Rolling Over

By Ryan Miller, *NYC Mosque: A Victory Monument to the 1st Amendment* - Conducive Chronicle - USA / Wednesday, October 27, 2010

I first want to recap the main point of Part One [see previous post, below (ed.)]. The mosque being built two blocks from ground zero will practice a form of Islam called “Sufism.” Al Qaeda, the terrorist group who attacked us on 9/11, routinely bombs Muslims practicing Sufism throughout the world. To put it bluntly, the type of religion that will be practiced at this mosque is hated by our enemies.

Some people on the far right point to Imam Rauf and suggest he is an extremist instead actually saying outright that they oppose a mosque being built somewhere. We have already talked about the Imam, he was sent to speak about religion by President Bush, he has appeared on Fox News. He is not an extremist.

Although the facts that this ‘mosque’ will practice Sufi Islam and led by a man who was (before this) seen as an ambassador of peaceful Islam by the extreme right should persuade reasonable people who oppose the mosque being built near ground zero that this proposed place of worship is not a terrorist training camp being built on the rubble of the twin towers. Let’s set it aside and take a quick look at The First Amendment. The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

I’m not going to break out my chalk board to explain this, although a certain Senate candidate could use the lesson. The U.S. does not have a national religion, and nobody can be stopped from practicing whatever religion they want wherever they want.

Looking around at who is outraged by this mosque being built you will notice a trend. With the exception of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who consistently stands by his beliefs, most conservatives are saying that the mosque shouldn’t be built.

Is it insensitive to the families of the victims of 9/11? If Al Qaeda was building a place of worship near 9/11 it would absolutely be insensitive. But we already know that the type of Islam being practiced at this mosque is a form that extremists despise. So it is actually the opposite of insensitive.

On his radio show Rush Limbaugh called the proposed mosque “a victory monument at ground zero.” Listen to that audio, he is being sincere. This was not a “liberal media gotcha moment.” To say this he must believe that the people who will be worshiping at this “mosque” support everything that the 19 hijackers did and also believe in the same extreme version of Islam (keep in mind that the people that will be worshiping there believe in the exact OPPOSITE interpretation of Islam than extreme terrorist Muslims do). If every Muslim supported terrorist beliefs wouldn’t we be at war with several countries right now?

On Rush’s website someone made a comment that clearly sums up what I am trying to say, “Think of it as a victory monument to the 1st Amendment.” Enough said.

Last month on 9/11 I went to Washington DC to walk around the National Mall. It was a beautiful day as crowds of people were enjoying the sites. As I walked through the WW2 Memorial random people were going up to veterans and shaking their hands, it was a great patriotic scene and I was glad to be there. As I wandered toward the Washington monument I stumbled upon a Tea Party rally where people were all dressed up in colonial clothes. There were a group of them holding up signs that read “No Mosque at Ground Zero.” Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave. Here are people dressed up as people who actually wrote the First Amendment, yet they were holding signs that literally could not contrast more with what the Amendment says.

Tea Party conservatives who march around seem very passionate. Some listen to Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh as if their lives depend on it. They might even be the people buying crisis gardens. Each of these men have been doing nothing but espousing the principles in the Constitution, great, more power to them. What I don’t understand is why these people now say that there should be no mosque near ground zero. They preach a strict interpretation of the Constitution, yet now they suddenly want to select parts of it to live by.
The ultra-conservative radio show host Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny” (yes I read it) he says,

“The Conservative is an originalist, for he believes that much like a contract, the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow.”

He goes on to say how he does not believe the Constitution is a “living document” and that it should be strictly interpreted. In this audio he goes on to say that it “does not violate the first amendment to reject to this.”

If conservatives believe in a strict reading of the Constitution how can they say that a place of worship should not be built? The Constitution I am reading states very clearly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Am I missing something?

The one thing that just irks me about this whole debate has been suddenly turned into a political issue. When the Imam first proposed the site in May it wasn’t much of a big deal. What has changed between May and now? Election season.