold the Constitution, or to "pretty please" the Imam. I suppose they could make it clear that this is a bad idea and encourage, in the strongest possible terms, Imam Rauf to build elsewhere. To which he could simply reply: no.
Wouldn't that look good. Ugh.
The issue is real, but it is being used cynically, for political gain, on a number of levels.
Chesterton once said "America is the only nation founded upon a creed. The greater affront to our sensibilities would be to permit Islamist terrorists to make us less than we ought to be.
What gets me is that this property is being planned as a place for people of all creeds. "The idea is to demolish a set of buildings that were destroyed in the attacks and turn them into a community center with a prayer space, the planners comparing the building to a YMCA or Jewish community center.The space would have a moderate theater, restaurant, food court, bookstore, and even a culinary school, all more or less directed towards muslims, but open to everyone in the community. Food items would be halal dishes, and preparation would occur in traditional ways." I copied this from a post that made sense to me.
In light of further reading, I think I am no longer sure that the "issue" is real, as I stated above, though I still believe it is being used cynically, for political gain. To wit:
1) There has been a mosque in operation at the Park 51 site for two years.
2) The #2 shareholder in NewsCorp, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who has boasted of his ability to control the content of FOX, is also a backer of Imam Rauf.
3) The Saudis benefit directly from anti-Muslim sentiment in the West, as long as it is directed toward their main competition, Iraq and Iran.
Given the above, and knowing the longstanding connections between the Bush family, Cheney, and the Saudi royal family, I find it difficult not to question the motives behind this issue.
The mosque has been in operation in the area for two years, yet it "comes to light" in the run-up to the midterm elections, and at a critical time for the US in our relations with the Middle East?
I find it hard to believe this is a coincidence.
Post a Comment