Saturday, August 14, 2010

Pesky Freedoms

Unless light doesn't reach that far back into your cave, you've heard about the Ground Zero mosque controversy. Patriotism, nationalism, parochialism, jingoism, emotionalism, and a dozen other -isms running rampant. Three words to consider, "Get Over It!"

Want to get fired up this morning? OK, here's some fuel for you:

Bamster Enthusiastic Over Mosque

Now, take a few deep breaths and pay attention here.

We've got some remarkable freedoms in this country. What makes them so remarkable is that we sublimate emotion in defending them--or at least we have in the past.

The First Amendment is first because it is the most important. Speech, press, assembly, petition and religion are absolutely essential to our liberty. Support for the First Amendment is not easy even though we tend to think it is. Who could possibly be against the freedoms of that magnificent, brief paragraph?

The First Amendment gets toughest when the exercise of the freedom by someone is something most of us find abhorrent! When American Nazis want to parade through a Jewish suburb of Chicago we jump to constrain their right to assemble. When abortionists argue in support of infancticide, we leap to muzzle them as inhuman. When an "artist" urinates on a flag or a protester burns our national symbol that many have fought and died for, we rise in protest.

That is when the First Amendment is so damnably tough to support.

An Imam wants to build a Muslim community center in lower Manhattan. It is a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero...a couple of blocks away! It will be thirteen stories tall, not a towering edifice in that particular chunk of the Big Apple. Huge yes, but not within the context. It won't be face-to-face with the hole in the ground that ten years later still isn't a new beginning for anything.

We lose something huge if we object. It is tasteless and they know it. We gain if we let them demonstrate their tastelessness.

They become objects of observation and inevitably of ridicule by their choices. But their freedom and ours with it, is protected. In the process they look worse to the world. Their hypocrisy in the Muslim world is on parade when they don't allow similar religious tolerance in Saudi, Somalia, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and other places. They lose when we let them build.

And, they will squander vast resources simply in waging the publicity war in America as they build and attempt to secure their poorly chosen site.

We don't lose when we exercise the First Amendment, we win.

7 comments:

bongobear said...

I don't know, Ed. I know what you're saying is right but I really find it hard to swallow, probably because I despise these people so much. I got over Viet Nam so I suppose I'll get over this. I look forward to observing how the steelworkers' union handles this. Should be interesting.

Randall said...

I agree with you, 100 percent. Something I've thought through several times over the years. I do have one other thought about the situation though. How do we know that this project isn't being financed and organized on some level by some appendage of the militant islamists we are at war with, specifically for it's propaganda value? And if it is, which is very likely, doesn't that constitute enemy action?

Ralph said...

Wow. I never expected to find something like this in Thunder Tales, but apparently the blogoshere is not immune to friendly fire accidents. Let’s evaluate this further, beginning with some important facts.

First, no one has suggested that Muslims should be denied permission to build a mosque in Manhattan, or that their right to worship be abridged. In fact, NYC’s landmark preservation commission just removed a potential hurdle to construction by rejecting landmark status for the existing building. Even Governor David Patterson has offered to provide state land for the center, but at a more suitable site. And by the way, the only religious organization that has been denied permission to build a church near Ground Zero is St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, whose building across the street from the South Tower was destroyed by the September 11 attacks. Whether this denial flows from prejudice or just incompetence within NYC’s politburos is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the hindrance of Greek Orthodox Christians does not deprive Islamic worshipers, terrorist or otherwise, from exercising their freedoms of speech or religion.

Now let’s look at the overwhelming opposition to the proposed site by the general public. This opposition has nothing to do with any actual or potential deprivation of First Amendment rights. The First Amendment does not require that an Islamic institute be granted permission to erect a large building at a location that is deemed unsuitable by a large segment of the population. Nor does our Constitution permit any party to erect a building that will ostensibly house a mosque, but which will likely be a haven for spies and terrorists during a time of war. And that’s not all. The proposed edifice would also present an important symbol to our Islamic enemies. The narrow but tall shape would resemble a thirteen story middle finger being raised at the entire USA from close proximity to Ground Zero, an inspiration to Islamic terrorists around the world. For those of us who lost good friends at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, this is an absolute outrage. So let’s stop pretending otherwise.

Of course, these rebuttal arguments are being posted on Sunday, so let us take a moment to pray. Almighty Father, please bless and protect our beloved Ed Rasimus, grant him forgiveness and renewed wisdom to discern our mortal enemies, and grant him a speedy recovery − hopefully before the Fall Semester begins.

Ed Rasimus said...

Ralph takes me to task:

"The First Amendment does not require that an Islamic institute be granted permission to erect a large building at a location that is deemed unsuitable by a large segment of the population."

The First Amendment does exactly that! It protects us all from tyranny by a majority. We don't have to subject our speech, press, religion, assembly to a vote of approval by the masses.

As for spys and espionage, that is illegal. If there it should be dealt with, but you can't deny access on an assumption of future guilt.

The "middle finger" is hyperbole at best. If such symbolism exists, 13 stories will be submerged in a crowd of much taller structures.

Greek orthodox church issue is irrelevant but certainly could be questioned on its own merits relative to NYC politics.

Dweezil Dwarftosser said...

I've got a sure-thing prediction about the 'Cordova' Mosque, based on my two years of membership in NYC's IBEW Local #3 (the same union as the construction electricians): It will never open.

They'll run out of money correcting 'unintentional' electrical, plumbing, elevator, fire-protection, HVAC, and structural errors years before they try to pay off an inspector to get a 'certificate of occupancy' - and are caught on tape doing so.

New York unions are still run by the patriotic Mafia - rather than the Marxist elites we've seen in other places. (And the closed union rolls - not just 'closed shops' - ensure solidarity among the construction trades . . .)

It's easier to get into Victor Alert without a line badge than a NYC jobsite without a (correct) union card.

LauraB said...

No matter that I know you are right. I just cannot bear the taste of it...bitter, bitter...

Six said...

I agree with your contention that this is a First Amendment issue Ed but..
IMHO this is an attempt by some muslims (most probably Saudi Arabia which makes it wahabi) to celebrate a 'victory' and establish a monument to that victory. As such it should be resisted to the extent the law allows. Just as the FA allows them to build the mosque it also allows those of us who find it repugnant to voice our opposition. Instead of getting over it I'll continue to oppose it because I believe it's not in the best interests of America for it to be built there. I'll confine my opposition to speaking out but I will not stop arguing against it because of the view that such violates the FA. Opposition to this expression of their religious rights does not constitute a violation of anyone's FA rights.
Some muslims (as you pointed out in a later post about the article on the 2 muslims who oppose the mosque) recognize that building this mosque in this place is anathema to many (most?) Americans and I applaud them for their moral courage. Can I, and those of us who agree, do any less?