Posted by
flagwaver on Friday, August 13, 2010 9:52:13 AM
I have been listening to the raging debate about the building of the mosque near Ground Zero with some interest, and some worried amazement. Everyone that thinks the mosque should be allowed to go where it is planned counters all disagreements with one of two lines of defense: the people opposing the move are anti-Muslim bigots or the the Muslims have a First Amendment right to put the mosque there, and any opposition is a violation of their rights. I am not going to deal with the first line of "reasoning" because it is so patently ridiculous that it would be a waste of time to respond. Further, we all knew that the left would use that attack because that is one of their first comments at nearly all times.
What really distresses me is the false argument about the First Amendment, because it shows what a fundamental misunderstanding people have abut our Constitution. It seems that too many people just don't understand what the Constitution is for and what it was meant to do, especially as far as our individual rights are concerened.
The Constitution was written to do a few specific things: create a unified system of government to replace the faulty Articles of Confederation; to outline the parameters and responsibilities of the new national government; and to put limits on the powers of the federal government. It is not a charter of individual rights and it does not create any protections for individuals from other individuals.
The argument about the First Amendment being violated by opposing the building of the Cordoba complex is rubbish, because the opposition is not coming from the government. Citizens in the city of New York, and around the nation as a matter of fact, are speaking out against this project and trying to get it blocked, not the government. The government at the city and state levels have done a remarkable job of being fair in their processes and deserve some credit for not bending the rules to bow to the pressure of the populace. That may not be a popular stand for me to take on this issue, but the New York authorities have done well to keep the process fair, even though there will likely be an outcome that will upset a great many of their constituents.
People must come to realize that in most instances the Constitution does not apply to interactions between citizens. I have no constitutional mandate to respect the religious choices or practices of anyone else, because I am not the government. I can say that Islam is a bloodthirsty religion as much as I would like, so long as I don't physically accost anyone or threaten them. If I do that I have violated the laws against making threats and the like, but I have not violated anyone's rights; I may have offended them, but I have not deprived them of their rights because I lack the power to do so.
So don't listen to those who pretend that those speaking out against the mosque are violating the rights of anyone else. What they are doing is simply exercising their own right to be heard. So long as the government of New York does not start infringing on the rights of either the Muslims or protesters involved, there is no constitutional controversy here.